God is not (so bad after all)

[Ecurb]

Here’s a Salon article castigating the late Christopher Hitchens for his lack of argument in “God is not Great”. The author excuses Richard Dawkins (inexcusable!), because he is a mere scientist. But he can’t excuse Hitchens’ “intellectual dishonesty”.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/

[The Atheist]

Quite amusing that the person accusing Hitch of intellectual dishonesty then goes on to be egregiously intellectually dishonest himself.

This is gold:

Might we suggest that Hitchens begin with Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai?

I'm pretty sure if Hitch were alive he wouldn't bother reading a book written by an Old Testament scholar whose "evidence" consists of cherry-picking history then jumping to a conclusion that nobody outside of theological colleges supports. The writer also exposes his ignorance by presuming that just because something is printed by Oxford it cannot possibly be non-factual. Possibly he is unaware that the college's name is a little more than "Trinity" and that the full name includes "The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity." Highly reliable.

Hitch rightly viewed the evidence of anthropologists, archaeologists and historians as somewhat more reliable than the rantings of biblical scholars.

One of the most hypocritical and inane pieces I've ever read - little wonder he waited until after Hitch's death to write it - a live Hitch would destroy him.

[Ecurb]

You are nit picking, Atheist. Your post is as intellectually dishonest as Hitchens book.

White's argument is that Hitchens intentionally ignored educated Religious opinions, and attacked the ignorant ones. In addition, White says,


What I want to describe is how irresponsible his thinking is within his own professed area of expertise, Western literature and philosophy. I have “four irreducible objections” (Hitchens’s phrase): he does not acknowledge, and may not recognize at all, his own brand of metaphysics and magical thinking; he does not admit to the destructiveness of this metaphysic; he ignores the spiritual and anti-rational contributions of 19th-and 20th-century literature and philosophy; and his own thinking is ultimately an expression of faith.

If you want to ignore the essentials and quibble about achaeological details (I have no opinion either way here, and am wholly unfamiliar with Hoffmeier's book), go for it. But that is merely obfuscating the issue through distraction. Who cares whether archaeological evidence supports the Jewish Exodus from Egypt? This is important only to Fundamentalists and the New Atheists (and archaeologists and historians, of course, for different reasons).

Here's another key point in White's article:


Hitchens’s second metaphysical claim has to do with conscience. He counters the claim that without religion we would have no ethics by saying that conscience is innate. He writes, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

Well, as Hitchens likes to say, this is “piffle.” After all, what is a conscience? Does it light up on a brain scan when we think virtuous thoughts? And if it is innate (and just what exactly does it mean to be innate?) why was Crassus’s crucifixion of six thousand Spartacans lined up along the Appian Way from Rome to Capua in 71 BCE thought by the people of Rome to be an expression of Roman vertù and a very good reason to honor Crassus with a full triumphal procession back into the city? Are we to imagine that the citizens of Rome threw garlands in the path of the conquering hero against their better judgment?

Since this is a literary board, it seems appropriate to quote another essential piece of the article:


As Wallace Stevens wrote about truth claims of this variety, “The world is ugly, /And the people are sad. /… / Have it your way.” (“Gubbinal”) For Stevens, the good and bad of things was not to be determined by religion, or science, or reason, or by a hispid Marxist-cum-neo-con like Hitchens, but by poetry, which at least has the honesty to acknowledge it is making it all up.


Here's the beautiful Wallace Stevens poem:

That strange flower, the sun,
Is just what you say.
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.

That tuft of jungle feathers,
That animal eye,
Is just what you say.

That savage of fire,
That seed,
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.


For anyone interested, here's a link to another article on Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al.: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/05/21/070521crbo_books_gottlieb

[Darcy88]

You are nit picking, Atheist. Your post is as intellectually dishonest as Hitchens book.

White's argument is that Hitchens intentionally ignored educated Religious opinions, and attacked the ignorant ones. In addition, White says,



If you want to ignore the essentials and quibble about achaeological details (I have no opinion either way here, and am wholly unfamiliar with Hoffmeier's book), go for it. But that is merely obfuscating the issue through distraction. Who cares whether archaeological evidence supports the Jewish Exodus from Egypt? This is important only to Fundamentalists and the New Atheists (and archaeologists and historians, of course, for different reasons).

Here's another key point in White's article:



Since this is a literary board, it seems appropriate to quote another essential piece of the article:




Here's the beautiful Wallace Stevens poem:

That strange flower, the sun,
Is just what you say.
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.

That tuft of jungle feathers,
That animal eye,
Is just what you say.

That savage of fire,
That seed,
Have it your way.

The world is ugly,
And the people are sad.


For anyone interested, here's a link to another article on Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al.: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/05/21/070521crbo_books_gottlieb

Of course conscience is innate and exists independently of religion. Why did those same Romans White in that article so stupidly invokes castigate Nero and other emperors for their iniquities? How is it intellectually honest to bring up the pagan crucifixion of Spartacus and yet ignore the evils of the Spanish Inquisition? Prior to the advent of Christian morality the ancient peoples around the Mediterranean possessed a conception of what was right and just. The Chinese were no less morally developed during the thousands of years their civilization existed before Christianity ever made it to Eastern Asia. Atheists these days are no less moral than are religious people.

[Ecurb]

What are you talking about, Darcy? All the article is suggesting is that morality is culturally constituted, not "innate". This is so obvious that we need hardly argue about it.

You are arguing against straw men. Neither I nor White makes any suggestion that Christianity (or religion in general) is essential to morality; White mentions the Roman populace approving of the crucifixion of former slaves to show that culturally constituted morals (and the consciences that arise from them) differ dramatically from one era (and one culture) to the next. If this is the case, and if our "conscience" is based on our morals, conscience cannot be "innate". (I'll grant that it is possible that White is being intellectually dishonest here, since I find it hard to imagine that Hitchens actually claimed that conscience is innate. I haven't looked at Hitchens' book recently, and don't remember. White quotes Hitchens as saying, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” But that doesn't imply that Hitchens thought conscience is "innate".)

Of course since conscience arises from culturally constituted moral beliefs, religion CAN be a factor (I'm sure Hitchens would agree that stoning adulterers to death with a clear conscience provides evidence of that, as does torturing accused heretics in the Spanish Inquisition).

[thescream]

There is no definitive answer as to how conscience originated within the human psyche, or even what it is exactly. This is a hotly contested subject. There are religious and secular views, there are evolutionary and neuro scientific explanations, and there are philosophical view points as well.

[Ecurb]

Here's a link to Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling", which White suggests that Hitchens ignores out of intellectual dishonesty.

http://www.ccel.org/k/kierkegaard/selections/trembling.htm

Kiergegaard tells four stories about Abraham's adventure in sacrificing Isaac. He explores the distinction between "ethics" and "faith". It's well worth reading.

Here's White on Hitchens' approach to the same story:


At one point he calls the story of Abraham and Isaac “mad and gloomy,” a “frightful” and “vile” “delusion,” but sees no reason to mention Kierkegaard’s complex, poetic, and deeply felt philosophical retelling of the story in “Fear and Trembling”. In this way, Hitchens is often as much a textual literalist as the fundamentalists he criticizes.

That's the crux of my objection to New Atheist approaches to religion: they are (often, although not always) as literalist as those of the Fundamentalists.

[The Atheist]

You are nit picking, Atheist. Your post is as intellectually dishonest as Hitchens book.

What a stupid comment.

How is it nit-picking to point out that the central argument of the first part of the article is based on completely false premises?

The writer claims that Hitchens was intellectually dishonest because he ignored one book, written by one theist, that claims there really were Israelis in Egypt. It is completely against the evidence presented by dozens of actual historians and archaeologists and Hitch was 100% correct to completely ignore it, along with other claims based on fantasy.


If you want to ignore the essentials and quibble about achaeological details (I have no opinion either way here, and am wholly unfamiliar with Hoffmeier's book), go for it. But that is merely obfuscating the issue through distraction. Who cares whether archaeological evidence supports the Jewish Exodus from Egypt? This is important only to Fundamentalists and the New Atheists (and archaeologists and historians, of course, for different reasons).

What utter nonsense.

How are fact and evidence only of interest to historians and these mythical "new atheists" you mention? When writing about Israelis in Egypt, there is only fact and evidence. Only a moron would examine The Little Mermaid for evidence on mermaids, and likewise only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus.

It doesn't change or negate any alleged teachings around the mythical exodus, but from a historical or realistic perspective, there is only reality to fall back on.

Your continual attempts to denigrate and label atheists who disagree with your personal worldview are very amusing, however.

I mean, this is pure gold: But that is merely obfuscating the issue through distraction.

Yeah, facts and evidence are so darned distracting, aren't they? One of the funniest sentences I've read in a long time. I'm sure if another famous atheist - D N Adams - were still alive, he'd be poaching that to go along with "...counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of umm..."


Here's another key point in White's article:

Apologetics so good it could have been written by a theist. It is highly ironically amusing that the writer attacks Hitch for ignoring evidence, then fails to present any himself! That which is stated without evidence can be safely ignored without evidence.

I'm pleased you used the quote you did, because one bit is hilarious: Does it light up on a brain scan when we think virtuous thoughts?

If you ever wanted to show ignorance, that is a classic example of how to do it: indignantly ask a question not realising the answer is a simple "Yes". Virtuous thoughts, religious thoughts, love even, light up on brain scans. The author really ought to do a little 5th Grade research before trying to attack a dead legend.

No matter, his hypocrisy and errors demean himself enough that I'm confident honest readers of the article will come to the same conclusion - a small man consumed by jealousy towards someone who sold more books than the article writer could comfortably add up on a calculator.

Just while we're on the subject, can you tell me what - in your opinion - constitutes a "new atheist".

[Ecurb]

Just while we're on the subject, can you tell me what - in your opinion - constitutes a "new atheist".

Since you ask, anyone who thinks Dawkins or Hitchens critiques of religion are reasonable.

I don't know if you are one or not, and I don't care. You are, however, rude, ignorant and boring, prating the same endless nonsense over, and over, and over again.

[cafolini]

Regarding morality, it requires understanding that grows with maturity. I know very moral people all over the world. Yet, their cultures, as established by despots and nepotists are far from moral. It is true that there is no amorality, but the globe is full of immorality and morality not imparted by culture. But it is nice to live in USA. Most people would come to USA in a minute if it were possible to open our doors to anyone.

[Cioran]

Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and several other of the so-called "new atheists" are poor at philosophy, and even disdain it. Their incompetence at philosophy hampers their arguments.

[Darcy88]

What are you talking about, Darcy? All the article is suggesting is that morality is culturally constituted, not "innate". This is so obvious that we need hardly argue about it.

You are arguing against straw men. Neither I nor White makes any suggestion that Christianity (or religion in general) is essential to morality; White mentions the Roman populace approving of the crucifixion of former slaves to show that culturally constituted morals (and the consciences that arise from them) differ dramatically from one era (and one culture) to the next. If this is the case, and if our "conscience" is based on our morals, conscience cannot be "innate". (I'll grant that it is possible that White is being intellectually dishonest here, since I find it hard to imagine that Hitchens actually claimed that conscience is innate. I haven't looked at Hitchens' book recently, and don't remember. White quotes Hitchens as saying, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” But that doesn't imply that Hitchens thought conscience is "innate".)

Of course since conscience arises from culturally constituted moral beliefs, religion CAN be a factor (I'm sure Hitchens would agree that stoning adulterers to death with a clear conscience provides evidence of that, as does torturing accused heretics in the Spanish Inquisition).

White was most likely responding to Hitchens' own response to the theistic argument, oft put forth, that without God there can be no right and wrong. I hear religious apologists make this assertion frequently. It is bogus. Much of morality is no doubt attributable to the manner in which evolutionary biology has shaped our behaviours and our brains, and so in a sense morality, to an extent, can be called innate. Of course culture, history, environment, and a host of other things exercise great influence upon morality, but at bottom, all circumstances being equal, there is going to be a certain concordance in how right and wrong are across time and place commonly conceived.

[Drkshadow03]

Here’s a Salon article castigating the late Christopher Hitchens for his lack of argument in “God is not Great”. The author excuses Richard Dawkins (inexcusable!), because he is a mere scientist. But he can’t excuse Hitchens’ “intellectual dishonesty”.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/

Have you read Hitchens' work?


White was most likely responding to Hitchens' own response to the theistic argument, oft put forth, that without God there can be no right and wrong. I hear religious apologists make this assertion frequently. It is bogus. Much of morality is no doubt attributable to the manner in which evolutionary biology has shaped our behaviours and our brains, and so in a sense morality, to an extent, can be called innate. Of course culture, history, environment, and a host of other things exercise great influence upon morality, but at bottom, all circumstances being equal, there is going to be a certain concordance in how right and wrong are across time and place commonly conceived.

And yet in some society's people can justify crucifying the rebel slaves and view it as a moral good, while other societies would find such an event horrific and abominable.


Quite amusing that the person accusing Hitch of intellectual dishonesty then goes on to be egregiously intellectually dishonest himself.

This is gold:

Might we suggest that Hitchens begin with Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai?

I'm pretty sure if Hitch were alive he wouldn't bother reading a book written by an Old Testament scholar whose "evidence" consists of cherry-picking history then jumping to a conclusion that nobody outside of theological colleges supports. The writer also exposes his ignorance by presuming that just because something is printed by Oxford it cannot possibly be non-factual. Possibly he is unaware that the college's name is a little more than "Trinity" and that the full name includes "The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity." Highly reliable.

Hitch rightly viewed the evidence of anthropologists, archaeologists and historians as somewhat more reliable than the rantings of biblical scholars.

One of the most hypocritical and inane pieces I've ever read - little wonder he waited until after Hitch's death to write it - a live Hitch would destroy him.

You seem to be suggesting Hoffmeier is merely just a textual critic; meanwhile, Hoffmeier from what I can tell is an archaeologist who has been the head of two major archaeological projects in Egypt. I read four reviews of his book (three from academic journals) and it received mostly favorable reviews. His argument seems to be not that there is any DIRECT record of Israelites, but that archaeological evidence supports certain general events in Exodus as plausible (such as foreigners being given high positions like Joseph and Semitic immigration to Egypt in response to famines and the practice of conscripting labor and archaeological remains of houses that were typical of Israel, accurate geographic details, records of habiru (wandering people) that some believe might have morphed into the word Hebrew, etc.)

[The Atheist]

You seem to be suggesting Hoffmeier is merely just a textual critic; meanwhile, Hoffmeier from what I can tell is an archaeologist who has been the head of two major archaeological projects in Egypt.

His postulates are still not evidence, and the overwhelming body of historical and archaeological opinion still says "no Exodus" so I'm happy to stick with it.

[JCamilo]

And yet in some society's people can justify crucifying the rebel slaves and view it as a moral good, while other societies would find such an event horrific and abominable.



To be honest, this argument seems off. Ethics, conscience (which are the words quoted) are not the same as moral. And romans saw crucifying as something horrible and abominable, hence a roman citzen was spared of it. Crassus was not honored for crucifixation either, but for defeating an enemy. Not much different from moderm world, America can throw a enemy body in the sea and be heroic, rebels can take pictures as trophy of Khadaffi body and be heroic and there goes. Specific historical and social moral codes are probally not what we should see as conscience or empathy.

[MorpheusSandman]

Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and several other of the so-called "new atheists" are poor at philosophy, and even disdain it. Their incompetence at philosophy hampers their arguments.Of all the "New Atheists," Hitchens is the only one whom I have no intellectual respect for. I can forgive Dawkins' and Harris' (and more recently Krauss') tenuous grasp on philosophy as they're actual scientists with full-time jobs besides learning philosophy and honing their rhetoric and debating skills; Dennett is actually is an extremely competent philosopher that knows the issues; but Hitchens has always struck me as nothing more than a public intellectual who isn't very well read in the subjects (at least the religious ones) of which he writes about. Watch his debate with William Lane Craig where he has NO response to any of Craig's arguments. This isn't to say that Craig's arguments are legitimate, but how can someone that does this for a living (arguing against Christianity, I mean) not even know of such arguments enough to be able to refute them? That article seems to confirm my feelings about Hitchens' ignorance of other Christian apologetics as well.

================================================== ================


That's the crux of my objection to New Atheist approaches to religion: they are (often, although not always) as literalist as those of the Fundamentalists.One thing I will say about this, though, is that it is usually the fundamentalist views that New Atheists are attacking. I don't think most would have a problem with, eg, poetic/literary interpretations of The Bible, those that approach it no differently than, say, The Odyssey or The Iliad. So I think there is a need when arguing against Christianity to knock down the fundamentalist views first and foremost.

================================================== =================


I'm pretty sure if Hitch were alive he wouldn't bother reading a book written by an Old Testament scholar whose "evidence" consists of cherry-picking history then jumping to a conclusion that nobody outside of theological colleges supports. The writer also exposes his ignorance by presuming that just because something is printed by Oxford it cannot possibly be non-factual....Normally you and I agree, but I have to completely disagree here. You can't "not bother" reading books by Christian scholars/apologists when your job is to debate/write about how bankrupt and corrupting Christianity and religion is. You run the risk of doing nothing but attacking strawmen rather than attacking the actual and strongest arguments within the very establishment you're arguing against. From what I've read, Hitchens sees to do a lot of cherry-picking himself, picking the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion and attacking only the weakest arguments made for Christian apologetics; this IS intellectually dishonest.

Furthermore, lets assume what you say about that book is true, that it's just a weak attempt at twisting the evidence to support the author's a priori belief in Old Testament historicity and that all of the mainstream, non-biased research proves differently; how does this not reflect badly on Hitchens that he doesn't even address the evidence/arguments in the book and counter with evidence/arguments from mainstream, secular research? Also, the notion that the author is arguing that because the book is printed by Oxford it is factual is a blatant strawman; the author argues no such thing, he merely argues that such a publication by a major university press is something that atheists cannot just shrug off as being another biased, ignorant example of Christian apologetics. You wouldn't let such a thing fly if a Christian similarly shrugged off an atheist book published by the same university.

When I read such statements by atheists it just strikes me that they're giving an excuse for being intellectually lazy, as if they can't be bothered to deal with the strongest arguments made for Christianity. It's precisely that attitude that's lead to most atheists getting destroyed in debates with William Lane Craig, (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392) including Hitchens.


The writer claims that Hitchens was intellectually dishonest because he ignored one book, written by one theist, that claims there really were Israelis in Egypt.There were more examples than that.


Only a moron would examine The Little Mermaid for evidence on mermaids, and likewise only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus.Not a good analogy at all; The Little Mermaid is an acknowledged piece of fiction. Some/Much of The Bible was written as an historical document. We may disagree over precisely how much was written as history and how much was made up and distorted, but it's not as clean and simple as labeling it entirely fictitious.


Apologetics so good it could have been written by a theist. It is highly ironically amusing that the writer attacks Hitch for ignoring evidence, then fails to present any himself!As for the former, that's actually a good thing! We need more atheists so intimately familiar with the best religious apologetics that they could write some themselves. Knowing your opponent is how you destroy them. Also, the second point is another strawman; the author's point wasn't to present an argument/case for the historicity of Exodus, but to argue that Hitchens ignored the best cases for its historicity. To argue that merely requires showing that, by golly, Hitchens ignored such arguments, and he did. All I see you doing is trying to defend WHY he ignored such arguments, and I just don't find those excuses valid.

[Ecurb]

I read "God is not Great" when it came out -- and quickly, so I don't remember all the details, just my general impression (which was in agreement with White's Salon article). I'll agree that while Dawkins' and Harris' arguments may be simplistic, it would be a stretch to call them "intellectually dishonest", as White calls Hitchens' arguments. Hitchens was a public intellectual, who should (at least) have been aware of (as just one example) Kierkegaard when he was bashing the Isaac and Abraham story.

I used "The Selfish Gene" as a text when I taught Introduction to Anthropology, by the way. I have nothing against Dawkins the biologist. My specialty when I was a grad student in cultural anthropology was mythology (because of my interest in literature). Morpheus is correct that most preliterate and early literate cultures do not differentiate between what we would call "myth" and "history". They use the same word for both.

Perhaps I shouldn't let "The Atheist" annoy me, but he writes crap like, "only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus." Huh? The implication that religious people (or anyone else who thinks religious texts have evidentiary value) are 'morons' is clearly incorrect (they might be 'wrong', but that doesn't mean they are 'moronic'), and clearly bigoted. It's ethnocentricity is similar to that of which White accuses Hitchens, at the end of his Salon piece:


Personal ethics tend to reflect cultural ethics, and cultural ethics usually follow tribal interests. For Hitchens, too, has a tribe: the “reasonable,” the clean, the well-spoken, the “right sort,” the Oxford men, the ones who know and revel in their difference from the ignorant, the slaves, the Baptist rubes, the ones who don’t go to Cambridge and don’t eat good lunches. Hitchens was of the oligarchs and shared their most intense privilege: the right not to have to take seriously their own lies and misdeeds.

This is all debatable, of course, and a worthy debate it would be. What’s appalling is that none of this seems important to Hitchens. Our sense of “decency” is innate. Period. Have it your way, but I thought the truths you were interested in were based on evidence, and you have none.

As Nietzsche wrote in “Beyond Good and Evil,” “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”

We all like to descry the speck in other people's eyes, while missing the log in our own.

[The Atheist]

Normally you and I agree, but I have to completely disagree here. You can't "not bother" reading books by Christian scholars/apologists when your job is to debate/write about how bankrupt and corrupting Christianity and religion is. You run the risk of doing nothing but attacking strawmen rather than attacking the actual and strongest arguments within the very establishment you're arguing against. From what I've read, Hitchens sees to do a lot of cherry-picking himself, picking the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion and attacking only the weakest arguments made for Christian apologetics; this IS intellectually dishonest.

You're quite right!

However, I do think Hitch wrote the way he did knowingly, because he wanted to be the most anti-religion author and be acknowledged as such. Worked.

Would he have had the same book sales and profile if he hadn't been unreasonable? Probably not, but what he did do was popularise anti-religion, which is something atheism has been far too slow to embrace. I also wonder whether being based in USA made a difference to his view - seeing people every day base actions and decisions that affect other people's lives on a book of myths. Had he stayed in England, where religion is largely ignored, he might not have been the same author.


Furthermore, lets assume what you say about that book is true, that it's just a weak attempt at twisting the evidence to support the author's a priori belief in Old Testament historicity and that all of the mainstream, non-biased research proves differently; how does this not reflect badly on Hitchens that he doesn't even address the evidence/arguments in the book and counter with evidence/arguments from mainstream, secular research? Also, the notion that the author is arguing that because the book is printed by Oxford it is factual is a blatant strawman; the author argues no such thing, he merely argues that such a publication by a major university press is something that atheists cannot just shrug off as being another biased, ignorant example of Christian apologetics. You wouldn't let such a thing fly if a Christian similarly shrugged off an atheist book published by the same university.

In the particular case of the exodus, how many books should he have read? I'll bet there are thousands of books and articles, just as there are on Noah's Ark. There comes a point where you say, The evidence shows this, do I need to look at views that aren't based on evidence and rely on postulates and assumptions?

In the case of Oxford, you're doing much the same thing as the article writer - it is an appeal to authority: because Oxford published this, it is of value. ("Factual" was indeed a poor choice)

Like most fallacies, it's 100% wrong, as the immensely-popular Hanndbook of Alternative and Complementary Medicine shows. That book is a treatise in favour of sCAM medicine, but is considered worth reading by many people simply because it comes from OUP. SCAMmers use it as a bible and I have no doubt that it is one of the most dangerous books in print.



Not a good analogy at all; The Little Mermaid is an acknowledged piece of fiction. Some/Much of The Bible was written as an historical document. We may disagree over precisely how much was written as history and how much was made up and distorted, but it's not as clean and simple as labeling it entirely fictitious.

I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document.

Which parts do you think fit any version of accepted history? In the OT, I don't know of a single one that even comes close, while bits of the NT are not too far from the mark, but I don't credit the bible as much as early editors who cherry-picked bits they knew were close to recent fact.

I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical.

Please note that I am not arguing against the parables and lessons of the bible; some of them are so good I taunt christians with them. My all-time favourites are christian justification for war or the death penalty - two things I'm reasonably confident Jesus wouldn't vote for.

In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.



As for the former, that's actually a good thing! We need more atheists so intimately familiar with the best religious apologetics that they could write some themselves. Knowing your opponent is how you destroy them.

Here, I agree with you entirely, and it's why I know the bible better than almost any christian you'll find outside of the pulpit.


Also, the second point is another strawman; the author's point wasn't to present an argument/case for the historicity of Exodus, but to argue that Hitchens ignored the best cases for its historicity. To argue that merely requires showing that, by golly, Hitchens ignored such arguments, and he did. All I see you doing is trying to defend WHY he ignored such arguments, and I just don't find those excuses valid.

Hey, Hitch was a busy bloke - I can live with him ignoring books he didn't see a need to read and setting fire to the occasional strawman. Do you think there's any irony in seeing the bible as a historical document while berating Hitch for the odd lapse of judgement?

[Drkshadow03]

His postulates are still not evidence, and the overwhelming body of historical and archaeological opinion still says "no Exodus" so I'm happy to stick with it.

From what I can tell from the reviews I read his arguments are based in archaeological, textual, and cultural evidence though. So his arguments are still evidence-driven and suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. At least, that is what I discerned from the reviews of the book.

I have nothing against anyone siding with the majority opinion of a discipline. I do, however, take issue with someone refusing to look at counter-evidence in the first place.


To be honest, this argument seems off. Ethics, conscience (which are the words quoted) are not the same as moral. And romans saw crucifying as something horrible and abominable, hence a roman citzen was spared of it. Crassus was not honored for crucifixation either, but for defeating an enemy. Not much different from moderm world, America can throw a enemy body in the sea and be heroic, rebels can take pictures as trophy of Khadaffi body and be heroic and there goes. Specific historical and social moral codes are probally not what we should see as conscience or empathy.

But this doesn't really address the problem. I'm understand conscience as it's being used here to mean that people have "an innate sense of right and wrong." I'm not disagreeing it is possible conscience is innate, but clearly given the many examples of changing moral standards in history and across cultures, the idea must be wrong or there are other factors and variables at play that can drastically modify our so-called "innate sense of right and wrong." As the original article points such a problem is inherent in the critique of religion itself.

Theist: There is no reason to be moral without G-d.
Atheist: A person can be moral without G-d because conscience is innate. However, it is clear from my various cherry-picked examples and anecdotes that religion makes people do bad things and therefore the religious performs immoral actions.

But, of course, if all people are born with "an innate sense of right and wrong" how do we reconcile the idea that religion leads people to ignore their so-called "innate sense of right and wrong" and perform immoral actions.




I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document.

Which parts do you think fit any version of accepted history? In the OT, I don't know of a single one that even comes close, while bits of the NT are not too far from the mark, but I don't credit the bible as much as early editors who cherry-picked bits they knew were close to recent fact.

I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical.

Please note that I am not arguing against the parables and lessons of the bible; some of them are so good I taunt christians with them. My all-time favourites are christian justification for war or the death penalty - two things I'm reasonably confident Jesus wouldn't vote for.

In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.

I would think Kings I and II would qualify, Macabees, Ezra, Nehemiah,



Here, I agree with you entirely, and it's why I know the bible better than almost any christian you'll find outside of the pulpit.

I strongly doubt this.

[The Atheist]

From what I can tell from the reviews I read his arguments are based in archaeological, textual, and cultural evidence though. So his arguments are still evidence-driven and suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. At least, that is what I discerned from the reviews of the book.

I have nothing against anyone siding with the majority opinion of a discipline. I do, however, take issue with someone refusing to look at counter-evidence in the first place.

Well, I'm basing my opinion on Hoffmeier on this piece (http://peterennsonline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/exodus-and-the-problem-of-historiography-rr-new-version-final-dec-05.pdf), by an evangelical christian, Peter Enns, Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary.

He says:


These scholarly evangelical responses are aimed at defending the historical reliability of Old Testament narratives by demonstrating their plausibility

Enns didn't see any archaeological evidence beyond that, so I'll rely on his view.

As Russell's teapot exemplified, lots of things are plausible, but that doesn't mean we should seriously consider them.

[Ecurb]

The Bible is clearly a historical document (which is not to suggest that it is an ACCURATE historical document). In addition, it clearly constitutes "historical evidence". Witnesses at a trial can give "evidence", and jurors can find that evidence unpersuasive. But there is no reason to ban the Bible for being "irrlevant and immaterial", like some potential trial evidence. We should, instead, accept the evidence for what it is -- a traditional history influenced by Jewish religious concepts and literary styles and traditions. The Bible is not "fiction". Since this is a literary forum, we should be careful in describing literary forms -- just as some posters should avoid writing "book" when they mean "novel", we should avoid calling something "fiction" when it is "myth" or "history" or "biography" or some other literary form.

[JCamilo]

Calling it fiction is not a big problem at all. Genre is irrelevant there, it just means it is a created by man and not a historical chronicle, which can apply to many books of the bible and cannot apply to some others. Most literary techniques ignore the distinction anyhow, truth can be fiction.



But this doesn't really address the problem. I'm understand conscience as it's being used here to mean that people have "an innate sense of right and wrong." I'm not disagreeing it is possible conscience is innate, but clearly given the many examples of changing moral standards in history and across cultures, the idea must be wrong or there are other factors and variables at play that can drastically modify our so-called "innate sense of right and wrong." As the original article points such a problem is inherent in the critique of religion itself.

Theist: There is no reason to be moral without G-d.
Atheist: A person can be moral without G-d because conscience is innate. However, it is clear from my various cherry-picked examples and anecdotes that religion makes people do bad things and therefore the religious performs immoral actions.

But, of course, if all people are born with "an innate sense of right and wrong" how do we reconcile the idea that religion leads people to ignore their so-called "innate sense of right and wrong" and perform immoral actions.

Yes, it is all arguable, but the article is attacking Hitchens for claiming the consicience and then giving an example of Morality (and a false example at all). It is a bit of the same thing he was attacking Hitchens to do. I have no idea how Hitchens develop the theme in this work or another, but the critic in the article is not coherent.

[Ecurb]

Since when are "historical chronicles" not "created by man"? The distinction is relevant because a purported history constitutes "evidence" that the events it recounts really happened, while a work of fiction does not.

By the way, I wrote my Masters thesis on a Hopi "myth" ("oral history") recounting an event in 1620 that was also recorded in written Spanish histories (the Hopi massacred some monks at Old Oraibi Pueblo). The Spanish left written records of the event; the Hopi left an oral literary record (recorded by anthropologists 300 years later). The Hopi stories were influenced by Hopi literary and religious motifs -- although it was also clear that they recounted an event for which there was persuasive corroborating evidence. Doubtless the Spanish written records were also influenced by literary styles and political objectives. However, calling either version "fictional" would misrepresent both the literary style and evidentiary value of the stories.

[JCamilo]

No, War and Peace fiction and have events that happened. The charge of light brigade happened. A Chronicle would just be a register of what happened, not created by human imagination.

Calling fiction would not misrepresent both of them, unless you think fiction = false. Which is something doubtful. Calling bible fiction just means you do not believe it was a register of facts, but rather a register of narratives that were adapted (in this case) by oral tradition. Nothing else.

[The Atheist]

I would think Kings I and II would qualify, Macabees, Ezra, Nehemiah,

Perfect examples of what I mean. The biblical account of Solomon especially seems to be at complete variance with the tiny amount of physical evidence.

Given that some remains of King David's realm have been uncovered, it seems unlikely that the great Solomon, with his enormous palaces and temples would have all but disappeared from the region.

David seems to be a little closer to reality, but still hardly qualifies as a scholarly account of his reign - if indeed he was a king of anything more than a small region of a few thousand people.

Ezra & Nehemia - I see them both as just a load of blarney; which parts do you think have historical relevance?

Certainly some of the characters in the bible did exist, but I don't believe the biblical accounts are anywhere near accurate to the point where they give any kind of genuine historical perspective. It would be like trying to get a picture of modern English life from Harry Potter.

With the Macabees, however, you have me stumped. Are they in the Scottish bible?



I strongly doubt this.

When I first realised god/s were analogous with Santa and the Tooth Fairy as a teenager, I figured it was only reasonable to check the claims made in the bible and I know it pretty well from end to end, plus I've done a fairly in-depth study of the Summa Theologica. You can doubt it as much as you like.

[MorpheusSandman]

However, I do think Hitch wrote the way he did knowingly, because he wanted to be the most anti-religion author and be acknowledged as such. Worked.Maybe it works with gullible atheists more interested in buying into emotional/passionate rhetoric as opposed to a more rigorous, logical, scientific, or intellectual approach, but then what makes those atheists any different from Christians seeking validation for their beliefs and not really caring about the intellectual/factual integrity of the arguments? As I've said before, I hold atheists to a higher standard, and Hitchens just doesn't reach it. Maybe it "worked," but it probably only "worked" with the types of atheists whom I'd say give atheism a bad name.


In the particular case of the exodus, how many books should he have read?He could've at least provided a clue that he had read any of them and were aware of the strongest arguments for its historicity, and alternatively aware of the best counter-arguments and evidence.


In the case of Oxford, you're doing much the same thing as the article writer - it is an appeal to authority: because Oxford published this, it is of value... Like most fallacies, it's 100% wrong...Appeal to Authority is only fallacious in certain circumstances: It's fallacious if one uses it deductively, as in "X said Y, X is authority, so Y is true;" or it's fallacious if the authority isn't an actual authority. However, I don't see either case applies here to the Oxford book. The point about Oxford is that they aren't just going to publish something from Joe Schmo off the street that has no background in the relevant field. Of course reputable publishers publish inaccurate twaddle all the time, but that doesn't mean that we should lump Oxford in with the Go Jesus! Publishing House.


I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document.History is probably the subject I know the least about, so I'll let others tackle this issue; but my argument would be similar to Ecurb. I don't think it's as simple as calling it either fiction or history.


Hey, Hitch was a busy bloke - I can live with him ignoring books he didn't see a need to read and setting fire to the occasional strawman. Do you think there's any irony in seeing the bible as a historical document while berating Hitch for the odd lapse of judgement?Hitch was busy, but his job (that he was busy with) required him to write about subjects that he seemed to not know all that much about. William Lane Craig is busy too, but the man knows the subjects he writes/speaks about quite well; far more than most atheists. Anyway, I'd still maintain The Bible is a historical documents of sorts to a certain extent that also contains a tremendous deal of fiction and mythological/religious tradition.

[Drkshadow03]

Perfect examples of what I mean. The biblical account of Solomon especially seems to be at complete variance with the tiny amount of physical evidence.

Given that some remains of King David's realm have been uncovered, it seems unlikely that the great Solomon, with his enormous palaces and temples would have all but disappeared from the region.

David seems to be a little closer to reality, but still hardly qualifies as a scholarly account of his reign - if indeed he was a king of anything more than a small region of a few thousand people.

Ezra & Nehemia - I see them both as just a load of blarney; which parts do you think have historical relevance?

Certainly some of the characters in the bible did exist, but I don't believe the biblical accounts are anywhere near accurate to the point where they give any kind of genuine historical perspective. It would be like trying to get a picture of modern English life from Harry Potter.

With the Macabees, however, you have me stumped. Are they in the Scottish bible?

Well, given that II Kings 25:10 describes the palace being burned to the ground during Zedekiah's reign (presumably the same palace) and there is currently a gigantic mosque on top of where the Temple probably was located (and this constitutes the two major building projects of Solomon's reign) it's not surprising we don't have tons of physical evidence for these building projects during Solomon's reign.

Archaeological evidence has confirmed numerous kings and other personas mentioned in the two Kings narratives, the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions, etc.

As far as Ezra and Nehemiah, do I think Ezra or Nehemiah actually existed? Not sure. However, the narratives tell us about the Jews returning from the Babylonian captivity under Persian rule and I think it gives general sense of what the recovery effort must have been like during that period.

But this is all beside the point. You seem to want an ancient book to match up with 21st standards of history, which is ridiculous. The ancients didn't really write scholarly accounts of history the way we did. As Morpheus writes, "Some/Much of The Bible was written as an historical document. We may disagree over precisely how much was written as history and how much was made up and distorted, but it's not as clean and simple as labeling it entirely fictitious." There is a general historical core to many of these works, with many accurate events, but obviously not perfect accuracy and many distortions too. What does this mean and how is this different from Harry Potter?

Well, often the Bible was our first clue these events actually happened in the first place and was later confirmed by archaeological evidence and extra-biblical records. Then there is the problem of your limited definition of history, by which you seem to mean: mere events or description of facts. Leviticus could be described as an historical document not because it describes factual events, but actual practices of the time. Even Genesis 1, 2, and 3 could be described as historical, not because they describe literal events, but because their themes as literary objects tell us tons about the values of the culture in general and their thoughts about the world.



When I first realised god/s were analogous with Santa and the Tooth Fairy as a teenager, I figured it was only reasonable to check the claims made in the bible and I know it pretty well from end to end, plus I've done a fairly in-depth study of the Summa Theologica. You can doubt it as much as you like.

You may know it pretty well from end to end, but that doesn't demonstrate you know more than most Christians, especially of the evangelical stripe, which is the part I strongly doubted.

[cafolini]

Of course the bible is a historical document. That's all it is that has any value.

[Ecurb]

No, War and Peace fiction and have events that happened. The charge of light brigade happened. A Chronicle would just be a register of what happened, not created by human imagination.

Calling fiction would not misrepresent both of them, unless you think fiction = false. Which is something doubtful. Calling bible fiction just means you do not believe it was a register of facts, but rather a register of narratives that were adapted (in this case) by oral tradition. Nothing else.

My dictionary defines “fiction” as “A division of literature consisting of prose works in narrative form, the characters and incidents of which are derived from the imagination of the author.”

Of course we can define words however we want – but in oral histories the characters and incidents are traditional, and are not derived (or at least not wholly derived) from the imagination of the author. In fact, there is no one author. I’ll grant there are gray areas. However, when critics describe as "fiction" a narrative that native speakers would identify using a word best translated as “history”, they are conflating two separate literary forms. Most modern readers think of the literary genre of “fiction” as comprising novels and short stories (poetry, including The Charge of the Light Brigade, is not generally called “fiction” in standard English).

There’s no point arguing about definitions, however. It’s more important to agree on them. My only point about calling “oral histories” “fiction” is that it seems judgmental and ethnocentric, and appears to be an attempt to beg the question of whether they constitute “historical evidence” by comparing them to novels and short stories that are intentional inventions of a single author. (Most of what I know about Napoleon's invasion of Russia was gleaned from War and Peace -- but that's a whole other can of worms.)

[MorpheusSandman]

Most modern readers think of the literary genre of “fiction” as comprising novels and short stories (poetry, including The Charge of the Light Brigade, is not generally called “fiction” in standard English). I think you're conflating denotations and connotations. Narrative poetry that's "made up" (like Paradise Lost) would still be considered fiction, it's simply fictional narrative poetry as opposed to fictional narrative prose.

[Ecurb]

Well, often the Bible was our first clue these events actually happened in the first place and was later confirmed by archaeological evidence and extra-biblical records. Then there is the problem of your limited definition of history, by which you seem to mean: mere events or description of facts. Leviticus could be described as an historical document not because it describes factual events, but actual practices of the time. Even Genesis 1, 2, and 3 could be described as historical, not because they describe literal events, but because their themes as literary objects tell us tons about the values of the culture in general and their thoughts about the world.



Exactly. In addition, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is a work of "history", not a work of "fiction", even though some of the incidents it recounts are no longer considered factual. The only reason people look for "physical evidence" either substantiating or refuting biblical accounts is that they are basing their research on the "historical evidence" provided by the Bible.

[Ecurb]

I think you're conflating denotations and connotations. Narrative poetry that's "made up" (like Paradise Lost) would still be considered fiction, it's simply fictional narrative poetry as opposed to fictional narrative prose.

You're probably right. It's not really important -- although I continue to think that one motivation for calling a work "fictional" is to suggest it is "made up", like novels and short stories (or fictional poems).

[JCamilo]

My dictionary defines “fiction” as “A division of literature consisting of prose works in narrative form, the characters and incidents of which are derived from the imagination of the author.”

Ok, but for example, Merriam-webster says:

Definition of FICTION

1
a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)
c : a work of fiction; especially : novel
2
a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction>
b : a useful illusion or pretense
3
: the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

Curious to find the definition i gave to you is exactly in the first line.


Of course we can define words however we want

No, we cannot. That is when you say "my" dictionary we have a limited or even wrong definition. It is not a Humpty Dumpty thing.


– but in oral histories the characters and incidents are traditional, and are not derived (or at least not wholly derived) from the imagination of the author. In fact, there is no one author.

If there is no author, how you claim the derivation of the creation? Also, the author is basically unknow, not inexistent and in oral stories they obviously added a lot at some point. It is necessary a lot of imagination to derive a wolf talking with a kid, a woman turning in a salt statue for looking back, a sailor lost in home for 10 years and this is all oral tradition. Also, fiction can be derivated from real circustances, in fact, one of th original meaning of fiction came from legal procedure when they spectulate about the possibilities in case.


I’ll grant there are gray areas. However, when critics describe as "fiction" a narrative that native speakers would identify using a word best translated as “history”, they are conflating two separate literary forms. Most modern readers think of the literary genre of “fiction” as comprising novels and short stories (poetry, including The Charge of the Light Brigade, is not generally called “fiction” in standard English).

Fiction is hardly a form, modern critics would not bother much with the marketing genre. Most critics also know novels and short stories can come in verse, so they would not bother to came with a definition to restrict it form, even considering the term is not applied only to literature. Most critics would also consider lots of books of the bible as fictional narratives. (Which would still make the bible a historical document, btw, as the definition of historical document is hardly as something that tell the real story of that but rather something that represents the society of that time)



There’s no point arguing about definitions, however. It’s more important to agree on them. My only point about calling “oral histories” “fiction” is that it seems judgmental and ethnocentric, and appears to be an attempt to beg the question of whether they constitute “historical evidence” by comparing them to novels and short stories that are intentional inventions of a single author. (Most of what I know about Napoleon's invasion of Russia was gleaned from War and Peace -- but that's a whole other can of worms.)

Again, Fiction is only offensive if you are translating to "Lies" and not to: work of imagination. I worked years with oral storytellers and they have a lot o ironic coments about "Make to believe" such as "i never told a lie that wasn't true", which indicates they pretty much know the fine line about being feinged and lying, meaning, fictional and false as two different things.

I repeat, calling the bible fiction is not a problem at all, biblical literalism is the only affected by it and either way, literalism is an awful way to read it.

[Ecurb]

Merriam Webster clearly suggests that "fiction" is used to describe "novels or short stories" (definition b), "novels" (definition c).

I don't believe that the authors of the bible would admit to "inventing by the imagination" their stories. Would Gibbon have been offended if "Decline and Fall" were called a work of "fiction"? Probably.

Obviously, there are many forms of oral storytelling. Some might be called (in English) fables; others myths; others riddles; others fairy tales, others something else. Oral storytellers often tell fictional tales. Let me ask you: do you think the authors (storytellers) should be able to define their own works? If the storyteller claims that the story is "historical", is that significant to how we categorize it? Calling a work "fiction" is disrespectful to the storyteller who claims it is not fiction (i.e. not "invented by the imagination"). By calling the story "fictional", you are calling the storyteller a liar. Perhaps the storyteller is a liar, but the truth or falsehood of the story is not what determines whether the storyteller is lying. Instead, the story teller is lying if he intentionally invents an imaginary story, and then claims the story is "non-fictional". If the historian tries to write an accurate history, he is not writing "fiction" simply because his history is factually incorrect.

My only point is that calling a religious document "fictional" suggests something more insulting than calling it "innaccurate" or "historically incorrect"; it suggests that it was INTENTIONALLY "invented by the imagination or feigned".

[Volya]

So it's like a history textbook with some errors in?

[The Atheist]

Maybe it works with gullible atheists more interested in buying into emotional/passionate rhetoric as opposed to a more rigorous, logical, scientific, or intellectual approach, but then what makes those atheists any different from Christians seeking validation for their beliefs and not really caring about the intellectual/factual integrity of the arguments? As I've said before, I hold atheists to a higher standard, and Hitchens just doesn't reach it. Maybe it "worked," but it probably only "worked" with the types of atheists whom I'd say give atheism a bad name.

Aha, now I see your problem - you just don't really understand the meaning of the word "atheist".

Atheists have but one thing in common: a lack of belief in god. They includes Buddhists, people who follow David Icke's insane teachings, many "new age" bleevers that accept psi and paranormal forces as real, and people who claim to be atheists while actually hating god - a contradiction. Lots of them give atheists a bad name. In fact, it might be why atheists are the most-despised group in USA, but then again, that may just be fear.

Believe it or not, I used to think the same way - that atheists have a responsibility to display rationality, common sense and critical thinking.

I grew out of it eventually.

(You may like to note that I have never read any of Hitch's books, let alone bought one. In fact, I haven't ever even touched one, and I'm pretty sure that I've never seen an actual hard copy of one.)


He could've at least provided a clue that he had read any of them and were aware of the strongest arguments for its historicity, and alternatively aware of the best counter-arguments and evidence.

Being the obsessive type he was, I suspect that he didn't do that, because once he started, he would never have stopped. How far should he have read? How many books are worth reading on the subject?

I think you're making a mistake in seeing Hitch as an intellectual, for starters. He was a street-fighter with a bottle in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

I'm not going to agree with everything he said, but I can't hold him accountable to the same standards as Dawkins. The comment before that someone quoted about forgiving Dawkins because he's only a biologist made me laugh. If anything, people should forgive Hitch because he was only a journo, while Dawkins - especially as the Simonyi Chair - really did have a responsibility not to make stupid errors.



Appeal to Authority is only fallacious in certain circumstances: It's fallacious if one uses it deductively, as in "X said Y, X is authority, so Y is true;" or it's fallacious if the authority isn't an actual authority.

Unfortunately, the authority appealed to in this case is somewhat dubious, so I'm pretty confident it fits.


Anyway, I'd still maintain The Bible is a historical documents of sorts to a certain extent that also contains a tremendous deal of fiction and mythological/religious tradition.

Fair enough. In return, I'll change the statement I made to "reliable historical document" because plain historical document applies to many works of complete fiction as well and the bible has a place in history, it's just not a history textbook.


... it's not surprising we don't have tons of physical evidence for these building projects during Solomon's reign.

I think you'll find it's not a question of not having tons of evidence, it's the case that there is almost none.


Archaeological evidence has confirmed numerous kings and other personas mentioned in the two Kings narratives, the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions, etc.

Even Clive Cussler uses facts in his fiction. My point is that the history in the bible can be shown to be fatally flawed, therefore the bits that relate to reality are not reliable at all.


You may know it pretty well from end to end, but that doesn't demonstrate you know more than most Christians, especially of the evangelical stripe, which is the part I strongly doubted.

Funny you should mention fundies, because I destroyed one in a televised debate on the bible about 25 years ago, and he was actually a bible teacher at a christian high school.

Also, note that fundies are only a tiny percentage of christians, although the publicity they garner may make it look the other way round.

[Ecurb]

So it's like a history textbook with some errors in?

Mythologies are narrative accounts purporting to be an accurate representation of some group’s past. So are history textbooks. We believe history textbooks are accurate and mythologies are not, although both are probably correct about some things, and incorrect about others. Mythologies are more fun to read, generally.


The Atheist: Funny you should mention fundies, because I destroyed one in a televised debate on the bible about 25 years ago, and he was actually a bible teacher at a christian high school.

“History”, “fiction”, “myth” or “delusion”?

[JCamilo]

Merriam Webster clearly suggests that "fiction" is used to describe "novels or short stories" (definition b), "novels" (definition c).

And? You now choose the part that applies to your argument and ignore other? Inst exactly that the author of the essays is accusing Hitchens? Anyone reading the dictionary entry know you cannot claim fiction is just what you claim to be and that calling the bible fiction as i defined is not a problem.


I don't believe that the authors of the bible would admit to "inventing by the imagination" their stories. Would Gibbon have been offended if "Decline and Fall" were called a work of "fiction"? Probably.

I do not believe you are comparing Gibbon to an author of oral tradition, are you? Two completely different process of production. (Reggarding specific books)


Obviously, there are many forms of oral storytelling. Some might be called (in English) fables; others myths; others riddles; others fairy tales, others something else. Oral storytellers often tell fictional tales. Let me ask you: do you think the authors (storytellers) should be able to define their own works? If the storyteller claims that the story is "historical", is that significant to how we categorize it? Calling a work "fiction" is disrespectful to the storyteller who claims it is not fiction (i.e. not "invented by the imagination"). By calling the story "fictional", you are calling the storyteller a liar.


No, I am not. Calling a product of imagination is not the same as lying. Do you call Herman Meliville a liar?




Perhaps the storyteller is a liar, but the truth or falsehood of the story is not what determines whether the storyteller is lying. Instead, the story teller is lying if he intentionally invents an imaginary story, and then claims the story is "non-fictional". If the historian tries to write an accurate history, he is not writing "fiction" simply because his history is factually incorrect.

Except, there is no such disctinction. Usually, a traditonal storyteller credibility do not come from the story itself, either it happened or not, because all is true, but came from the manifestation of the story, i.o.w., the storytelling itself. Often a storyteller will create the appeal to illusion even claiming it happened with a friend of a friend or other similar formula and this is used for a fantastic story or some anedocte.


My only point is that calling a religious document "fictional" suggests something more insulting than calling it "innaccurate" or "historically incorrect"; it suggests that it was INTENTIONALLY "invented by the imagination or feigned".

So, that is why it is fictional, someone had to invent a garden of eden allegory. It is hilarious, so it is historically incorrect (lets say) that Moses existed, then how there is a Moses history? Obviously if it is not what really happened, someone made it up. If Solomon was a king, but nowhere as rich as suggested, so how those details came to the register? God sent and Angel with the mission to make stories more funny?

[Drkshadow03]

I think you'll find it's not a question of not having tons of evidence, it's the case that there is almost none.

As I already pointed out, the palace burned down and the temple burned down during the Babylonian siege. So why should we expect to find a palace as evidence if it's gone? Fairly recent archaeological explorations are finding more and more evidence each day that David's kingdom may have been more expansive and possibly for various artifacts mentioned in Solomon: Link (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15049-biblical-solomons-mines-confirmed-by-dating.html), Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/khirbet-qeiyafa-archaeology_n_1504722.html), link (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/archaeological-find-stirs-debate-on-david-s-kingdom-1.429087), and this is hardly an exhaustive list.



Even Clive Cussler uses facts in his fiction. My point is that the history in the bible can be shown to be fatally flawed, therefore the bits that relate to reality are not reliable at all.

You're just merely restating your conclusion, which isn't evidence or a rebuttal. Much of the history has been shown to be reliable and even when certain details have been shown to be questionable, the general gist tends to be accurate. As already noted, nobody, at least in this discussion, is claiming the Bible should be read as an historical textbook.



Funny you should mention fundies, because I destroyed one in a televised debate on the bible about 25 years ago, and he was actually a bible teacher at a christian high school.

Also, note that fundies are only a tiny percentage of christians, although the publicity they garner may make it look the other way round.

I find this hard to believe as well.

[MorpheusSandman]

Aha, now I see your problem - you just don't really understand the meaning of the word "atheist".I understand the meaning of the word atheist just fine. Just because I hold atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I don't understand the word. To me, the rejection of God should be the first step on a journey towards bettering ourselves as human beings, especially on a rational, cognitive level. If you're going to reject God but hold on to all of the other reality distorting biases that lead others to believe in the supernatural and God to begin with, then I'm not going to respect you.


I grew out of it eventually.So what made you grow out of it?


Being the obsessive type he was, I suspect that he didn't do that, because once he started, he would never have stopped. How far should he have read? How many books are worth reading on the subject?To me, if you're going to write about a subject you should at least display a certain level of knowledge on that subject. How far should he have read? At least as far as William Lane Craig reads on the scientific subjects he writes about when arguing the case for theism.


I think you're making a mistake in seeing Hitch as an intellectual, for starters. He was a street-fighter with a bottle in one hand and a cigarette in the other.He was undeniably a public intellectual in the traditional sense of the term. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual#Public_intellectual_life) The fact that many public intellectuals aren't all that intellectually formidable (probably Hitchens included) is another matter entirely.


The comment before that someone quoted about forgiving Dawkins because he's only a biologist made me laugh. If anything, people should forgive Hitch because he was only a journo, while Dawkins - especially as the Simonyi Chair - really did have a responsibility not to make stupid errors.Well, I'm the one that said that, but I think you misunderstood. What I meant about "forgiving Dawkins" is that Dawkins devoted his life to evolutionary biology. His "philosophy" follows from his knowledge of that field. He didn't spend his life studying philosophy just to be able to debate theists on these issues. If there is a question about evolutionary biology I think we could rely on Dawkins to answer it accurately. However, contrary to Dawkins, Hitchens WAS a public intellectual whose job it was to be informed on the matters he debated about. He didn't have a full-time as a scientist to occupy him with like Dawkins and Krauss. I mean, I could forgive him not being as informed as Dennett, as Dennett is a professional philosopher, but I can't forgive him for not being as informed as, eg, the writer of the OP's article.


it's just not a history textbook.Yeah, but it's not like we have any historical textbooks from back then. Most historians take whatever they can get that will give them clues.

[cafolini]

MorpheusSandman, you are delusional. You don't have the power to forgive any thing, or any one, not even yourself. May the Grace of God make you aware of this.

[OrphanPip]

There's a basic problem of attributing genre to the Bible in the first place. We can't reliably know what parts of it were written to be taken as fact, like a history, and what parts were meant to be more like parables that demonstrated a kind of moral or larger truth that wasn't based on any presumption of factual events (though there are certainly books that clearly lean towards certain generic categories). At least, by the time the New Testament was written the authors would have had some exposure to genres of biography and history from the Romans, but how much of the Old Testament can be described in terms of a largely Greco-Roman generic tradition.

[The Atheist]

As I already pointed out, the palace burned down and the temple burned down during the Babylonian siege. So why should we expect to find a palace as evidence if it's gone? Fairly recent archaeological explorations are finding more and more evidence each day that David's kingdom may have been more expansive and possibly for various artifacts mentioned in Solomon: Link (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15049-biblical-solomons-mines-confirmed-by-dating.html), Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/khirbet-qeiyafa-archaeology_n_1504722.html), link (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/archaeological-find-stirs-debate-on-david-s-kingdom-1.429087), and this is hardly an exhaustive list.

Ok, let's assume the temples and palaces existed in the form stated.

Given we know for sure that an extraordinary amount of the OT is pure bunkum - Noah, Moses, Exodus, Lot, Sodom, Jonah, ... it's quite reasonable to look at Kings as just as much myth as the other books. Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing.


Much of the history has been shown to be reliable and even when certain details have been shown to be questionable, the general gist tends to be accurate.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because from the iron chariots to Job to Jonah, all I see is contradictory flim-flam. Call it allegory by all means, but I can't accept any kind of claim for accuracy without substantial evidence. That does not - and I'm sure will never - exist.



I find this hard to believe as well.

That fundies are a tiny percentage of christians? You should know better than that.

As to the former, I don't care whether you believe it or not. I know what happened, as I was there at the time.

[JCamilo]

There's a basic problem of attributing genre to the Bible in the first place. We can't reliably know what parts of it were written to be taken as fact, like a history, and what parts were meant to be more like parables that demonstrated a kind of moral or larger truth that wasn't based on any presumption of factual events (though there are certainly books that clearly lean towards certain generic categories). At least, by the time the New Testament was written the authors would have had some exposure to genres of biography and history from the Romans, but how much of the Old Testament can be described in terms of a largely Greco-Roman generic tradition.

Also the notion of true, fact, are quite different. The use of imagination would not make something less truthful, the force of "take my word" was strong enough to give credibility, etc. Anyways, today, we can easily see people used imagination to enrich the narratives, it is not just adding a giant people in the promissed land, is about making it is also needed imagination to give it an interesting literary form. The Bible is not dry.

[The Atheist]

I understand the meaning of the word atheist just fine. Just because I hold atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I don't understand the word. To me, the rejection of God should be the first step on a journey towards bettering ourselves as human beings, especially on a rational, cognitive level. If you're going to reject God but hold on to all of the other reality distorting biases that lead others to believe in the supernatural and God to begin with, then I'm not going to respect you.

Rationalist atheists will always be a minority of all atheists, so you can only ever be disappointed if you think like that. You seem to be incorrectly conflating atheists with humanists.

The fact of "rejecting" god disturbs me as well. What is there to reject? I never rejected god in any way as I was never a believer, and the idea of rejection implies that there is something to reject, when there isn't.


So what made you grow out of it?

When I realised that atheism simply means: a=without, theos=god.

The position you're in reminds me of Douglas Adams, who used to call himself a "radical atheist" to separate himself from other atheists who believe all sorts of crap.



He was undeniably a public intellectual in the traditional sense of the term. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual#Public_intellectual_life) The fact that many public intellectuals aren't all that intellectually formidable (probably Hitchens included) is another matter entirely.

I don't think Hitch qualifies in any way.

From your Wikipedia link:

Public intellectual is a common term for an intellectual (a person who primarily uses intelligence in either a professional or an individual capacity) engaged in public rather than (or as well as) academic or other professional discourse.

Regardless of the field of expertise, as a public intellectual, one is addressing and responding to the problems of his or her society and thus such an individual is expected to "rise above the partial preoccupation of one’s own profession... and engage with the global issues of truth, judgement, and taste of the time.

I don't see Hitch in that at all. The whole argument here is that Hitch didn't act in an intellectual manner, and that on its own would mean that he wasn't an intellectual.

You can't have it both ways.



Well, I'm the one that said that, but I think you misunderstood.

No I understood fine, I just disagree with you. Once he was appointed the Simonyi Chair, Dawkins was no longer a scientist, but a true public intellectual - that's what he was being paid for, so opening his mouth without doing the research was unforgivable, but he kept doing it.


Yeah, but it's not like we have any historical textbooks from back then. Most historians take whatever they can get that will give them clues.

We have almost no written records from many parts of earth's history, but we know lots about them because physical evidence exists.

I think you've raised a good point though - the bible does give a few clues, but we've been able to discern from evidence gained since that it was mostly mythical. It's a bit like early Wikipedia; right some of the time, wrong lots of the time, with the rest based on reality, but unreliable.

[MorpheusSandman]

MorpheusSandman, you are delusional. You don't have the power to forgive any thing, or any one, not even yourself. May the Grace of God make you aware of this.The person believing in an invisible man in the sky has no business calling anyone delusional. We as human beings forgive other human beings all the time, so I'm pretty sure we do have that power.


Rationalist atheists will always be a minority of all atheists, so you can only ever be disappointed if you think like that.I know they're in the minority, but me holding atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I actually expect most of them (even those that write about it philosophically) to reach it. Hell, I know I still have a lot to work on when it comes to myself. What I'm talking about, though, is along the lines of this (http://lesswrong.com/) and this (http://commonsenseatheism.com/) (I think Luke from the latter site gets it right in his tagline: "Atheism is just the beginning; now it's time to solve the harder questions.").


The fact of "rejecting" god disturbs me as well. What is there to reject?I meant "rejecting the God hypothesis," the same way one would "reject Intelligent Design" or "flat-Earth theory."


When I realised that atheism simply means: a=without, theos=god.Ok, but what does a definition have to do with standards? We may call Hitler inhuman because of his actions, but we don't mean that he literally wasn't from the species known as homo sapiens, we merely mean he did a lot of terrible things that are way below the standard that we hold other humans to. Similarly, I have no problem saying Mr. Idiot is an atheist if he doesn't believe in God but has a billion delusions the same as any theist does, but that doesn't mean I have to respect/care about his thoughts on the matter.


I don't think Hitch qualifies in any way.And I think he qualifies in every way. How was Hitch NOT "addressing and responding to the problems of his society... and (engaging) with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time?" When he's making a living writing and debating about how religion is evil, he's making a living out of addressing and responding to the problems of society and engaging in issues of truth and judgment.


The whole argument here is that Hitch didn't act in an intellectual manner, and that on its own would mean that he wasn't an intellectual. You can't have it both ways.You actually can have it both ways because there are multiple meanings of the word. One can be in the role of a public intellectual, ie, publishing works/debating on intellectual issues like religion, philosophy, politics, etc. without being all that intellectually formidable. Hitchens was undeniably an "intellectual" in the former sense, and arguably not an intellectual in the latter sense.


Once he was appointed the Simonyi Chair, Dawkins was no longer a scientist, but a true public intellectual - that's what he was being paid for, so opening his mouth without doing the research was unforgivable, but he kept doing it. Fair enough. I guess I still think of Dawkins as being primarily an evolutionary biologist whom only got into the "intellectual" life after being faced with so much ignorance by the religious concerning evolution. I think that if there wasn't so much opposition to evolution amongst the religious, Dawkins never would've taken on that role to begin with (I could be wrong, but that's my sense).

[Drkshadow03]

Ok, let's assume the temples and palaces existed in the form stated.

Given we know for sure that an extraordinary amount of the OT is pure bunkum - Noah, Moses, Exodus, Lot, Sodom, Jonah, ... it's quite reasonable to look at Kings as just as much myth as the other books. Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing.

You're attacking an argument I'm not making. Given how much of Kings has been confirmed: personages, certain battles and events, certain building projects, and geographic locations, etc. it's reasonable to assume it has a historical core. However, much like any ancient history the writers and editors interspersed folktales, legends, and myths to the historical material. Elisha and the bears would be an example of a folktale in the Kings Narrative. As a literary object, Kings is a theological history. The reigns of the kings are seen through the eyes of theology and how their reigns turn out based on how well they follow the rules of G-d. So, of course, one needs to be careful not to take everything in the book as literal history, but it definitely can serve as a guidepost.

The rest of your reasoning is fallacious. Just because some parts are obviously mythical or imaginative doesn't mean all the parts are, especially given what we call the OT isn't one unified book, but a collection of different books by different authors.

Then you finish it up with a fallacy of irrelevance/non sequitur: "Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing." What does my thinking whether it's a "good thing" or not have to do with whether it really happened or not.

Poor reasoning followed by more poor reasoning.


We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because from the iron chariots to Job to Jonah, all I see is contradictory flim-flam. Call it allegory by all means, but I can't accept any kind of claim for accuracy without substantial evidence. That does not - and I'm sure will never - exist.

Well, I think you're confusing the fundamentalist position of "it's all historically true! 100% accurate!" with my position, "large parts of the Bible are myths, folktales, poetry, and rules and regulations governing their society and fiction (by which I mean made-up stories), but certain books seem to be strongly historical with some folktales and myths grafted onto the material and can be useful as historical sources filtered through a critical eye and archaeology, and therefore we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, and anyone claiming the Bible is 100% fiction is equally full of nonsense and is holding an untenable position."




That fundies are a tiny percentage of christians? You should know better than that.

As to the former, I don't care whether you believe it or not. I know what happened, as I was there at the time.

My doubt was about the latter, not the percentage of evangelicals if that wasn't clear.

[Ecurb]

No, I am not. Calling a product of imagination is not the same as lying. Do you call Herman Meliville a liar?


Well, Mark Twain did say, “Show may a man who don’t lie, and I’ll show you a man who ain’t got much to say.” However, I never said authors of fiction were liars. What I said was that if a critic says the author is writing a work of fiction, while the author SAYS he is writing a work of history, and never intentionally invents imaginary incidents in his book, then the critic is calling the author a liar. However, there are gray areas about the meaning of “fiction”.

Take my Mark Twain quotation as an example. I can’t remember where I first hear the anecdote, but I think it’s a fun quotation; it’s in character (it’s something Mark Twain might have said). I don’t know if Mark Twain said it or not – but I’m not inventing it; it is not a product of my imagination. I’m merely repeating what I’ve heard. If the quotation IS a work of fiction (if it was intentionally invented by some other author), it is at least neither a fiction ON MY PART, nor a lie ON MY PART. I reasonably believe it to be an anecdote that at least could be historically accurate – although, of course, I care less about the historical accuracy of the anecdote than about its merits as a witticism. Doubtless similar reasoning and motives play a role in shaping ancient histories and myths.


There's a basic problem of attributing genre to the Bible in the first place. We can't reliably know what parts of it were written to be taken as fact, like a history, and what parts were meant to be more like parables that demonstrated a kind of moral or larger truth that wasn't based on any presumption of factual events (though there are certainly books that clearly lean towards certain generic categories). At least, by the time the New Testament was written the authors would have had some exposure to genres of biography and history from the Romans, but how much of the Old Testament can be described in terms of a largely Greco-Roman generic tradition.

I agree. In addition, I’m not a biblical scholar. Probably nobody knows exactly what parts of the Bible were intended as history, poetry, fables, etc. However, those who have studied it know far more about it than I do (and probably far more about it than The Atheist does). WE know, for example that Greek and Roman historians often “quoted” speeches they could not have heard. Some ancient historians admitted they were “inventing” the speeches, but were trying to guess approximately what the speaker might have said. Herodotus is known by twin monikers: “The Father of History” and “The Father of Lies”.



"large parts of the Bible are myths, folktales, poetry, and rules and regulations governing their society and fiction (by which I mean made-up stories), but certain books seem to be strongly historical with some folktales and myths grafted onto the material and can be useful as historical sources filtered through a critical eye and archaeology, and therefore we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, and anyone claiming the Bible is 100% fiction is equally full of nonsense and is holding an untenable position."
.

Bingo! I’d also suggest that oral literature (of whatever genre) evolves organically. In other words, myths differ from fiction in that no SINGLE author invents them out of his imagination (note the word “single”, JCamilo). Instead, stories change over time as the story tellers embellish them to appeal to their audience or combine parts of different stories (often as a tactic to improve their storytelling). I read an analysis of The Iliad once where the author (I forget the reference) demonstrated that the story used many techniques essential to oral literature – many of the descriptive passages (“The wine-dark sea”) are pat, memorized passages that serve as a mnemonic aid to the storyteller. He can repeat them by rote, while he tries to remember where the story goes next. These pat sections differ from "fiction", however, because they are not "invented from the imagination" of the storyteller -- they are memorized as part of the storyteller's repertoire, and often repeated verbatim from earlier versions of the story. OF course story tellers also have to “invent”, because they can’t remember word for word and incident by incident exactly how they originally heard the story. So their stories RESEMBLE fiction in that they include some “invention”, even when the storyteller is attempting to repeat the story as exactly as possible. Therefore, the stories change over time.

[JCamilo]

Well, Mark Twain did say, “Show may a man who don’t lie, and I’ll show you a man who ain’t got much to say.” However, I never said authors of fiction were liars. What I said was that if a critic says the author is writing a work of fiction, while the author SAYS he is writing a work of history, and never intentionally invents imaginary incidents in his book, then the critic is calling the author a liar. However, there are gray areas about the meaning of “fiction”.

Let's not take Mark Twain jests too serious. As you said: You never said authors of fiction were liars. So, why saying the bible can be called fiction would be the same as calling it a lie? Because fiction is not the same as lie. Does not matter if it is a oral tradition product or a modern authorship product.


Bingo! I’d also suggest that oral literature (of whatever genre) evolves organically. In other words, myths differ from fiction in that no SINGLE author invents them out of his imagination (note the word “single”, JCamilo). Instead, stories change over time as the story tellers embellish them to appeal to their audience or combine parts of different stories (often as a tactic to improve their storytelling).

Bingo!. Let's quote myself: So, that is why it is fictional, someone had to invent a garden of eden allegory. It is hilarious, so it is historically incorrect (lets say) that Moses existed, then how there is a Moses history? Obviously if it is not what really happened, someone made it up. If Solomon was a king, but nowhere as rich as suggested, so how those details came to the register? God sent and Angel with the mission to make stories more funny?

Does not matter how much authors you have, what matters is those works are mixed and changed by the imagination of a human, therefore, fits as fiction. You do not have folktales without the creativity of a human, faerie tales, parables, fables, etc. And that it has (or not) historical roots is irrelevant. The piper of hamelin has historical roots.



I read an analysis of The Iliad once where the author (I forget the reference) demonstrated that the story used many techniques essential to oral literature – many of the descriptive passages (“The wine-dark sea”) are pat, memorized passages that serve as a mnemonic aid to the storyteller. He can repeat them by rote, while he tries to remember where the story goes next. These pat sections differ from "fiction", however, because they are not "invented from the imagination" of the storyteller -- they are memorized as part of the storyteller's repertoire, and often repeated verbatim from earlier versions of the story.

You are telling me the "pat" was spontaneous generated by magic? All pats were once invented by a storyteller. They are left as mnemonic (although the improvisation could turn it in the fine-dark sea to help to keep the rythim, in case the storyteller forget it) cues, that people copy, but so are Shakespeare plays and they are of course once the product of someone imagination. Or just because all books are copied verbatim, this does not means the origal was not a product of imagination right? Orality does not change it, you cannot identify the authorship, but in orality still a momment of humam creation and all Iliad is certainly the product of one or more author's imagination.


OF course story tellers also have to “invent”, because they can’t remember word for word and incident by incident exactly how they originally heard the story. So their stories RESEMBLE fiction in that they include some “invention”, even when the storyteller is attempting to repeat the story as exactly as possible. Therefore, the stories change over time.

They do not resemble fiction. This is fiction. It is not fiction, the genre for book shops. It's fiction the production of human invention and creativity. The simple literary form of the bible is a production of human invention and creativity, even if they wanted it to be taken as a historical account (And I mean specific biblical books), just simple as put, they do not see the use of humam imagination as a form of lying. Our historical critery is not the same as their, if a guy exagerates the richness of Solomon, he would not think I am lying, he just think, I am making more interesting something that would be dull and nobody would listen and learn how it was.

[Ecurb]

Let's not take Mark Twain jests too serious. As you said: You never said authors of fiction were liars. So, why saying the bible can be called fiction would be the same as calling it a lie?.

We're simply misunderstanding each other. That's not what I said. I've repeated myself five times, and you seem unable to understand. One more try: if you called a modern work of history a "piece of fiction", you would be insulting the author, claiming that he was a liar in claiming the work was a history, not a piece of fiction. Of course it might be true that some parts of the history had been invented by authors (centries ago) whom the modern author mistakenly believed to be reporting reliable facts instead of inventing them. It's a subtle distinction.

Descriptive passages in The Iliad ("the wine dark sea) may have been invented to enliven the story, or they may have been actual eye-witness descripitons of the sea originally repeated by Odysseus himself. Who knows? It doesn't really matter if we call such passages "fictional" or not. Of course the Bible is the result of "human invention and creativity". So is "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". If we were to call "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" a "work of fiction" we would be impugning Gibbon's claim that it was a work of history. No doubt some bits of the Decline and Fall that were reported by Gibbon as historical facts were actually invented by ancient authors whose reports Gibbon believed. However, in standard English I'd suggest that calling "Decline and Fall" "a work of fiction" would be misleading, inaccurate and insulting to Gibbon. No doubt the Bible is less accurate historically than Decline and Fall, and some of the stories in it can reasonably be called "fictional". Nonetheless the principle remains the same. If (whoever wrote written version of the book of Kings, based on the oral tradition) was attempting (like Gibbon) to write an accurate history, but was misled because earlier contributors to the stories had added "fictional" episodes, how is the author of "Kings" writing a "work of fiction" any more than Gibbon was?

Let's look at the Gospels. Nobody has a perfect memory. None of the stories Jesus is quoted as telling could possibly be exactly accurate, word for word (assuming no divine intervention, of course). Nonetheless, if we imagine that the parables were repeated by early Christians as accurately as possible, and that the authors of the Gospels TRIED to write (as closely as they could) exactly what they believed Jesus said, it would be misleading to call the Gospels "works of fiction". In standard English, calling them "works of fiction' would imply that Matthew, Mark, et. al. had "intentionally invented" episodes, rather than attempting historical accuracy. I make no claims about which version of how the Gospels were written is correct (i have no idea)-- simply that calling the Gospels "fiction" suggests that Matthew et. al. intentionally invented (parts of) them.

[cafolini]

We're simply misunderstanding each other. That's not what I said. I've repeated myself five times, and you seem unable to understand. One more try: if you called a modern work of history a "piece of fiction", you would be insulting the author, claiming that he was a liar in claiming the work was a history, not a piece of fiction. Of course it might be true that some parts of the history had been invented by authors (centries ago) whom the modern author mistakenly believed to be reporting reliable facts instead of inventing them. It's a subtle distinction.

Descriptive passages in The Iliad ("the wine dark sea) may have been invented to enliven the story, or they may have been actual eye-witness descripitons of the sea originally repeated by Odysseus himself. Who knows? It doesn't really matter if we call such passages "fictional" or not. Of course the Bible is the result of "human invention and creativity". So is "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". If we were to call "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" a "work of fiction" we would be impugning Gibbon's claim that it was a work of history. No doubt some bits of the Decline and Fall that were reported by Gibbon as historical facts were actually invented by ancient authors whose reports Gibbon believed. However, in standard English I'd suggest that calling "Decline and Fall" "a work of fiction" would be misleading, inaccurate and insulting to Gibbon. No doubt the Bible is less accurate historically than Decline and Fall, and some of the stories in it can reasonably be called "fictional". Nonetheless the principle remains the same. If (whoever wrote written version of the book of Kings, based on the oral tradition) was attempting (like Gibbon) to write an accurate history, but was misled because earlier contributors to the stories had added "fictional" episodes, how is the author of "Kings" writing a "work of fiction" any more than Gibbon was?

Let's look at the Gospels. Nobody has a perfect memory. None of the stories Jesus is quoted as telling could possibly be exactly accurate, word for word (assuming no divine intervention, of course). Nonetheless, if we imagine that the parables were repeated by early Christians as accurately as possible, and that the authors of the Gospels TRIED to write (as closely as they could) exactly what they believed Jesus said, it would be misleading to call the Gospels "works of fiction". In standard English, calling them "works of fiction' would imply that Matthew, Mark, et. al. had "intentionally invented" episodes, rather than attempting historical accuracy. I make no claims about which version of how the Gospels were written is correct (i have no idea)-- simply that calling the Gospels "fiction" suggests that Matthew et. al. intentionally invented (parts of) them.

Without getting entangled with the motives of the writers, it is pure history. We can learn from it whatever we can. Who really cares whether they saw it as truth or fiction? It is plainly the history of truth and fiction in existential evolution.

[The Atheist]

I know they're in the minority, but me holding atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I actually expect most of them (even those that write about it philosophically) to reach it. Hell, I know I still have a lot to work on when it comes to myself. What I'm talking about, though, is along the lines of this (http://lesswrong.com/) and this (http://commonsenseatheism.com/) (I think Luke from the latter site gets it right in his tagline: "Atheism is just the beginning; now it's time to solve the harder questions.").

A site which is now defunct, I might add.

The trouble with your goal is that it's very much like Dawkins' awful, failed attempt to label rational atheists as "brights". All it does is court derision.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it to succeed, but I see no chance of it ever happening. It makes me cringe when some dopey mullet selling crystals for healing claims to be an atheist, but we're stuck with them.


I meant "rejecting the God hypothesis," the same way one would "reject Intelligent Design" or "flat-Earth theory."

That makes a lot better reading.


Ok, but what does a definition have to do with standards? We may call Hitler inhuman because of his actions, but we don't mean that he literally wasn't from the species known as homo sapiens, we merely mean he did a lot of terrible things that are way below the standard that we hold other humans to.

Inhuman is not a simile for non-human, though.


Similarly, I have no problem saying Mr. Idiot is an atheist if he doesn't believe in God but has a billion delusions the same as any theist does, but that doesn't mean I have to respect/care about his thoughts on the matter.

Quite right, but why would you think anyone would automatically have respect for other atheists? I certainly don't - I'm more of an actions speak louder than words guy.


And I think he qualifies in every way. How was Hitch NOT "addressing and responding to the problems of his society... and (engaging) with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time?" When he's making a living writing and debating about how religion is evil, he's making a living out of addressing and responding to the problems of society and engaging in issues of truth and judgment.

I suppose my line is drawn on whether the writer is appealing to emotion or reason. In Hitch's case, he was never appealing to reason, but to emotion. Based on the "addressing and responding to the problems of his society... and (engaging) with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time" qualifier, Jenny McArthy is a public intellectual.


I think that if there wasn't so much opposition to evolution amongst the religious, Dawkins never would've taken on that role to begin with (I could be wrong, but that's my sense).

But if you break it down, there is very little opposition to evolution among the religious. It really is only a small group of US-based Southern Baptist/Pentecostal churches that think that way.

Given Dawkins' progression, I don't believe fundies had that much of an affect on him, because they are rare in England.


Given how much of Kings has been confirmed: personages, certain battles and events, certain building projects, and geographic locations, etc. it's reasonable to assume it has a historical core. However, much like any ancient history the writers and editors interspersed folktales, legends, and myths to the historical material. Elisha and the bears would be an example of a folktale in the Kings Narrative. As a literary object, Kings is a theological history. The reigns of the kings are seen through the eyes of theology and how their reigns turn out based on how well they follow the rules of G-d. So, of course, one needs to be careful not to take everything in the book as literal history, but it definitely can serve as a guidepost.

Yep, I did say I'd be happy to consider it a starting point. If I could be bothered, I think it would be interesting to know what the ratio of fact to fantasy is in the bible. My guess would be 10 reality to 90 fantasy.


The rest of your reasoning is fallacious. Just because some parts are obviously mythical or imaginative doesn't mean all the parts are, especially given what we call the OT isn't one unified book, but a collection of different books by different authors.

Unfortunately, we know that every single book is chock-full of utter tripe. I gave one example from Kings that doesn't even work as an allegorical story, it's so hideous, and there are others.

Note that I also didn't say it was all fantasy, just that all parts are questionable. It isn't a fallacy to not trust any information in a book that is known to be almost entirely false or mythological.


Then you finish it up with a fallacy of irrelevance/non sequitur: "Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing." What does my thinking whether it's a "good thing" or not have to do with whether it really happened or not.

You know it didn't happen - I was giving you a chance to explain how it's even a good parable. Even 3000 years ago, I can't see how that made sense, unless you wanted your kids to have phobias about baldness.


Well, I think you're confusing the fundamentalist position of "it's all historically true! 100% accurate!" with my position, "large parts of the Bible are myths, folktales, poetry, and rules and regulations governing their society and fiction (by which I mean made-up stories), but certain books seem to be strongly historical with some folktales and myths grafted onto the material and can be useful as historical sources filtered through a critical eye and archaeology, and therefore we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, and anyone claiming the Bible is 100% fiction is equally full of nonsense and is holding an untenable position."

Luckily nobody's claimed it was 100% fantasy, and you're welcome to see it as a worthwhile historical source. You can call it Swiss cheese on chocolate cake for all I care.

I'll just stick with the position that it's overwhelmingly incorrect and/or mythological, and utterly worthless in the 21st century, a position which appears to be held by every recognised university I can find, since no courses outside of theology use it as any form of reference whatsoever*. We had a discussion some time back, and there was exactly one literature university course using the bible - at a US military college.

*Some history courses may use it in passing, but I can't find it in a curriculum anywhere.

In terms of not throwing it out, you're way too late - it's already been thrown out from the non-religious world, and good riddance, as far as I'm concerned. The only suitable place for bibles are churches.


Our historical critery is not the same as their, if a guy exagerates the richness of Solomon, he would not think I am lying, he just think, I am making more interesting something that would be dull and nobody would listen and learn how it was.

Proof it was written by men.

:D

[cafolini]

Proof it was written by men.

:D

No way. LOL

[russellb]

i wouldn't personally... by all accounts your welfare system is **** and all i can say about thalidomide people who are half deaf and totally blind is that they don't know how to fill forms in...as for christopher hitchens like most of us he was an intellectual donkey (i much prefer peter) and obviously his profs weren't impressed either...even i got better than a third...albeit not from the esteemed dreaming spires.

[Drkshadow03]

Yep, I did say I'd be happy to consider it a starting point. If I could be bothered, I think it would be interesting to know what the ratio of fact to fantasy is in the bible. My guess would be 10 reality to 90 fantasy.

[. . .]

Luckily nobody's claimed it was 100% fantasy, and you're welcome to see it as a worthwhile historical source. You can call it Swiss cheese on chocolate cake for all I care.

Except, you know, that is exactly what you claimed!

“I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document. . . . I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical. . . . In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.

I realize saying something is 100% fiction is not exactly the same as calling something 100% fantasy, but this is why it is hard to take you seriously as an interlocutor. You constantly switch your terms and wiggle your way out of your own fallacies and even just make stuff up.


Unfortunately, we know that every single book is chock-full of utter tripe. I gave one example from Kings that doesn't even work as an allegorical story, it's so hideous, and there are others.

Note that I also didn't say it was all fantasy, just that all parts are questionable. It isn't a fallacy to not trust any information in a book that is known to be almost entirely false or mythological.

I already explained why you’re reasoning was fallacious (it was a fallacy of composition), so no need to reiterate the obvious. Unfortunately, you’re still stuck on repeat and haven’t added anything new to your argument that was already challenged. Yes, there are mythical elements attached to some of the historical elements, but huge portions of Kings have been historically vindicated. No one is claiming the Bible is 100% historically accurate or that every book is of equal historical value.




I'll just stick with the position that it's overwhelmingly incorrect and/or mythological, and utterly worthless in the 21st century, a position which appears to be held by every recognised university I can find, since no courses outside of theology use it as any form of reference whatsoever*. We had a discussion some time back, and there was exactly one literature university course using the bible - at a US military college.

As usual you’re being dishonest and demonstrating your inability to deal with basic facts. I’m assuming you mean the Bible as literature debate. I was the one who responded to you in that thread and listed over 15 colleges that had featured the Bible in a literary course, two of them were Ivy Leagues, if I remember correctly. The academic world is teeming with courses that use the Bible, which are non-theological courses.

[cafolini]

Except, you know, that is exactly what you claimed!

“I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document. . . . I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical. . . . In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.

I realize saying something is 100% fiction is not exactly the same as calling something 100% fantasy, but this is why it is hard to take you seriously as an interlocutor. You constantly switch your terms and wiggle your way out of your own fallacies and even just make stuff up.



I already explained why you’re reasoning was fallacious (it was a fallacy of composition), so no need to reiterate the obvious. Unfortunately, you’re still stuck on repeat and haven’t added anything new to your argument that was already challenged. Yes, there are mythical elements attached to some of the historical elements, but huge portions of Kings have been historically vindicated. No one is claiming the Bible is 100% historically accurate or that every book is of equal historical value.





As usual you’re being dishonest and demonstrating your inability to deal with basic facts. I’m assuming you mean the Bible as literature debate. I was the one who responded to you in that thread and listed over 15 colleges that had featured the Bible in a literary course, two of them were Ivy Leagues, if I remember correctly. The academic world is teeming with courses that use the Bible, which are non-theological courses.

It would be hard to argue with you about this and what you are saying to atheist. I, however look at all literature as historical, regardless of the author/s intentions or motives. Every thing else is speculative in that area. However, when the bible is taken as the word of God, no one can deny it, regardless of who wrote it. But who could deny that a my toe is the word of God in that regard? Saint Agustin, for example, is very funny in that respect. He said that Joseph had to be virgin because otherwise God would have never given him his mother for a spouse.

[The Atheist]

Except, you know, that is exactly what you claimed!

If you don't understand the difference between fiction - which uses historical points as a basis for a story, as explained by JCamilo - and fantasy, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, then I probably can't help you.

The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.

The bits based on fact are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables attached to them.


As usual you’re being dishonest and demonstrating your inability to deal with basic facts. I’m assuming you mean the Bible as literature debate. I was the one who responded to you in that thread and listed over 15 colleges that had featured the Bible in a literary course, two of them were Ivy Leagues, if I remember correctly. The academic world is teeming with courses that use the Bible, which are non-theological courses.

Dishonesty? Basic facts? I said, and since you like quoting me, I'll do the same: "*Some history courses may use it in passing, but I can't find it in a curriculum anywhere."

You found 15 courses? Out of how many thousand courses? 10,000? 20,000? Admittedly I didn't look too hard, but on those numbers, I'll stick with the completely insignificant at this stage, thanks.

As I do recall, the original discussion was about English Literature degree-level courses, and it is factual that that the major non-religious universities around the world do not include the bible in their Eng Lit curriculum.

Maybe you'll believe a christian viewpoint on what's really happening with the bible in 2013: (http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/dr-paul-j-dean/christians-lack-bible-knowledge-sound-the-alarm-1393289.html)


Sadly, the common assumption that Christians possess an in-depth knowledge of the Bible is wrong.

So, not just academia has given up on the bible, so have everyday christians.

[Drkshadow03]

If you don't understand the difference between fiction - which uses historical points as a basis for a story, as explained by JCamilo - and fantasy, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, then I probably can't help you.

It seems to me in the context you used both the words, "fiction" and "fantasy" you meant: "a made-up event." If you had a specific definition in mind for each term it is your job to define them so as not to cause confusion (this is logic/argumentation 101 stuff). Since I'm fairly confident you used the words to mean the same thing and are just trying to wriggle out of your the intellectual hole of your own making this would also be a wonderful example of why I find you intellectually dishonest.


The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.

Repeating the same bad argument five hundred times won't make it true. The Bible is regarded as one of the greatest works of literature, this has already been demonstrated to you in a previous thread. So no need to rehash it here.



You found 15 courses? Out of how many thousand courses? 10,000? 20,000? Admittedly I didn't look too hard, but on those numbers, I'll stick with the completely insignificant at this stage, thanks.

No, I stopped at 15 courses because I got tired and felt that was more than enough to rebut your "evidence" in the Bible as Lit thread. There are plenty of others, plus many universities don't post their course offerings or syllabus on the open web, but often have a private system accessible to students only (hence your 10,000 or 20,000 comment is based on flawed assumptions).

Let's review exactly what happened in that other thread: you claimed that most major universities don't include the bible in their curriculum and you proved this by pointing to FOUR universities (not 15, not 10, not even 5, but just four) that didn't include it. Yet, here you are with your ONLY 15 nonsense. Like I said in the previous thread, two of the colleges I pointed to were Ivy Leagues and some of the others are known for their English departments, so clearly your statement "the major non-religious universities around the world do not include the bible in their Eng Lit curriculum" is false too. But what else is new?

At this point everything that needs to be said has been said. You've been shown to be demonstrably wrong on numerous assertions, haven't really provided much evidence to back-up your assertions, and have resorted to numerous fallacies in your discourse along the way. Not only with me, but pretty much with everyone else too! Last word is yours if you want it.

[The Atheist]

Let's review exactly what happened in that other thread: you claimed that most major universities don't include the bible in their curriculum and you proved this by pointing to FOUR universities (not 15, not 10, not even 5, but just four) that didn't include it. Yet, here you are with your ONLY 15 nonsense. Like I said in the previous thread, two of the colleges I pointed to were Ivy Leagues and some of the others are known for their English departments, so clearly your statement "the major non-religious universities around the world do not include the bible in their Eng Lit curriculum" is false too. But what else is new?

I will spend some time on this later, and rest assured, in the unlikely event I am wrong, I will admit it.



Edit: In fact, having given it a minute's thought, I can't see the point in spending a second of my time doing it, so I'll accept your position that the bible is still relevant in universities. I was wrong.

[cacian]

god made you and so how could he be bad?

[Ecurb]

If you don't understand the difference between fiction - which uses historical points as a basis for a story, as explained by JCamilo - and fantasy, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, then I probably can't help you. .

“The Atheist” is in fine form here. While it is true that the Atheist “probably can’t help” darkshadows, the remainder of the sentence is ridiculous. “Fantasy ” IS “fiction” (although not all fiction is fantasy). In addition, most fantasy bears a “resemblance to reality”, including, but not limited to: describing the adventures of human characters; when human characters are not included, the characters often resemble humans in that they speak some modern, human language; many of the characters can see, hear, and speak…..etc., etc., ad. infinitum.

The Atheist’s post is malarkey, EXCEPT THAT he “probably can’t help” darkshadows, or anybody else. On that single point, perhaps, we can find agreement.

One question, what are the “historical points” on which so many stories are based? The sharpened tips of halberds?

The atheist continues:
“ The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.

The bits based on fact are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables attached to them.”

Now The Atheist can read minds. Not only does he dismiss the Bible as third rate literature, but, through some uncanny psychic power, he is able to discern that the historical “bits are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables.” Perhaps he has channeled Moses, and thus learned his intent. Or maybe he has used his psychic powers to determine the purpose behind all that troublesome history in Kings. In any event, we should all exercise caution. Doubtless these same supernatural powers will enable The Atheist to determine the motives behind our posts, and we can be certain that he won’t be shy about revealing them (making them up?).

[The Atheist]

god made you and so how could he be bad?

Well, I'd dispute that myself.

It does raise the old conundrum that a god must have created evil along with the good.

[cacian]

Well, I'd dispute that myself.

It does raise the old conundrum that a god must have created evil along with the good.

ah well you see I personally believe god does only create the goods, people, and evil is the breed that has gone sour ie the bad seed.
one god does not make two bads ;)
meaning evil is the root cause of something else.
god is the root cause of good.
one has to dissociate bad with god for the simple reasons that there are causes obvious that breed evil and one must look into finding out what the causes are.
let's keep god out of it ie
god is a concept that is neither proven nor disproven and so to implicate a concept with something we do not like is simply passing the bucket and washing our hands of it. burying one's head in the sand or so to speak.
what is good is obvious it is simple and manageable there is no reason specific for good to exist it is simply is and does. it is natural to be good that is the norm. evil is abnormal or unusual let's say odd.
whereas evil comes from a something that has gone badly wrong and so one must look it for it and then get rid of it simple as that. god is nothing to do with logically speaking :)
also one must understand the meaning of evil it has many facets. evil/bad is a defect or an unoccurence that does not fit within the norms.
for example too much heat or too much cold can be described as bad.
too much swearing is bad.
too much rain/tsunamis/space exploration is bad.
bad transcends beyond a personne and therefore to implicate god which is a concept in that is simply ignoring the root causes of these misfortunes.

[The Atheist]

meaning evil is the root cause of something else.
god is the root cause of good.

This is an odd kind of religion you follow.

If something is causing the evil, is there another agent/cy at work?


space exploration is bad.

Why?

[cacian]

This is an odd kind of religion you follow.
lol well I do not have a religion. I do not believe in following any. but I do regulate my own thoughts by thinking things through and god is not immune of it since its concept is available for scrupules.


If something is causing the evil, is there another agent/cy at work?
indeed. the seven deadly sin is the indicator of what evil is about and why it is about. greed/ anger/jealousy are to name just few these are all a precipitator for bad to commit bad.


Why?
space is an unknown territory and not be to fouled with in my opinion. space exploration is pure pollution, anything we do up will affect us down in earth. if we damage the up ie put pressure on it, then we lower the down. ie what goes up must come down. we are already seeing the results. tsunamis earth quakes and lack of water all these are signs that space is not well heat condensation and industrial damages is being trailed on its paths. not good.

[Phocion]

I read "God is not Great" when it came out -- and quickly, so I don't remember all the details, just my general impression (which was in agreement with White's Salon article). I'll agree that while Dawkins' and Harris' arguments may be simplistic, it would be a stretch to call them "intellectually dishonest", as White calls Hitchens' arguments. Hitchens was a public intellectual, who should (at least) have been aware of (as just one example) Kierkegaard when he was bashing the Isaac and Abraham story.

I'm sorry, but what is this crap? Why should someone have to read what some guy wrote several millennia after the supposed events for it to be a valid critique? Is Bertrand Russell's critique of Christianity invalid also because he hadn't read Kierkegaard at the time? That makes no bloody sense, and nor does most of the rest of that pathetic article which constructs straw-man arguments left, right, and center, while clearly being ignorant of the actual premise of Hitchens's book. The guy acts like Hitchens claimed to be writing some philosophical treatise: he wasn't, the book was supposed to show the pernicious influence of religion, and to convey it in a way that could be understood by the masses (because this was obviously the audience he was intending to reach). Would his book have been more valid had he spent several hundred pages deconstructing the thought of Aquinas, Augustine and Jerome? Of course not: what those people thought all that time ago is irrelevant to the premise of the book.

Alas, some imbecile academics like the fool that wrote that article are incapable of understanding this. Why should a book be any more true because it is published by Oxford? The Oxford press will publish many books that openly contradict one another - they cannot all be correct! The guy clearly has an unerring faith in authority (which would explain why he hated Hitchens's book so much) and clearly so do you. You find an article online published by some mediocre academic, find it echoes your sentiments, and then post it with glee as if it is some kind of affirmation that your view is correct. Thus you viewed it with a completely uncritical eye and were somehow incapable of noticing that his argument is riddled with so many holes that you could write 10000 words deconstructing that piece of garbage.

Btw, just googled the guy who apparently wrote 'an admirably restrained review' of Hitchens's book, and he is a mormon for Christ's sake. And you'd take his opinion as fact? Jesus...

edit: and also: the bible is as much of a historical book as the Iliad.

[papillondemai]

I didn't read all of the Salon article but I did read God Is Not Great. Hitchens biggest criticism is not of God but of the way the Bible portrays Him and in the way people implement Him. Hitchens wanted to believe in the Biblical God but his education got in the way. He learned that men distorted the true nature of God in the Bible in order to control and manipulate other men. He wanted to believe that God loves us and made us superior to the animals, the plants and the minerals. But God doesn't. Atheists would rather think that there is no God than think that we are not first in God's heart. The question is not whether there is a God but: What is his true nature? After creating it all God stood back and watched and after a while He realized that the things that think ended up being the most vile, despicable and destructive of all his creations. God exists but He doesn't care for us any more than he cares for a pebble on a mountainside. In fact I think God derives a lot more pleasure and satisfaction from the pebble. Don't you? (You certainly do if the pebble is made of gold) So God is now pouring out His true love on a world somewhere across the universe inhabited by creatures that turned out to be truly noble of character and spirit. That place is still a paradise. God has abandoned us. He has left us to our own devices. He is allowing us to destroy ourselves and is doing it on his timetable, on geologic time not on human time. Slowly and painfully in this Sodom and Gomorrah where there is no Lot and no righteous creature to justify saving it. We don't realize it because we "see through a glass darkly" and want to think we are special. Like the William Holden character, Shears, in Bridge on the River Kwai, who said "sometimes I even think I'm Admiral Halsey." Sometimes we even think we are God.

....Sounds of laughter, shades of life
Are ringing through my opened ears
Inciting and inviting me.
Limitless undying love, which
Shines around me like a million suns,
It calls me on and on across the universe ....
Across The Universe
John Lennon

[The Atheist]

lspace is an unknown territory and not be to fouled with in my opinion. space exploration is pure pollution, anything we do up will affect us down in earth. if we damage the up ie put pressure on it, then we lower the down. ie what goes up must come down. we are already seeing the results. tsunamis earth quakes and lack of water all these are signs that space is not well heat condensation and industrial damages is being trailed on its paths. not good.

I think you'll find there have been tsunamis, earthquakes and water shortages long before there was space travel.


edit: and also: the bible is as much of a historical book as the Iliad.

Very good post, and great spot that the guy's a Moron.


Atheists would rather think that there is no God than think that we are not first in God's heart.

Congratulations! You just won the award for "Most Outrageously Nonsensical Sentence About Atheists".

Well played.

[papillondemai]

Congratulations! You just won the award for "Most Outrageously Nonsensical Sentence About Atheists".

Well played.

Sentence? The entire paragraph is "outrageously nonsensical." A product of my imagination. But at least I tried to come up with an original idea so I could express my disgust with "humanity" instead of just regurgitating a bunch of pretentious "high falutin" slightly modified intellectual gibberish I read somewhere else. The objective reality is probably that "we live and we die." Period. And I say probably because I am not so arrogant as to think that I "know" because I read a bunch of obscure books at a rich kid snob school.

[SFG75]

I have to say that I really enjoy Hitchens and his work. I just recently finished Mortality and I have to say that I found it to be very refreshing and honest, even in the face of impending death. He had a number of pithy, funny comments as well, typical Hitch style. I would agree with the Salon critic that Hitch picks and chooses his evidence. He is the kind of guy who would go on about religion and slavery, lord knows there are plenty examples of how it was used to justify the practice-Hamitic curse theory being one of the big "reasons." At the same time, Hitch wouldn't mention the likes of William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, or other religiously motivated abolitionists that religion was a huge part of. The Unitarian and Quaker movements have a lot of positive contributions to society and have been a source of goodness throughout the years, though the latter sectarian group did give us Richard Nixon. :lol:

[Phocion]

A reply was posted in Salon that, i think, adequately takes to pieces the article posted at the start of this thread:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_lia r/

It really was a disgraceful piece of writing.

[Ecurb]

Thanks for posting the Salon response to White’s article. It’s more carefully constructed than most of the critiques of White posted here (not surprisingly, since it’s written for publication). In addition, Delora’s complaint that White has failed to “closely read” Hitchens’ book definitely applies to me – I remember reading it in a book store when it came out, over a 2 hour period. Nonetheless, Delora is guilty of many of the same intellectual sins of which he accuses White.

Delora reports that Hitchens’ position is: “In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.” However, if the above is true, wouldn’t it be equally correct to state: “…If you want to make wicked people do good things, you’ll need religion.”? Why the one, and not the other?

Besides, the claim that religion “functions” ONLY to make good people do evil things defies common sense. The moral precepts of Christianity include the golden rule, the Ten Commandments, the parables of Jesus, etc. How do these “function” to make good people do evil things, but not the reverse?

The “school” of anthropology that developed at Oxford in the mid 20th century (not long before Hitchens attended) is called “structural-functionalism”. Its developers included A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and E. Evans-Pritchard – perhaps the most famous Oxford anthropologists (identifiable as such by their hyphenated last names). Their notion was metaphorical – just as the organs of the body “function” to maintain the whole body, the institutions of society (political structures, religious structures, economic structures) “function” to maintain the whole society.

Structural –functionalism has fallen out of favor in anthropology. The evolutionary assumptions upon which it is based are dubious (as are similar biological evolutionary assumptions). We cannot assume that because an institution (or an organ) exists, it “functions” to preserve the society (or organism) as a whole. That is assuming the antecedent (if that’s the right name for the logical error). Nonetheless, it’s reasonable to think it LIKELY that religion serves a social function. Indeed, if religion serves ONLY negative functions (as Hitchens appears to suggest), it is likely that evolutionary forces would not have allowed it to be so persistent and pervasive in human societies. Clearly, if nothing else, religions create group solidarity among adherents – ritual behaviors (for example, calling fellow believers by kinship term such as “brother”) suggest that religion can help create a kin-like relationship among non-relatives.

Delora continues:


Yes, here White is correct. We should understand what made up Hitchens’ irreligious principles and ethical framework. How can we possibly be expected to trust a man who decries religion yet offers very little in the way of a description or framework of ethics as an alternative? Except, he does. On the very same page, in the very same paragraph that White quotes, Hitchens succinctly and brilliantly outlines his own version of an ethical and principled kind of reason: “Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”

Very well. I respect free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas just like Hitchens does. But what is Delora getting at here? Respecting open mindedness hardly constitutes any kind of complete ethos. The open-minded can murder and steal and lack respect for their fathers and mothers, just like the close-minded can. The extent to which religion is valuable (to us atheists) is the extent to which it has helped form our own set of ethics, and the extent to which it has functioned to maintain and develop our society, and inform our culture. Clearly, inasmuch as ethics are culturally constituted, Christianity has informed and influenced the Western ethos. No doubt Christianity has also led (in part) to crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts. Immorality must involve something other than “contradict(ing) science or outrag(ing) reason”. “Open-mindedness” itself suggests that our “reason” ought to be occasionally “outraged”, because, like the reason of our superstitious and benighted religious ancestors, it probably leads us into a great many mistakes, errors, and delusions.

The debate continues on Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/hitchens_wasnt_a_philosopher/

[papillondemai]

Delora reports that Hitchens’ position is: “In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.” However, if the above is true, wouldn’t it be equally correct to state: “…If you want to make wicked people do good things, you’ll need religion.”? Why the one, and not the other?

Besides, the claim that religion “functions” ONLY to make good people do evil things defies common sense. The moral precepts of Christianity include the golden rule, the Ten Commandments, the parables of Jesus, etc. How do these “function” to make good people do evil things, but not the reverse?

We cannot assume that because an institution (or an organ) exists, it “functions” to preserve the society (or organism) as a whole. .

It is easier to manipulate a "good" family man into killing in the name of God, than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life at the expense of his own personal power and wealth. The good man is brainwashed with propaganda about how it is necessary to kill to preserve his family, home and nation; But how do you manipulate a wicked man to do something good when it will diminish his wealth and power? The vast majority today unfortunately falls into the "wicked" category. They selectively ignore the moral precepts you talk about when it interferes with their acquisition of more things. The vast majority is out there lying, cheating, stealing and pimping themselves because they have been brainwashed by evil corporations like Nike and Apple into wanting outrageously expensive IPhones and gaudy shoes.

Institutions exist to protect the one percent and control the 99%. Preserving society is the propaganda. Thomas Hobbes says the "life of man is short, brutish and nasty." Because that is so man lives in terror. The Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov says that the masses give up their true freedom to the "institutions" in exchange for a slave job, some semblance of security and the promise of Heaven. But the institutions really only protect the property and safety of the one percent.

In "Matin" (from Season In Hell) Rimbaud says "When shall we go beyond the mountains and the shores to greet the birth of new toil of new wisdom, the flight of tyrants, of demons, the end of superstition .... Slaves let us not curse life." Never. That's when.

[MorpheusSandman]

The debate continues on Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/hitchens_wasnt_a_philosopher/Excerpt:
Hitchens’ informal style, the sort of brilliant uncle talking at a party, causes trouble because it appears that he skipped generations of important philosophers and certain intellectual traditions. How do you talk about religion and truth and knowledge without bringing in explicit questions of epistemology, of what we actually say about truth? All of these questions make some of Hitchens’ argument feel amateurish, like late-night dorm room philosophizing, which can be brilliant, but rarely precise. Not that academic jargon always matters one way or the other, but to discount countless theories on what it means to know, on the meaning of truth, makes Hitchens’ arguments sound simplistic.

To give a small example, at no point does anyone question the ability to know and learn anything specific from history. What historical events, especially trends that span many centuries, are ever so clear as to point to any sort of lesson. Let’s say we did sit down and judge the value of religion throughout history. How do you go about truly gauging the effects of religion on society? What counts as variables, as evidence, even as religion? History, as all historians of today will tell you, is not a science in that sense. How do you know what to put on the scales, and how much everything weighs? To begin to use point systems attests to the impossibility of this attempt. Moreover, how do you begin to assess cause and correlation? Does religion engender evil or provide an outlet? Couldn’t any system of government or societal makeup serve as an outlet for our violent tendencies? Again, I don’t agree with any of these positions, but not to flesh out these ambiguities makes Hitchens polemical and not philosophical. Polemics, while interesting, enlightening and often compelling, rarely further the conversation.I think this hits the nail firmly on the proverbial head when it comes to my complaints about Hitch.

[Ecurb]

It is easier to manipulate a "good" family man into killing in the name of God, than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life at the expense of his own personal power and wealth. The good man is brainwashed with propaganda about how it is necessary to kill to preserve his family, home and nation; But how do you manipulate a wicked man to do something good when it will diminish his wealth and power? The vast majority today unfortunately falls into the "wicked" category. They selectively ignore the moral precepts you talk about when it interferes with their acquisition of more things. The vast majority is out there lying, cheating, stealing and pimping themselves because they have been brainwashed by evil corporations like Nike and Apple into wanting outrageously expensive IPhones and gaudy shoes.

Institutions exist to protect the one percent and control the 99%. Preserving society is the propaganda. Thomas Hobbes says the "life of man is short, brutish and nasty." Because that is so man lives in terror. The Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov says that the masses give up their true freedom to the "institutions" in exchange for a slave job, some semblance of security and the promise of Heaven. But the institutions really only protect the property and safety of the one percent.

In "Matin" (from Season In Hell) Rimbaud says "When shall we go beyond the mountains and the shores to greet the birth of new toil of new wisdom, the flight of tyrants, of demons, the end of superstition .... Slaves let us not curse life." Never. That's when.

Anthropology informs us that this is dubious. Why? Many simpler societies (especially hunters and gatherers) are economically and politically egalitarian (or at least reasonably egalitarian). The political and economic institutions that may facilitate the continued authority of the 1% don’t exist in these societies, because the 1% don’t exist. However, religion exists. Is it reasonable to claim that religion (i.e. supernatural claims about causation, afterlife, etc.) functions in one way in these simpler societies, and in a completely different way in our society?

Of course religion has changed over the centuries, and modern religion differs from the religions of hunters and gatherers. However, if we want to look at the ESSENCE of religion, then we must see the commonalities as well as the differences.

Also, I disagree that it is easier to “manipulate a good family man into killing… than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life….” Why would it be? This seems to assume that man is essentially self interested, which is clearly incorrect. Not only humans, but all (female) mammals routinely act against their own self interest by giving scarce resources they could use to improve their own lives to their offspring. Selflessness is an essential property of mammalian behavior. The “good” and the “wicked” alike behave this way.

Finally, the notion that we are all “brainwashed” by corporate “propaganda” seems elitist to me. It may condemn the economic 1%, but suggests that there is an intellectual 1% who are so clever as to be immune to such brainwashing. Somehow those who think Nike and Apple (or the Catholic Church) have “brainwashed” the masses have inevitably escaped these pernicious influences themselves. But why should they be better than the rest of us? Or (perhaps) are they simply “brainwashed” by different influential sources (Marxism, etc., etc.)?

Regarding the Salon article and Morpheus’s comment, it always seemed to me that Hitchens enjoyed invective as a literary style. However, he often appeared more interested in teasing and tweaking his (obtuse or imaginary) opponents in the debate than in actually pursuing the issue with any depth or subtlety.

[YesNo]

Delora reports that Hitchens’ position is: “In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.”

That sentence would make more sense if "religion" were replaced with "self-righteousness". Self-righteousness is not something peculiar to religion. That flows through Christian antisemitism to racism all the way to the explicit and deadly atheism of the Khmer Rouge.

As I read Curtis White's criticism of Hitchens, although he focused on Hitchens' (and Dawkins') errors, it seemed this polemical self-righteousness is what bothered him the most. White ended his article with a quote by Nietzsche: “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”

But, some might argue, why is that bad? What's wrong with presenting a Tarantino-style fantasy for mass consumption and profit? All of us seem to love hating the bad guy. We just need someone to define who that bad guy is. Well, Hitchens did not claim he was writing a novel or a movie and, of course, he has his free speech. He seemed to me to be attempting to generate hatred against real people, the kind you meet on the street, much like an antisemitic or racist person would. Much like a follower of Pol Pot would.

Thanks for bringing Curtis White to my attention, Ecurb. I've started reading his The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think for Themselves (2003). If that turns out as good as it has started, I'll try the The Science Delusion.

[papillondemai]

Many simpler societies (especially hunters and gatherers) are economically and politically egalitarian

Also, I disagree that it is easier to “manipulate a good family man into killing… than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life….” Why would it be? This seems to assume that man is essentially self interested, which is clearly incorrect. Not only humans, but all (female) mammals routinely act against their own self interest by giving scarce resources they could use to improve their own lives to their offspring. Selflessness is an essential property of mammalian behavior. The “good” and the “wicked” alike behave this way.

Finally, the notion that we are all “brainwashed” by corporate “propaganda” seems elitist to me. It may condemn the economic 1%, but suggests that there is an intellectual 1% who are so clever as to be immune to such brainwashing. Somehow those who think Nike and Apple (or the Catholic Church) have “brainwashed” the masses have inevitably escaped these pernicious influences themselves. But why should they be better than the rest of us? Or (perhaps) are they simply “brainwashed” by different influential sources (Marxism, etc., etc.)?

it always seemed to me that Hitchens enjoyed invective as a literary style. However, he often appeared more interested in teasing and tweaking his (obtuse or imaginary) opponents in the debate than in actually pursuing the issue with any depth or subtlety.

Mistaken double post here. The one below is the correct one.

[papillondemai]

Many simpler societies (especially hunters and gatherers) are economically and politically egalitarian

Also, I disagree that it is easier to “manipulate a good family man into killing… than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life….” Why would it be? This seems to assume that man is essentially self interested, which is clearly incorrect. Not only humans, but all (female) mammals routinely act against their own self interest by giving scarce resources they could use to improve their own lives to their offspring. Selflessness is an essential property of mammalian behavior. The “good” and the “wicked” alike behave this way.

Finally, the notion that we are all “brainwashed” by corporate “propaganda” seems elitist to me. It may condemn the economic 1%, but suggests that there is an intellectual 1% who are so clever as to be immune to such brainwashing. Somehow those who think Nike and Apple (or the Catholic Church) have “brainwashed” the masses have inevitably escaped these pernicious influences themselves. But why should they be better than the rest of us? Or (perhaps) are they simply “brainwashed” by different influential sources (Marxism, etc., etc.)?

it always seemed to me that Hitchens enjoyed invective as a literary style. However, he often appeared more interested in teasing and tweaking his (obtuse or imaginary) opponents in the debate than in actually pursuing the issue with any depth or subtlety.

These "simpler societies" essentially no longer exist and are irrelevant. They have been murdered and marginalized so the one-percent could steal their land to rape, plunder and pillage it. There may be a small group of them left in a remote jungle in someplace like New Guinea, but they haven't been exterminated only because they are on land that has no oil or gold, or gas or coal or copper or bauxite or lithium or whatever they need to make more Iphones, more BMWs, more Air Jordans 11, more XBoxes or whatever gadget, trinket or piece of junk some debased child will shoot you for the change in your pocket in order to buy. The truth is that human beings are a blight upon the earth.

I never said we are "all" brainwashed. But most of you are. If there was not some brainwashing, and by that I mean sophisticated consumer advertising which creates demand using manipulative psychological techniques, a kid would not shoot another kid to steal shoes he has been convinced he must have. "Selflessness is an essential property of mammalian behavior. The “good” and the “wicked” alike behave this way." You must live in never never land, not the real world. Where do you see selfless human beings? Hitchens has made a convincing argument that even someone like Mother Theresa was not selfless. If there was a significant amount of selflessness in the world, the world would not be as corrupt as it is. For example, the 1% has an untold number of trillions of dollars in the bank. The Dow keeps breaking records and every day it is at a new high. The people have no jobs and the most degenerate among them are out shooting people for the change in their pockets. But the 1% will not hire people because they didn't get yet more tax cuts. Animals may be "selfless" because they are biologically programmed that way. A canine ***** will give "scarce resources they could use to improve their own lives to their offspring" but a human ***** with a "rational" agenda which has overridden her biological programming will drop the offspring off at a fire station. Animals only abandon weaker offspring if it is necessary to save the others. Humans do it for the degenerate motive of convenience. You make your arguments that human beings are selfless because of your own self interest in wanting to believe that YOU are selfless. I have no self interest in needing to believe that I am selfless, and become more selfless than you by freely admitting that when push comes to shove I am going to save my own *** first. If you don't admit that you are the same, you are a liar or, worse, self-deceived, rather than selfless; and if you really wouldn't save your own *** first then you are a fool.

"....suggests that there is an intellectual 1% who are so clever as to be immune to such brainwashing." Wrong. There are an enlightened few among the 99% who are immune, people like me who won't pimp themselves out in order to acquire BMWs, the latest IPhones, and stupid shoes that moronic kids pay $1000.00 for, people who refuse to do whatever it takes to acquire more and more things which bring about the destruction of the environment. People like me who are not influenced by "Marxism" but rather people whose intrinsic decency have allowed them to resist the debasement and temptations of a consumption driven society.

"....it always seemed to me that Hitchens enjoyed invective as a literary style. However, he often appeared more interested in teasing and tweaking his (obtuse or imaginary) opponents...." This is what I find most appealing about Hitchens' writing. Can't you tell? He does "teasing and tweaking" so eloquently and his opponents usually deserve no sympathy!

[YesNo]

Thanks for bringing Curtis White to my attention, Ecurb. I've started reading his The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think for Themselves (2003). If that turns out as good as it has started, I'll try the The Science Delusion.

I'm planning to take the White book back to the library. He seems to be rambling too much for my patience level expecting me to accept whatever he has to say on his own authority. Hitchens does the same thing, by the way.

I still think White is correct about Hitchens. I just don't see a reason to spend any more time pursing his "middle mind" concept.

[Ecurb]

These "simpler societies" essentially no longer exist and are irrelevant. They have been murdered and marginalized so the one-percent could steal their land to rape, plunder and pillage it. There may be a small group of them left in a remote jungle in someplace like New Guinea, but they haven't been exterminated only because they are on land that has no oil or gold, or gas or coal or copper or bauxite or lithium or whatever they need to make more Iphones, more BMWs, more Air Jordans 11, more XBoxes or whatever gadget, trinket or piece of junk some debased child will shoot you for the change in your pocket in order to buy. The truth is that human beings are a blight upon the earth.

I never said we are "all" brainwashed. But most of you are. If there was not some brainwashing, and by that I mean sophisticated consumer advertising which creates demand using manipulative psychological techniques, a kid would not shoot another kid to steal shoes he has been convinced he must have. "Selflessness is an essential property of mammalian behavior. The “good” and the “wicked” alike behave this way." You must live in never never land, not the real world. Where do you see selfless human beings? Hitchens has made a convincing argument that even someone like Mother Theresa was not selfless. If there was a significant amount of selflessness in the world, the world would not be as corrupt as it is. For example, the 1% has an untold number of trillions of dollars in the bank. The Dow keeps breaking records and every day it is at a new high. The people have no jobs and the most degenerate among them are out shooting people for the change in their pockets. But the 1% will not hire people because they didn't get yet more tax cuts. Animals may be "selfless" because they are biologically programmed that way. A canine ***** will give "scarce resources they could use to improve their own lives to their offspring" but a human ***** with a "rational" agenda which has overridden her biological programming will drop the offspring off at a fire station. Animals only abandon weaker offspring if it is necessary to save the others. Humans do it for the degenerate motive of convenience. You make your arguments that human beings are selfless because of your own self interest in wanting to believe that YOU are selfless. I have no self interest in needing to believe that I am selfless, and become more selfless than you by freely admitting that when push comes to shove I am going to save my own *** first. If you don't admit that you are the same, you are a liar or, worse, self-deceived, rather than selfless; and if you really wouldn't save your own *** first then you are a fool.

"....suggests that there is an intellectual 1% who are so clever as to be immune to such brainwashing." Wrong. There are an enlightened few among the 99% who are immune, people like me who won't pimp themselves out in order to acquire BMWs, the latest IPhones, and stupid shoes that moronic kids pay $1000.00 for, people who refuse to do whatever it takes to acquire more and more things which bring about the destruction of the environment. People like me who are not influenced by "Marxism" but rather people whose intrinsic decency have allowed them to resist the debasement and temptations of a consumption driven society.

"....it always seemed to me that Hitchens enjoyed invective as a literary style. However, he often appeared more interested in teasing and tweaking his (obtuse or imaginary) opponents...." This is what I find most appealing about Hitchens' writing. Can't you tell? He does "teasing and tweaking" so eloquently and his opponents usually deserve no sympathy!

I like some of Hitchens' essays. Your post, however, is nonsensical. “Simpler societies… are irrelevant”, you write. Irrelevant to what? They are surely NOT irrelevant to any discussion of the function of religion in society, or to a discussion of how that function developed and evolved.

Papillondemai continues, “There are an enlightened few among the 99% who are immune, people like me who won't pimp themselves out in order to acquire BMWs, the latest IPhones, and stupid shoes that moronic kids pay $1000.00 for, people who refuse to do whatever it takes to acquire more and more things which bring about the destruction of the environment. People like me who are not influenced by "Marxism" but rather people whose intrinsic decency have allowed them to resist the debasement and temptations of a consumption driven society.”

Oh. If only I’d known you were one of the “enlightened few” I wouldn’t have contradicted you. How are you able to post here on Literary Forum without a computer, I wonder? Surely you haven’t been “brainwashed” (by that I mean being influenced by “sophisticated consumer advertising which creates demand using manipulative psychological techniques.”), have you?

Papillondemai has not succumbed to cultural influences: he is ruled by “intrinsic decency”. Somehow, however, his “intrinsic decency” does not prevent him from calling everyone else “a blight upon the earth”.

My favorite bit of Papillondemai nonsense, however, is: “. I have no self interest in needing to believe that I am selfless, and become more selfless than you by freely admitting that when push comes to shove I am going to save my own *** first. If you don't admit that you are the same, you are a liar or, worse, self-deceived, rather than selfless; and if you really wouldn't save your own *** first then you are a fool.”

Let’s see. By admitting that he is selfish, Pap is ACTUALLY selfless. Such is his “intrinsic (if illogical) decency”, shining like a beacon of hope that the rest of us can vainly hope to emulate.

[papillondemai]

"Irrelevant to what?" Irrelevant in regard to having any real impact on what is going on in the world. They are irrelevant to all those who are "a blight upon the earth," although I find much more spirituality in the animist "religions" that typically characterize the societies which you denigrate by calling them "simpler," than I find in, for example, Joel Osteen's money grubbing "church." You are mischaracterizing what I say. I didn't say everyone else is a "blight upon the earth." I meant that all those who are contributing to the destruction of the environment through aggressive consumerism are the blight. But if you are saying those people are "everyone else" then that is your conclusion.

"Oh. If only I’d known you were one of the “enlightened few” I wouldn’t have contradicted you. How are you able to post here on Literary Forum without a computer, I wonder? Surely you haven’t been “brainwashed” (by that I mean being influenced by “sophisticated consumer advertising which creates demand using manipulative psychological techniques.”), have you?" Talk about nonsensical!!! This statement is truly nonsensical. Just because I own a computer doesn't mean I have been influenced by "sophisticated consumer advertising." A computer is now a necessity, not a luxury. I have not been influenced by sophisticated consumer advertising because I will not run out and wait in a long line to buy the most recent luxury gadget that is manufactured in a foreign country while Americans have no jobs. I do not own a smart phone; I have lived in a two bedroom one bath house for more than 20 years; I do not have an e-bay buying addiction; I buy what I need used on craigslist; I drive a ten year old Chevy; I buy clothes and books at thrift stores; I will pick something out of a trash pile if I can use it; I do not own a big flat screen 1080i hi-definition digital TV; I have an old type TV I found on CL for 25.00; I do not subscribe to cable; I practice what I preach. Yes, dog gone it, I am selfless because I take only what I really need (like the people in those "simpler societies" as you call them) and leave something for the next guy that comes along.

My favorite bit of Ecurb nonsense is this pompous, meaningless, mealy mouthed attempt to sound witty and educated: "shining like a beacon of hope that the rest of us can vainly hope to emulate." LOL

[Ecurb]

You're practically a saint, Pap. You admit it yourself.

In addition, those consumer items (like computers) that Pap owns are "necessities". The rest of us make our purchases because we are "brainwashed". It is interesting, however, that Pap doesn't believe foreign workers deserve to make money -- he'd prefer to "buy American", while third world laborers starve. Perhaps he has been "brainwashed" into thinking Americans superior and more deserving of his money (he must have lots of it, since he doesn't buy anything). If computers are necessities, how are laborers in Thailand, Indonesia and India going to buy them if Pap won't purchase the goods they make?

As for how you "shine like a beacon of hope", pap, yes, it is pompous, lampooning as it does your pomposity (see the second paragraph in your last post). I've seldom seen anyone so pleased with himself for picking through trash and refusing to subscribe to cable. The other people I know who pick through trash seldom brag about it.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not discuss each other but the topics at hand.

Personalised and/or off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[Ecurb]

OK. Back to the subject. Here's a link to yet another Salon article on the subjet:


http://www.salon.com/2007/12/19/john_haught/

One of the points Haught makes is relevant to arguments earlier in this thread -- i.e. about the nature of "evidence":



What do you say to the atheists who demand evidence or proof of the existence of a transcendent reality?


The hidden assumption behind such a statement is often that faith is belief without evidence. Therefore, since there’s no scientific evidence for the divine, we should not believe in God. But that statement itself — that evidence is necessary — holds a further hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence. And beneath that assumption, there’s the deeper worldview — it’s a kind of dogma — that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement. It’s a deep faith commitment because there’s no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It’s a creed.

[cafolini]

Science is not always a creed, and in the hands of scientists that are not stupid, it is knowledge. Yet, as knowledge of the universe, theverseoftheUNI, or anything based on unproven clues, it is definitely not only a creed but also a very stupid one when it pretends to suffice.

[MorpheusSandman]

OK. Back to the subject. Here's a link to yet another Salon article on the subjet:


http://www.salon.com/2007/12/19/john_haught/

One of the points Haught makes is relevant to arguments earlier in this thread -- i.e. about the nature of "evidence":Well, I agree with him about New Atheism (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) VS Old Atheism (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus). However, I want to say that it's a bit of an unfair comparison because Dawkins and Harris (at least) are scientists trying to transition into philosophy; philosophy is a complex enough subject to spend a lifetime meditating on without mastering, much less trying to move from one similarly complex, demanding discipline (science) into philosophy. I wonder how different Nietzsche's writings would've been if he had access to the scientific information of the New Atheists? Funnily enough, I don't remember much talk of science in Sartre or Camus; at least, they didn't seem to feel science could answer such questions/issues. Dennett is another matter, though, and I do find him a formidable philosopher who seems quite well-read on these issues.

I also have no issue with what Haught says about ID, Biblical literalists, or theology taking on science rather than ignoring (IE, rejecting the "non-overlapping Magisterium" or "NOMA" argument). However, when Haught gets into talking about his own theological philosophy it's just more of the same old bunk arguments that are easily shot down:
Isn’t there a simple response to the materialist argument? You can say “purpose” is simply not a scientific idea. Instead, it’s an idea for theologians and philosophers to debate. Do you accept that distinction?

I sure do. But that distinction is usually violated in scientific literature and in much discussion of evolution. From the beginning of the modern world, science decided quite rightly that it wasn’t going to tackle such questions as purpose, value, meaning, importance, God, or even talk about intelligence or subjectivity. It was going to look for purely natural, causal, mechanical explanations of things. And science has every right to be that way. But that principle of scientific Puritanism is often violated by scientists who think that by dint of their scientific expertise, they are able to comment on such things as purpose. I consider that to be a great violation.
…
But Dawkins argues that a lot of claims made on behalf of God — about how God created the world and interacts with people — are ultimately questions about nature. Unless you say God has nothing to do with nature, those become scientific questions.

Well, I approach these issues by making a case for what I call “layered explanation.” For example, if a pot of tea is boiling on the stove, and someone asks you why it’s boiling, one answer is to say it’s boiling because H2O molecules are moving around excitedly, making a transition from the liquid state to the gaseous state. And that’s a very good answer. But you could also say it’s boiling because my wife turned the gas on. Or you could say it’s boiling because I want tea. Here you have three levels of explanation which are approaching phenomena from different points of view. This is how I see the relationship of theology to science. Of course I think theology is relevant to discussing the question, what is nature? What is the world? It would talk about it in terms of being a gift from the Creator, and having a promise built into it for the future. Science should not touch upon that level of understanding. But it doesn’t contradict what evolutionary biology and the other sciences are telling us about nature. They’re just different levels of understanding.

do you say to the atheists who demand evidence or proof of the existence of a transcendent reality?

The hidden assumption behind such a statement is often that faith is belief without evidence. Therefore, since there’s no scientific evidence for the divine, we should not believe in God. But that statement itself — that evidence is necessary — holds a further hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence. And beneath that assumption, there’s the deeper worldview — it’s a kind of dogma — that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement. It’s a deep faith commitment because there’s no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It’s a creed.

Are you’re saying scientists are themselves practicing a kind of religion?

The new atheists have made science the only road to truth. They have a belief, which I call “scientific naturalism,” that there’s nothing beyond nature — no transcendent dimension — that every cause has to be a natural cause, that there’s no purpose in the universe, and that scientific explanations, especially in their Darwinian forms, can account for everything living. But the idea that science alone can lead us to truth is questionable. There’s no scientific proof for that. Those are commitments that I would place in the category of faith. So the proposal by the new atheists that we should eliminate faith in all its forms would also apply to scientific naturalism. But they don’t want to go that far. So there’s a self-contradiction there. When Dawkins et al. are commenting on “purpose” they are essentially making that “transition” I talked about between science and philosophy. It seems strange to me that Haught would object to this by saying, essentially, that science can’t talk about purpose when, later on, he’s advocating theologians “taking on science” and forming theological theories based on what the science knows. Why does he see what Dawkins and Harris are doing (ie, transitioning scientific knowledge into atheistic philosophy) as being different than what he’s advocating, except that they’re doing it for atheism and he’s advocating doing it for theology? It seems rather hypocritical, to me, a way of saying “Oh, atheists can’t use science to argue for their philosophy; but theists SHOULD use science to argue for their philosophy!”

Next, his “layered explanation” is nothing but a classic case of “map compression” (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nw/fallacies_of_compression/ ) and “mistaking the map for the territory.” (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_territory_%28sequence%29 ) In his answer, the only ACTUAL answer is the first one. The second answer is only an incomplete version of the first (my wife turned the gas on, and the gas… H20 molecules moving around excitedly) where we’re meant to infer what’s left out. The third answer is actually an answer to a slightly different question (“Why are you boiling water?”). However, I don’t see even how his analogy is meant to apply to the issue of theology and science at all… exactly what is what in that analogy? Water boiling because of H20 molecules is science and… saying “I wanted tea” is theology?” Doesn’t make much sense. The problem regarding his theology “talk(ing) about (life and nature) being a gift from the Creator” and that it “doesn’t contradict what (science) tells us about nature” is that, well, there’s nothing in science that points to a Creator! No, they’re not “different levels of understanding,” one is a method that’s proven amazingly effective for understanding how reality functions (science), and the other is a claim about how reality functions that has no evidence supporting it.

He tries to address this in the next two questions, but fails utterly by, essentially, resorting to the same NOMA argument which he rejected earlier. He denigrates the idea that “all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence,” but if he’s going to claim that God and spiritual matters can’t be supported via scientific evidence, then how is this NOT the “NOMA" argument exactly? His talking about scientific dogma also ignores the historical efficacy of science for understanding reality VS the completely impoverished history of religion (not to mention science’s history of debunking religious claims about reality). So the reason certain atheists share this “materialistic/scientific dogma” is because science’s record for achieving what it set out to accomplish is, thus far, impeccable. We’re betting on a winner, and ditching the loser. This is not “faith,” this is called inferential reasoning. It requires no more “faith” to assume this scientific, materialistic stance than it takes to have “faith” the sun will rise tomorrow. Absolute consistency of experience is awfully darn good evidence. There’s no “proof” that materialism is all there is, or that science can know everything, but it’s the best bet at this point given history since the scientific revolution.

I do think there are SOME limits to what science can discuss. The general idea that science can't tell us what is moral is right, but it can, however, help us determine what actions are more or less likely to lead to our ideal life once we agree on what's moral. The problem is, however, that if you're going to argue that we need God for morality and that God exists, then you are crossing into scientific territory, since science can/has been able to tell us not only what exists, but how what exists functions. So before the "God is needed for morality" can even get off the ground, it has to cross through the scientific process of proving God's existence. It's much easier to just agree that we have to mutually come up with morality on our own and not worry about whether or not our moral systems are decreed by anything divine or objective. Otherwise, it's just as easy to use such a proposed divine source to justify any moral system (no matter how damaging) as it is to use it to justify an actual good one.

[YesNo]

One of the points Haught makes is relevant to arguments earlier in this thread -- i.e. about the nature of "evidence":

There is evidence for all sorts of things, such as, UFOs, near or shared death experiences, whether any human actually passed through the Van Allen radiation belts to get near the moon or not during the Apollo missions, or whether consciousness can change random number generators.

The problem with evidence is whether it is accepted and by what authorities. Supposedly, if one conducts a repeatable experiment or gets enough case studies or provides a reasonable logical explanation, the evidence will convince someone else. But unless the evidence fits the other person's metaphysics, it won't be accepted. So when someone says "there is no evidence for something" what they are really saying is "there is no evidence for something that fits my metaphysics." If they are honest, they will try to show why the evidence is not adequate, but generally it will be ignored with those presenting the evidence subjected to scorn.

I agree somewhat with Haught's perspective. However, I don't follow his dismissal of "intelligent design" and yet his acceptance of "purpose". Purpose and intelligent design seem too similar. Also, his metaphysics is somewhat different from mine, so the evidence we accept and how we use it will differ. For example, he says this about the Christian resurrection of Jesus:


What we have in the New Testament is a story that’s trying to awaken us to trust that our lives make sense, that in the end, everything works out for the best. In a pre-scientific age, this is done in a way in which unlettered and scientifically illiterate people can be challenged by this Resurrection. But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning.

Although there is probably some truth to what he writes, it seems to me he has short-changed his own religious tradition by converting everything too quickly to a "story". With a different metaphysics, I think there is more going on here that even science can explore further.

Most of what is reported in the New Testament about Jesus' appearances after his death is very similar to what people report about shared-death experiences. Surely he is aware of this, but perhaps not. Assuming he is aware of the similarity, I suspect his metaphysics prevents him from accepting shared death experiences as evidence of what can happen to people and so he doesn't make the connection. However, the quantity of the shared death experiences reported in the New Testament is the only justification I can see for someone making an explicit choice to be a Christian rather than something else.

When Galileo confronted the authorities of his day they were religious authorities. The reactionary clerics of that time came with a metaphysics that prevented them from accepting his evidence. Today those religious institutions are no longer what one has to confront. Today, the powerful authorities are in scientific institutions who must be convinced. The reactionary, modern "clerics" supporting the metaphysics of those institutions are people like Hitchens and Dawkins.

[MorpheusSandman]

The problem with evidence is whether it is accepted and by what authorities. Supposedly, if one conducts a repeatable experiment or gets enough case studies or provides a reasonable logical explanation, the evidence will convince someone else. But unless the evidence fits the other person's metaphysics, it won't be accepted. So when someone says "there is no evidence for something" what they are really saying is "there is no evidence for something that fits my metaphysics." If they are honest, they will try to show why the evidence is not adequate, but generally it will be ignored with those presenting the evidence subjected to scorn. I think this is a rather simplistic view on the notion of evidence. Surely we would all agree that some evidence is innately better than others regardless of our chosen metaphysical philosophy, yes? Your crazy, drunk, notoriously lying uncle spinning a supposedly true story around a camp fire about being abducted by aliens is surely less quality evidence than a group of highly respected astronomers publishing a report of them finding life on a distant planet. What's more, a rigorous method that's followed in order to (try to) eliminate human cognitive biases as much as possible and the results published from such endeavors are surely better evidence than someone who has already made up their mind on a matter and only seeks to fit every new "discovery" into their previous beliefs, right? I actually think evidence is much simpler than that, and I don't think i could sum it up better than Eliezer Yudkowsky. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/) Now, you may argue that Yudkowsky only accounts for a small portion of what we generally take to be evidence, but when you get down to it, everything we know (for near certain) can be traced back to precisely what Yudkowsky is describing, and, what's more, when you get AWAY from what he's describing is when you enter the land where bad evidence that leads to false conclusions are nearly impossible to distinguish from good evidence that leads to true conclusions.


Most of what is reported in the New Testament about Jesus' appearances after his death is very similar to what people report about shared-death experiences. Surely he is aware of this, but perhaps not. Assuming he is aware of the similarity, I suspect his metaphysics prevents him from accepting shared death experiences as evidence of what can happen to people and so he doesn't make the connection. However, the quantity of the shared death experiences reported in the New Testament is the only justification I can see for someone making an explicit choice to be a Christian rather than something else.NDEs tend to resemble cultural norms. If the culture is one of Christian belief, they resemble a Christian afterlife; if the culture is one of Buddhist belief, they resemble a Buddhist afterlife, and so on. There are also plenty of people that have completely different experience or no experience at all (I'm one of the latter).


Today those religious institutions are no longer what one has to confront. Today, the powerful authorities are in scientific institutions who must be convinced. The reactionary, modern "clerics" supporting the metaphysics of those institutions are people like Hitchens and Dawkins.Nonsense. Scientists follow where the evidence leads. The evidence leads away from 2000 year old mythologies, it's that simple. They did not set out with an a priori belief and now refuse to change their worldview in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, like the clerics in Galileo's day.

[cafolini]

No matter how I look at the useless circularity of this thread, I would not entangle myself with repetitious blah-blah. Regarding Galileo, I would only talk to Brahe, Kepler, Hailey, Newton, and the few others that grasped the man standing on the tower. It should be noted that three of the fiscals in the trial that placed Galileo under house arrest refused to approve Belarmino's contention.

[YesNo]

I actually think evidence is much simpler than that, and I don't think i could sum it up better than Eliezer Yudkowsky. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/) Now, you may argue that Yudkowsky only accounts for a small portion of what we generally take to be evidence, but when you get down to it, everything we know (for near certain) can be traced back to precisely what Yudkowsky is describing, and, what's more, when you get AWAY from what he's describing is when you enter the land where bad evidence that leads to false conclusions are nearly impossible to distinguish from good evidence that leads to true conclusions.

Here's a quote from that link, in Yudkowsky's own italics, that I don't agree with:


Rational thought produces beliefs which are themselves evidence.
What he seems to be saying is that his metaphysics is evidence for his metaphysics. Of course, we all want to be following a true metaphysics, but we need evidence separate from it to justify the metaphysics.



Nonsense. Scientists follow where the evidence leads. The evidence leads away from 2000 year old mythologies, it's that simple. They did not set out with an a priori belief and now refuse to change their worldview in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, like the clerics in Galileo's day.

How do you know that is true? I've started reading Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion which seems to question that belief.


No matter how I look at the useless circularity of this thread, I would not entangle myself with repetitious blah-blah. Regarding Galileo, I would only talk to Brahe, Kepler, Hailey, Newton, and the few others that grasped the man standing on the tower. It should be noted that three of the fiscals in the trial that placed Galileo under house arrest refused to approve Belarmino's contention.

However, I think the pattern is useful. In Galileo's day, the authority was religious. Today it is not.

[The Atheist]

NDEs tend to resemble cultural norms.

I would have said that NDEs closely resemble oxygen deprivation, but are then tied to one's cultural/religious norms.

[MorpheusSandman]

What he seems to be saying is that his metaphysics is evidence for his metaphysics.Really what he's doing is showing why the common claim of people having "personal" metaphysics, ie, NOT wanting to share their metaphysics/evidence is suspicious in itself, because if you do maintain a metaphysics as he's describing (one in which there is causal entanglement), you wouldn't mind sharing it with others (me telling you my shoe is untied because of the whole photons/shoes/eyes/brain causal entanglement). If you want to call what he's describing as evidence to be "metaphysics," then that's fine, but it's also a metaphysics that we all innately share, and it's the same metaphysics that has allowed science to discovery everything we know about how reality functions; so it seems pretty foolhardy to try and dismiss that success as "just metaphysics" as if it's no better than any other system, as if the "metaphysics" of "causal entanglement" is on the same level of "metaphysics" as "witchcraft." My whole initial point was that some evidence, some metaphysical systems, are innately better/more reliable for producing true beliefs than others, and I feel the one Yudkowsky is describing has proven itself to be far and away the best and only consistently legitimate one.


How do you know that is true? Because scientists have no reason for ignoring good evidence. Einstein became famous by "debunking" his hero Newton and replacing Newtonian physics with Relativity. Scientists do not get ahead in the scientific community by blindly following what every scientist currently believes, they get ahead (and become famous) by establishing new paradigms that replace older ones. A scientist who could prove God would instantly become as famous as Einstein, so there's no reason for them to reject it from the get-go.


I would have said that NDEs closely resemble oxygen deprivation, but are then tied to one's cultural/religious norms.True. To clarify, I'm referring to people's reports of seeing, eg, Jesus during their NDEs. Of course oxygen deprivation can produce such hallucinations, but what is hallucinated is influenced by cultural norms/beliefs.

[YesNo]

Me telling you "my shoes are untied" is evidence that, indeed, my shoes are untied, because there exists that string of causal entanglement (photons/shoes/eyes/brain). He then contrasts this with people that prefer to keep their "evidence/reasons" to themselves and NOT share them, or NOT have them tested via that causal entanglement at all.

As I think about it, what you are saying may be what he was trying to say. Let's test how this might work. Instead of shoelaces, let's say I had a shared-death experience. Instead of keeping it to myself, I tell you and others about it. I share it. In the process of doing that my shared-death experience becomes evidence. Were it formally presented it would be a case study.

OK, that makes sense to me.



Because scientists have no reason for ignoring good evidence.

What is "good" evidence?

Evidence is good if it fits the metaphysics of the scientist. It is bad evidence, or evidence that has to be modified or discredited if it doesn't fit the paradigm.

Here's something else that Yudkowsky wrote in the link you sited earlier: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/


This is why rationalists put such a heavy premium on the paradoxical-seeming claim that a belief is only really worthwhile if you could, in principle, be persuaded to believe otherwise. If your retina ended up in the same state regardless of what light entered it, you would be blind. Some belief systems, in a rather obvious trick to reinforce themselves, say that certain beliefs are only really worthwhile if you believe them unconditionally— no matter what you see, no matter what you think. Your brain is supposed to end up in the same state regardless. Hence the phrase, "blind faith". If what you believe doesn't depend on what you see, you've been blinded as effectively as by poking out your eyeballs.

What I am claiming is that all beliefs, including those of "rationalists", are "blind". The "trick" is the one Yudkowsky is playing on himself. By criticizing those who insist on "unconditional" belief this gives him a sense of superiority that helps him forget to question his own beliefs.

I think the process works in this manner. We accept a metaphysics, paradigm or belief and then we busy ourselves trying to prove it is true. To use the Eldredge-Gould "punctuated equilibrium" model, this would be a period of equilibrium. At this point evidence is "good" if it fits our beliefs. It is "bad" otherwise. Bad evidence has to be sanitized before it is accepted.

Things change during a crisis when our beliefs crack. The equilibrium is "punctuated" and our metaphysics is modified. We then continue with a new metaphysics for which we look for "good" evidence to support it.

---------

On an earlier idea, I mentioned that I didn't see much difference between John Haught's dislike of "intelligent design" and yet his support for "purpose". In reading more of Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion, I think I see how these two ideas differ. With intelligent design there is an implicit metaphysics that the universe is a deterministic machine that needs a God to crank it up or get it started. That's the problem with intelligent design, not the implied existence of a God of some sort, but the implication that the universe is a deterministic machine.

[MorpheusSandman]

Instead of shoelaces, let's say I had a shared-death experience. Instead of keeping it to myself, I tell you and others about it. I share it. In the process of doing that my shared-death experience becomes evidence.Sharing the experience is evidence that a certain phenomena we call NDEs exist; of this I don't doubt as there have been enough reports to support that such a phenomena happens. However, there is a difference in reporting experiencing a phenomena and explaining the phenomena. EG, it's two different things to say "my shoelaces are untied" and to say "My shoelaces are untied... the witch did it." Similarly, when one says "My shoelaces are untied because photons are bouncing off my shoes, entering my eyes, and being processed by my visual cortex," we can actually test the various aspects of this process to see if it causally correlates together and changes depending on if you take any of these elements away. Guess what? They do correlate. You can change your sense experience by, eg, taking away the photons, tying your shoes, or turning off your visual cortex (ie, by sleeping).


What is "good" evidence? That's precisely what that link explains. Yudkowsky dubs it "causal entanglement." He uses photons/shoelaces/eyes/visual cortex as one such string of causal entanglement. Now, if you have a problem with that metaphysical system, please explain what your problem is and then explain why another system is superior/equal to it. Until you respond to that, there's no reason for me to address your other points. All of your talk about "dismissing metaphysical systems outright" ignores the question/point I've been making all along regarding why the system Yudkowsky is describing has proven to be superior to all others.


What I am claiming is that all beliefs, including those of "rationalists", are "blind". The "trick" is the one Yudkowsky is playing on himself. By criticizing those who insist on "unconditional" belief this gives him a sense of superiority that helps him forget to question his own beliefs. Nonsense. The whole point of Yudkowsky's article is that the kind of evidence/metaphysical system he's describing forces one to change their mind if the evidence is pointing in another direction. There is nothing that's self-reinforcing about any given belief under the system Yudkowsky is describing. It's precisely this mutability that has allowed scientists' beliefs to change over time as new things are discovered. Without that system, nobody would've dumped Newtonian physics for Einstein's relativity. Einstein presented evidence in the form what Yudkowsky calls "causal entanglement" (in, eg, the eclipse experiment) that disproved Newton and proved relativity. This causal entanglement forced EVERY physicist to "change their minds." There's nothing "blind" about this. It would be blind if, after the experiment, physicists continued to insist Newton was right and Einstein was wrong.

Criticizing an "unconditional belief system" IS NOT designed to give Yudkowsky (or anyone) a sense of superiority and enforce their own belief systems, it's pointing out a critical flaw in the belief system itself. If what you believe is not tied to any kind of causal entanglement, then it doesn't matter what evidence you encounter, you won't change your mind. This means you have walled your beliefs off from any kind of testing, from the possibility of being changed, from the possibility of being disproved. Do you seriously not see a problem with this? This system would allow anyone to cook up any beliefs, regardless of how stupid, harmful, or untrue, and allow the belief to perpetuate itself without the possibility of ever changing their mind. The system Yudkowsky is describing, and the one scientists adhere to, is antithetical to this, because it forces one's beliefs to change as the evidence changes. It's why science progresses and religion does not, because science follows a metaphysical system that allows/forces scientists to change their mind as the evidence changes; and by "evidence" I'm referring to "causal entanglement". If you make "causal entanglement" the basis for your metaphysics, you will never be "blind," since your sense experience can and will change as you alter the links in causal entanglement chains.

[Phocion]

That sentence would make more sense if "religion" were replaced with "self-righteousness". Self-righteousness is not something peculiar to religion. That flows through Christian antisemitism to racism all the way to the explicit and deadly atheism of the Khmer Rouge.

As I read Curtis White's criticism of Hitchens, although he focused on Hitchens' (and Dawkins') errors, it seemed this polemical self-righteousness is what bothered him the most. White ended his article with a quote by Nietzsche: “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”

But, some might argue, why is that bad? What's wrong with presenting a Tarantino-style fantasy for mass consumption and profit? All of us seem to love hating the bad guy. We just need someone to define who that bad guy is. Well, Hitchens did not claim he was writing a novel or a movie and, of course, he has his free speech. He seemed to me to be attempting to generate hatred against real people, the kind you meet on the street, much like an antisemitic or racist person would. Much like a follower of Pol Pot would.

Thanks for bringing Curtis White to my attention, Ecurb. I've started reading his The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think for Themselves (2003). If that turns out as good as it has started, I'll try the The Science Delusion.Would you care to justify such rubbish? You must have a remarkably manic and hysterical hatred towards Hitchens to be branding him a racist and antisemitic follower of Pol Pot. No wonder you like the rambling nonsense-spewer Curtis White.

Curtis White is a crackpot who manages to win a few ignorant people over by constructing disgracefully dishonest (or stupid) straw-man arguments and then knocking them down with vacuous rhetoric.

First review i came across:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/books/review/curtis-whites-science-delusion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

He seems to think scientists claim to be capable of solving all problems, yet it is almost universally acknowledged amongst scientists that we know **** all about the functioning of the brain. The guy knows nothing about science, and yet is filled with the self-righteousness you seem to think is the cause of all evildoing among good people (by the way excessive self-righteousness is evidently a bad quality, and so makes a bad person: so your switching of religion with that term doesn't make the slightest bit of sense).

It is most often fear that drives good people to do wicked things, and religious leaders throughout history have been pretty good at drumming that one up and directing it at people they don't like. Do you think good people favoured burning 'witches' because they were self-righteous, or because they were afraid?

[The Atheist]

True. To clarify, I'm referring to people's reports of seeing, eg, Jesus during their NDEs.

I suspect that many of those are memories discovered after the event. The numerous accounts I've heard feature a bright light, which is often interpreted as being the big J's halo; can't say Ive heard one claiming to have seen Jesus as a being.

Meanwhile, this speaks nicely to the biblical "evidence" question.

Two Jews, three opinions. (http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/King-David-s-palace-found-says-Israeli-team-4677647.php)

[YesNo]

Sharing the experience is evidence that a certain phenomena we call NDEs exist; of this I don't doubt as there have been enough reports to support that such a phenomena happens. However, there is a difference in reporting experiencing a phenomena and explaining the phenomena. EG, it's two different things to say "my shoelaces are untied" and to say "My shoelaces are untied... the witch did it."

Good. I think we agree that there is a difference between reporting that a phenomenon occurred and explaining it. For me the reporting is the evidence. The explaining it is fitting it into a metaphysics.



That's precisely what that link explains. Yudkowsky dubs it "causal entanglement." He uses photons/shoelaces/eyes/visual cortex as one such string of causal entanglement. Now, if you have a problem with that metaphysical system, please explain what your problem is and then explain why another system is superior/equal to it.

Based on other discussions we have had, Yudkowsky also supports the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. There is no causal "entanglement" with anything to justify that these other worlds exist since they cannot be experienced. So he maintains a "blind" belief in them.



Criticizing an "unconditional belief system" IS NOT designed to give Yudkowsky (or anyone) a sense of superiority and enforce their own belief systems, it's pointing out a critical flaw in the belief system itself.

I think the sense of superiority Yudkowsky feels over those who supposedly maintain an unconditional belief system is a psychological trick he is playing on himself to keep him from questioning his own positions. Actually, anyone who has to be told they must believe in whatever "unconditionally" is a sign that their belief is shaky and needs to be reinforced.



If what you believe is not tied to any kind of causal entanglement, then it doesn't matter what evidence you encounter, you won't change your mind. This means you have walled your beliefs off from any kind of testing, from the possibility of being changed, from the possibility of being disproved. Do you seriously not see a problem with this?

Oh, I do see something wrong with that. Yudkowsky's metaphysics of many worlds is one that cannot be disproved. He has walled his beliefs off from any kind of testing. And yet he promotes his untestable metaphysics. He would be a perfect example of a scientist who has told himself he operates with an open mind but who is working blindly.


Would you care to justify such rubbish? You must have a remarkably manic and hysterical hatred towards Hitchens to be branding him a racist and antisemitic follower of Pol Pot. No wonder you like the rambling nonsense-spewer Curtis White.

Actually, I tried reading one of Curtis White's books, "The Middle Mind", and didn't like it. I do think, in general, his writing could be characterized as "rambling nonsense". So we agree on that.

However, just because someone writes rambling nonsense doesn't mean they are wrong all the time. His criticism of Hitchens I thought was reasonable.



He seems to think scientists claim to be capable of solving all problems, yet it is almost universally acknowledged amongst scientists that we know **** all about the functioning of the brain. The guy knows nothing about science, and yet is filled with the self-righteousness you seem to think is the cause of all evildoing among good people (by the way excessive self-righteousness is evidently a bad quality, and so makes a bad person: so your switching of religion with that term doesn't make the slightest bit of sense).

It is most often fear that drives good people to do wicked things, and religious leaders throughout history have been pretty good at drumming that one up and directing it at people they don't like. Do you think good people favoured burning 'witches' because they were self-righteous, or because they were afraid?

Yes, I do think self-righteousness and not religion is why good people do evil things. Fear might be involved as well. Religion can generate self-righteousness. The point that I want to emphasize is this: Atheism is just as good at generating self-righteousness as religion.

If Hitchens wants to fault religion for inquisitions and witch-hunting he needs to look at the behavior of atheists as well. The Khmer Rouge provides a good example.

[MorpheusSandman]

Good. I think we agree that there is a difference between reporting that a phenomenon occurred and explaining it. For me the reporting is the evidence. The explaining it is fitting it into a metaphysics.No, not at all. Experience of a phenomenon is proof (not "evidence," really) that some phenomenon is occurring. That we see the sun moving across the sky is proof that, for some reason, the sun doesn't seem to stay still in the sky. One doesn't need evidence that such things occur, they need evidence to explain why they occur. Actually, the belief we place in our senses in the first place is really the "metaphysical" part, not the "evidence" part. When I look to my right and see a wall there, it's really my metaphysical system that believes there's a wall there (ie, that I believe my senses are relaying accurate information about reality). Now, if I wanted to explain WHY the wall was there, and I proposed aliens built it, this explanation would be the part that would require some evidence, hopefully of the "causal entanglement" variety.


Based on other discussions we have had, Yudkowsky also supports the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. There is no causal "entanglement" with anything to justify that these other worlds exist since they cannot be experienced. So he maintains a "blind" belief in them.This is wrong on several accounts:

1. Yudkowsky does not have a "blind belief" in many-worlds; he feels it is far away the most likely explanation (and has written tens-of-thousands of words explaining why in detail), and feeling one theory is more likely before any definitive proof is found--a causal entanglement test--is not a "blind belief." Every quantum physicist (and amateur enthusiasts like myself and Yudkowsky) would instantly change our preferred interpretation if tomorrow a test came along that provided a "causal entanglement" that favored any given interpretation over our own. You're unfairly trying to blur the distinction between favoring theories in areas of science that are yet to be definitively proved one way or the other and have "blind beliefs" and metaphysics that automatically rule out certain evidence from the get-go. It's not even remotely the same thing.

2. As for why he favors MW, the simplest explanation is that MW is, well, the simplest explanation. It proposes no hidden variables, no "split" between the quantum and macro worlds, it reconciles QM with locality, determinism, and General Relativity, and the only assumption it makes (every QM interpretation makes some assumptions) is that the wavefunction is real and always follows its probability distribution. Every other interpretation/assumption both adds complexity (a no-no according to Occam's Razor) and creates heretofore unresolved problems. The other, perhaps inexperienceable worlds themselves follow from the simplest assumption, not the other way around. Furthermore, one doesn't have to experience the other worlds to prove many worlds, one only as to prove the assumptions that MW is based on are true, and David Deutsch thinks this will be possible with the advent of quantum computing.


I think the sense of superiority Yudkowsky feels over those who supposedly maintain an unconditional belief system is a psychological trick he is playing on himself to keep him from questioning his own positions. Actually, anyone who has to be told they must believe in whatever "unconditionally" is a sign that their belief is shaky and needs to be reinforced. It seems like you're saying two contradictory things in these two sentences... What "position" does Yudkowsky maintain that needs questioning? As for the second system, this is precisely how religions operate in that they tell their adherents they must believe unconditionally.


Yudkowsky's metaphysics of many worlds is one that cannot be disproved. He has walled his beliefs off from any kind of testing. And yet he promotes his untestable metaphysics. He would be a perfect example of a scientist who has told himself he operates with an open mind but who is working blindly.This is just blatantly false nonsense. I'd go so far to call it a libelous lie. The notion that Yudkowsky would ignore any testing that disproved many-worlds is just a bald assertion on your part based on nothing but your bias against Yudkowsky from the get-go. I'm starting to remember why I gave up talking to you in the MW thread.

I mean, do you say the same thing about every physicist who favors MW, despite the fact that it's actually the most popular current interpretation of QM? Do you think every physicist is similarly "walled off" from any causal entanglement tests that would disprove MW? That seems like a completely baseless and untenable claim.

[YesNo]

No, not at all. Experience of a phenomenon is proof (not "evidence," really) that some phenomenon is occurring. That we see the sun moving across the sky is proof that, for some reason, the sun doesn't seem to stay still in the sky. One doesn't need evidence that such things occur, they need evidence to explain why they occur.

In the case of near or shared death experiences you would need this basic evidence that something occurred. I agree with you that evidence is evidence for something, however it could be evidence for many different theories which then have to be decided by other evidence. For example, as evidence for my metaphysics, I would take SDEs and NDEs at face value. In your case, you would need to sanitize, that is, "explain", them first.


As for why he favors MW, the simplest explanation is that MW is, well, the simplest explanation.

The simplest explanation would be to look at the universe not from the metaphysics of a deterministic machine, but as an organism that hatched from its "cosmic egg" 13.7 billion years ago.

I know you don't accept that explanation, but comparing the cosmic egg to many worlds, the cosmic egg model makes more sense. It allows for freedom and purpose which we can see around us (unless our metaphysics has blinded us from observing freedom and purpose). Even those wave-particle objects at the quantum level might be better described as processes or "organisms". They are certainly not the solid objects that materialists expected to find.

Just offering a different way of looking at things.



Do you think every physicist is similarly "walled off"...

I know I broke that mid-sentence, but I want to answer just that part with "yes". We all are, myself included, and not just physicists. We all pick and choose and modify what evidence we become conscious of to fit our current metaphysics. What we are most blind to, we are not even conscious of.

Of course our metaphysical eggs can crack.

-------------------

To bring this back to Hitchens, his critics have to deal with him on an intellectual level, but how does one deal with someone who is primarily polemical? It has been a couple years since I read the text, but I don't think Hitchens was interested in an intellectual debate or pursing an advancement of knowledge. His metaphysics was set and it didn't look like it was ready to crack during his lifetime.

[Ecurb]

A couple of (relatively minor) points:

1) Dawkins talks about “purpose” constantly in “The Selfish Gene” (if memory serves, it’s been a couple of decades since I read it). I assume Dawkins was sophisticated enough to be speaking metaphorically – genes don’t “want” or “try” to do anything. Nonetheless, I think his choice of language was a mistake (from a literary perspective) on his part.

2) I like Haught’s “layered explanations” of causation. The ‘scientific explanation” (“one answer is to say it’s boiling because H2O molecules are moving around excitedly, making a transition from the liquid state to the gaseous state.”) is incomplete and trivial. The water isn’t boiling “because” molecules are moving around: we call molecules moving around, “boiling”. It’s merely a coincidence of a state of molecular motion and the word we have chosen to describe it. “Because” (in normal English) generally means something else – for example, the “cause” of something can be the intentional act of a conscious agent (the wife putting the kettle on the stove). Of course it is correct that by definition H2O molecules moving around constitutes “boiling” – but I think the word “constitutes better describes that relationship than the word “cause”. (I’ll grant that there are gray areas here, and “cause” is used in a number of ways.) We say germs “cause” disease because germs are a handle we can manipulate (we can treat diseases with antibiotics or prevent them by refrigerating food and pasteurizing milk), just as turning on the stove is a handle we can manipulate. Obviously, however, germs don’t ALWAYS cause disease – some people are infested with germs and get sick, others are infested and don’t get sick. On the other hand, water molecules moving in a certain way always constitute “boiling”, but that is not a handle we can manipulate.


3) Morpheus says,
“His (Haught’s) talking about scientific dogma also ignores the historical efficacy of science for understanding reality VS the completely impoverished history of religion (not to mention science’s history of debunking religious claims about reality). So the reason certain atheists share this “materialistic/scientific dogma” is because science’s record for achieving what it set out to accomplish is, thus far, impeccable. We’re betting on a winner, and ditching the loser. This is not “faith,” this is called inferential reasoning. It requires no more “faith” to assume this scientific, materialistic stance than it takes to have “faith” the sun will rise tomorrow. Absolute consistency of experience is awfully darn good evidence. There’s no “proof” that materialism is all there is, or that science can know everything, but it’s the best bet at this point given history since the scientific revolution.”

The problem with this is that the “historical efficacy of science for understanding reality” is shaky. A great many scientific notions, once believed to be correct (Newton’s physics or Aristotle’s biology, for example) have been discredited; some are now considered naive and silly. Our most reasonable inference is that much (or at least some) of what we believe has been scientifically “proven” will also be shown to be incorrect, some day. In addition, I can’t quite agree that religion’s notions about reality are ‘completely impoverished’. “All rivers floweth unto the sea, and yet the sea is not full. For unto that place whence the rivers came, thither they return again.” Didn’t Ecclesiastes get it right, sort of?

What constitutes “understanding reality”? Since this is a literary board, couldn’t one argue that poetry (for example) offers modes of “understanding” that differ from scientific modes? Which helps us “understand” more effectively how people think, or are motivated, or behave: Psychology (i.e. “science”) or literature? I don’t know the answer – I’m simply suggesting that we can’t automatically infer from history that the scientific approach is the best possible approach to understanding things.

[MorpheusSandman]

In the case of near or shared death experiences you would need this basic evidence that something occurred. I agree with you that evidence is evidence for something, however it could be evidence for many different theories which then have to be decided by other evidence. For example, as evidence for my metaphysics, I would take SDEs and NDEs at face value. In your case, you would need to sanitize, that is, "explain", them first. I really don't know what you mean by your first two sentences. Unless we're going to say everyone who has reported NDEs are liars, then their experiences are "proof" that something happened when they were near death, it's not "evidence" that something happened. I equally don't know what you mean by taking NDEs at "face value." If you think taking them at "face value" means "An NDE is somewhat actually seeing into heaven/the afterlife" then that is NOT taking them at "face value," that's attempting to "explain them" the same way you would accuse me of trying to "explain" them. One problem humans have of explaining anything is that they often don't even recognize their "face value" assumptions as explanations. As a good example, for a long time we assumed the sun was, itself, moving across the sky and we were standing still. We assumed this because of how we detect movement of objects/beings on Earth when we stand still. It took a long while to dawn on someone that the Earth could be moving around the sun and we wouldn't feel it. So what makes you think your "face value" NDEs are any different than the "face value" assumption that the sun was actually moving in the sky?


The simplest explanation would be to look at the universe not from the metaphysics of a deterministic machine, but as an organism that hatched from its "cosmic egg" 13.7 billion years ago. You're making the classic mistake of thinking linguistic simplicity ("the universe hatched from a cosmic egg") equals ontological simplicity. This gets humans into trouble a lot. We tend to think of things like probabilistic wavefunctions as incredibly complex merely because we don't intuitively experience life on that level, when the truth is that how particles function is infinitely simpler than how we and the rest of the macro-world functions. Just because something like a cosmic egg sounds simple linguistically, that doesn't mean it's ACTUALLY simple. One way to distinguish between them is to try and actually write them out as an abstract mathematical formula (and how you'd begin to do that with a "cosmic egg," I have no idea.)


I know you don't accept that explanation, but comparing the cosmic egg to many worlds, the cosmic egg model makes more sense. It allows for freedom and purpose which we can see around usIt makes more sense that the sun moves across the sky given our experience on Earth of us standing still and objects moving. The last several hundred years of scientific inquiry is a tome of discovering that what makes "more sense" on an intuitive level has little to no bearing on how reality actually works. Newtonian physics makes more sense to us than General Relativity; it doesn't meant the former is right. Similarly, how would you distinguish actual, ontological "freedom and purpose" from an illusion of "freedom and purpose" produced by the finite, fallible, biological processes of our brains?


Just offering a different way of looking at things.Sure. So did Adolf Hitler and Charlie Manson and Johann Becker; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory) it doesn't mean any of them were right.


I know I broke that mid-sentence, but I want to answer just that part with "yes". We all are, myself included, and not just physicists. We all pick and choose and modify what evidence we become conscious of to fit our current metaphysics. This just strikes me as hopeless, theistic perspective. The kind of metaphysics Yudkowsky describes necessarily forces us to change our beliefs as the evidence changes. I keep going back to the point that if science was really as you suggest/describe it here, then scientific beliefs would never change. Things like Evolution, the age of the universe, General Relativity, combustion, heliocentrism, etc. never would've been accepted if scientists just "pick and chose and modified what evidence they became conscious of to fit their current metaphysics." That sentence just doesn't even make sense in the light of science history.

[MorpheusSandman]

2) I like Haught’s “layered explanations” of causation. Why? It’s hopelessly wrong-headed. Your elaboration isn’t much better. This whole situation requires reductionism and shows the bankruptcy both of “arguing by definition” and the whole “layered explanation” idea of causation.

1. Yes, water molecules moving around is, technically, the same thing as boiling. However, remove the words and realize that we don’t SEE water molecules moving around. If one asks “why am I seeing what I’m seeing when that liquid substance is bubbling and hot?” then “water molecules are moving around excitedly” WOULD be the correct answer; it explains why we see what we see. One would have to explain the whole process, though, to explain why it’s happening (ie, explain what happens when heat contacts liquid).

2. Arguing over the multiple definitions of “because” is entirely pointless. It all depends on what question is being asked and what intuitive answer is expected (subverting these expectations is the basic stuff sit-coms and jokes are made of).

3. The “cause” of water boiling is never JUST the conscious act itself. A conscious act does nothing if all of the other physical elements aren’t in place. One can’t boil water on intention alone, they actually need, you know, a heat source, water, and the whole interaction that happens when water heats up. That’s why I said in my post responding to the Haught article (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?75578-God-is-not-%28so-bad-after-all%29&p=1229774&viewfull=1#post1229774) that the intentional act explanation is either incomplete (in that it doesn’t actually explain why the water is acting how it is), or it’s an answer to a different question altogether (“why are you boiling water?”).



The problem with this is that the “historical efficacy of science for understanding reality” is shaky.I love when people point out the “shaky history of science” because it highlights all the more how scientific knowledge PROGRESSES. It gets better in actual, measurable ways. You mention Newton; Newton’s physics was a superb approximation of how reality operates on a macro level. It gave us one of our first and, until that time, most accurate ways in which to model and predict how reality functioned. There were only some things that it didn’t account for, like the orbit of Mercury. Along comes Einstein and proposes an elaboration on Newton’s theories that CAN account for Mercury and is even MORE accurate in modeling/predicting how reality functions. Then, contemporary with Einstein, we discover quantum physics, which is even more accurate than Einstein’s General Relativity. One can do this same exercise with evolution and Darwin.

The fact that science can get things wrong, can admit its mistakes, and moves on to new theories when better ones (along with evidence/tests) present themselves is an argument FOR science, not against it. You can’t sit there and argue against the historical efficacy of science when you’re typing on a binary computer powered by electricity and connected to an internet by copper wiring and protected inside a house that required a certain amount of engineering. Most every second of our entire modern lives is a testament to science’s historical efficacy, and lamenting about its past failures on a machine that’s one of its greatest successes is like lamenting that our earliest ancestors were asexual beings in the middle of an orgasm.


I can’t quite agree that religion’s notions about reality are ‘completely impoverished’. “All rivers floweth unto the sea, and yet the sea is not full. For unto that place whence the rivers came, thither they return again.” Didn’t Ecclesiastes get it right, sort of?Make enough random claims about reality and a few are bound to be right; a broken watch, and all those old cliches.


What constitutes “understanding reality”? See here. (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Truth)


Since this is a literary board, couldn’t one argue that poetry (for example) offers modes of “understanding” that differ from scientific modes? Yes, but I think we’d be talking about a very different kind of understanding. I wrote in my reply to YesNo that the past few hundred years of science is a tome to discovering that how reality feels intuitively to us means nil in regards to how it actually works. We can’t hope to understand quantum physics intuitively, but that doesn’t mean quantum physics isn’t real. However, in the sense that our subjective experiences and how they make us feel, what they make us think, etc. are real themselves, then I definitely believe in the power of art (poetry, film, music, painting, etc.) to reflect that, comment on that, etc.

I mean, I adore William Blake, but one area of his philosophy that I disagree with is that he couldn’t separate the truths that science could discover and the truths about our subjective experiences. Blake exalted man’s psychology/subjectivity and made that the basis of his allegorical mythology, and I think he predates Jung in his intuitive insights into the human mind. However, I still think it’s important to separate those intuitive, experiential insights into ourselves from how reality actually functions. We know enough about neuroscience now to know the myriad ways in which our brain’s biased distort and contort reality. it’s lead to such phrases as the map is not the territory (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory) and the mind projection fallacy. (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy) Historically, making that distinction has been one of our biggest roadblocks to actually understanding reality since, eg, we didn’t know our brains were making the erroneous assumption that the sun itslef, rather than the earth, was moving.

To simplify and summarize: Yes, I think art is uniquely qualified to give us insights into how we experience reality subjectively, but we shouldn't confuse our experiential subjectivity with reality.

[YesNo]

I equally don't know what you mean by taking NDEs at "face value." If you think taking them at "face value" means "An NDE is somewhat actually seeing into heaven/the afterlife" then that is NOT taking them at "face value," that's attempting to "explain them" the same way you would accuse me of trying to "explain" them.

Taking an NDE at face value means that I accept it as what those experiencing it claimed it was. I don't have to explain it by saying it was some oxygen deprivation or whatever because it causes no problem on face value for my metaphysics.

For others the very existence of these experiences is evidence their metaphysics is wrong. They must sanitize the evidence or else change their metaphysics. Since, as I've argued, people (including scientists) don't like changing their metaphysics, they come up with explanations so they can hang onto their metaphysics longer.



You're making the classic mistake of thinking linguistic simplicity ("the universe hatched from a cosmic egg") equals ontological simplicity. This gets humans into trouble a lot. We tend to think of things like probabilistic wavefunctions as incredibly complex merely because we don't intuitively experience life on that level, when the truth is that how particles function is infinitely simpler than how we and the rest of the macro-world functions. Just because something like a cosmic egg sounds simple linguistically, that doesn't mean it's ACTUALLY simple. One way to distinguish between them is to try and actually write them out as an abstract mathematical formula (and how you'd begin to do that with a "cosmic egg," I have no idea.)

To handle this mathematically, I would do the same thing that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics has done. I would accept all of the evidence, and mathematics, that the standard Copenhagen interpretation has already provided for me and then I would add on to that the additional interpretation.

What the cosmic egg metaphor emphasizes is that the universe is not a deterministic machine, but contains purpose. This is different from "intelligent design" which assumes the universe is a machine that needs to be designed. Another way of looking at the difference is to consider Aristotle's four causes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes. The deterministic machine view of the universe only uses the first two of Aristotle's causes. The cosmic egg concept allows all four to operate.



Similarly, how would you distinguish actual, ontological "freedom and purpose" from an illusion of "freedom and purpose" produced by the finite, fallible, biological processes of our brains?

Are you saying that you exercised no freedom, whatsoever, when you made your post? Are you saying that you engaged in no goal-oriented activity (purpose) whatsoever as you wrote your words? Were these all illusions?

Someone who thinks freedom and purpose are illusions has a metaphysics of deterministic materialism. I would claim that this is an example of a metaphysics blinding a true believer from seeing evidence contrary to it.

We need to be careful about what we accept as "illusions". We can say the sun moving across the sky is an illusion only because we have "good" evidence that it is the earth that is moving. The claim that our freedom can be reduced to random chance and chemistry, that our freedom is an "illusion", needs evidence before I, for one, will accept it. Why? Because the claim that someone is having an "illusion" may itself be a wish-fulfilling illusion supported only by that person's metaphysics, not by evidence.

Furthermore, the general reliance on chance to explain change leads to a probabilistic explosion. If it were up to chance and chemistry, I don't see how anyone would post anything.



This just strikes me as hopeless, theistic perspective. The kind of metaphysics Yudkowsky describes necessarily forces us to change our beliefs as the evidence changes. I keep going back to the point that if science was really as you suggest/describe it here, then scientific beliefs would never change. Things like Evolution, the age of the universe, General Relativity, combustion, heliocentrism, etc. never would've been accepted if scientists just "pick and chose and modified what evidence they became conscious of to fit their current metaphysics." That sentence just doesn't even make sense in the light of science history.

I am a panentheist, but what we are discussing has little to do with theism directly.

I am also an atheist when it comes to some popular conceptions of a deity. I would go so far as to claim, based on quantum physics, that I can prove that any God who claims to operate on the universe as if it were a deterministic machine does not exist. Why? Because the universe is not a deterministic machine. QED

This kicks out the "God of the gaps", or the God implied by "intelligent design", or the Deism of some scientists. More traditional Gods, like the kind that Hitchens dislikes, however, are not affected by this argument.

Regarding how a metaphysics changes for an individual, I've already mentioned the crisis model used by Eldredge-Gould called "punctuated equilibrium". Basically, things stay in equilibrium until that is punctuated by crises and then change occurs.

[Ecurb]

We’re not far apart on the “cause” of water boiling. I agree that “why” someone puts the kettle on the stove is a bit distant from a proximate cause. However, the “conditions” necessary for water to boil are infinite. So saying, “It’s boiling ‘because’ the water is heated to 100 degrees centigrade” is also incomplete. It’s reasonable for us to use such shorthand, but (obviously) if there is no oxygen in the atmosphere, water wouldn’t boil (I think – my chemistry and physics may be off). So we are ASSUMING normal, earthbound, sea level conditions if we say, “heating the water to 100 degrees ‘causes’ it to boil.”

As far as the shaky history of science, of course science progresses, in general (it sometimes regresses, too). However, my basic point was that we are still probably wrong about many things we consider to be “scientific facts”. I’ll grant it’s the best we can do – but it’s no guarantee. We must muddle through the best we can.

As to my point about “understanding reality”, it’s not just literature that can help us understand things, it’s also non-scientific academic fields, like history. History is one of the “humanities”, not one of the sciences. Eye witnesses testify in court. Historical accounts, like eye witness testimony, are not “scientific” – but surely they help us “understand reality”.

Finally, morpheus says, “To simplify and summarize: Yes, I think art is uniquely qualified to give us insights into how we experience reality subjectively, but we shouldn't confuse our experiential subjectivity with reality.” Why not? Is “experiential subjectivity” unreal? Also, isn’t one postmodern concept that we cannot HELP but confuse our experiential subjectivity with objective reality (or that there is no objective reality)?

One more point, about the “broken watch being right twice a day” (and I make this not to make any claims about the historical accuracy of biblical account, but because I think it’s a cool story, which demonstrates how literary insights can help us “understand” – I got most of this information from a book by neurosurgeon Oliver Sacks):


“And Jesus took the blind man by the hand…and when He put His hands upon him, He asked him if he saw anything. And he looked up and said, “I see men looking like trees walking.” Mark, 8:24

“Seeing is believing,” according to the aphorism. But William Moyneux, whose wife was blind, asked philosopher John Locke: “Suppose a man was born blind and taught by touch to distinguish between a cube and a sphere. If his vision was restored, could he distinguish which was which before touching them?”

In several rare medical cases, the blind actually have had their vision restored. As reported by Oliver Sachs in An Anthropologist on Mars, the adjustment has not always been easy. H.S., a patient who received a corneal transplant after 22 years of blindness reported:


During the first weeks I had no appreciation of depth or distance; street lights were luminous stains stuck to the window panes, and the corridors of the hospitals were black holes…. Nor was it possible for me to count my own five fingers… it was not possible to pass from one to the other while counting.

All of the newly sighted have difficulty adjusting. S.B., another individual who had recovered his sight was always struck by how objects changed in appearance from different perspectives. For those not accustomed to seeing, this flux of appearances is not anchored to the world of objects – to space.

The infant learns to coordinate the impulses sent to the brain by his optic nerve with images sent by his sense of touch by batting a mobile around in his crib. As adults, we have no memory of this process of learning how to see. But Mark’s version of Jesus restoring the blind man’s sight is in remarkable agreement with the medical records. When Jesus first restores the man’s sight, the man can see, but cannot distinguish between men and trees. So Jesus, “put His hands on his eyes again… and he saw every man clearly.” The miracle was actually two-fold – restoring physical sight and providing enlightenment as to how to interpret it.

[Ecurb]

On the off chance that the irony has escaped anyone, I (and others) have been criticizing Hitchens for being a dilletante who loves to argue, but doesn't pursue the subject with any depth. Once more, we find a small speck of wisdom in the Bible, from Luke: "Physician, heal thyself."

[MorpheusSandman]

Taking an NDE at face value means that I accept it as what those experiencing it claimed it was. I don't have to explain it by saying it was some oxygen deprivation or whatever because it causes no problem on face value for my metaphysics. For others the very existence of these experiences is evidence their metaphysics is wrong. They must sanitize the evidence or else change their metaphysics. Since, as I've argued, people (including scientists) don't like changing their metaphysics, they come up with explanations so they can hang onto their metaphysics longer. Right, so I was correct when I said that “by taking NDEs at face value” what you mean is “accepting that people are seeing into the afterlife.” I already stated that such an interpretation is EVERY BIT as much of an “explanation” as saying “oxygen deprivation” is. What’s more, we actually do know a lot about how the brain behaves (and what people experience) when they are deprived of oxygen and they tend to mirror many aspects of many NDEs; is that just a coincidence? I don’t know why you equate seeking materialistic explanations of NDEs (the same materialistic explanations that have explained many, many things people once thought were supernatural) with “sanitizing the evidence.” People are generally quite ignorant about how their own brains function, so if you go through an experience that is traumatic for your brain, why is it more natural to assume that the experience was supernatural rather than neurological? How can you rule the latter out?


To handle this mathematically, I would do the same thing that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics has done. I would accept all of the evidence, and mathematics, that the standard Copenhagen interpretation has already provided for me and then I would add on to that the additional interpretation. Ugh, you still have no understanding of what MW actually is. MW does not “add on to” the “standard” (lol) “Copenhagen interpretation.” If anything, it’s Copenhagen that “adds on to” the much simpler interpretation of MW, and needs to add more if it hopes to reconcile itself with General Relativity and Locality.


What the cosmic egg metaphor emphasizes is that the universe is not a deterministic machine, but contains purpose. Which may fit nicely into your metaphysics, but has no actual, you know, evidence to support it. It’s just a blatant example of the Wishful Thinking fallacy.


Another way of looking at the difference is to consider Aristotle's four causes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes. The deterministic machine view of the universe only uses the first two of Aristotle's causes. The cosmic egg concept allows all four to operate.Yes, let’s look back 2300 years for insights into modern cosmology; you know, back before they even knew the Earth moved around the sun.


Are you saying that you exercised no freedom, whatsoever, when you made your post? Are you saying that you engaged in no goal-oriented activity (purpose) whatsoever as you wrote your words? Were these all illusions?One of the major points Yudkowsky makes here (http://lesswrong.com/lw/eqn/the_useful_idea_of_truth/) (and elsewhere on Lesswrong regarding the nature of truth) is that when we ask if a proposition is true, it’s important to ask how different the world would be if it wasn’t VS if it was. EG, to list an easy example, how would things be different if the proposition “humans can fly” was true. Well, one way things would be different would be that if you jumped off a cliff you wouldn’t plummet to the ground. Now, apply that question to the nature of “free will” and “purpose.” How would things be different if there was such a real, ontological thing as free will and purpose as opposed to just a belief/feeling of these things produced by the finite algorithmic processes of our brains?

Let’s assume for a moment that we DO live in a deterministic universe where we have no ACTUAL, ontological free-will or purpose. Now, let’s assume in this universe that we are given finite, fallible brains that found it evolutionary advantageous to equate their ignorance of these deterministic process with “free-will,” and equate what those processes lead them to do as “purpose.” Now, how would that world be DIFFERENT than the world we find ourselves in? Similarly, you can do this while supposing that we live in an indeterminate universe where there is ACTUAL, ontological free-will and purpose. AFAICT, there’s no difference (at least superficially/experientially) in these two hypothetical worlds and the world we experience now.

Now, given that there’s no difference, the question then becomes which world is more likely and how do we determine that? The answer is found an old favorite known to laymen’s as Occam’s Razor, or, perhaps more technically/mathematically as The Conjunction Fallacy. To explain this, answer this illustrative question: Which of these two propositions is more likely: A) Jane is an accountant or; B) Jane is an accountant who plays jazz in her free time. The answer is A, though you’d be surprised how many get it wrong. B can never, ever be more likely than A. It can, hypothetically, be just as likely, but it can never be more likely.

The way this applies to the issue of free-will purpose is by asking the same question: Which is more likely: A) We feel we have free-will and purpose, or; B) We feel we have free-will and purpose and we actually do. The answer is the same as above: B cannot be more likely than A, and, in this case, it can’t be equally likely as we don’t know the probability of B beyond that it isn’t 100%. The point being that the proposition “we feel we have free will” is more likely because the ontological claim to free will and purpose is adding on to that proposition. So the experiential claim plus the ontological claim is less likely than just the experiential claim… unless you can think of how the world would be different if the ontological claim was true VS if it was false.


Someone who thinks freedom and purpose are illusions has a metaphysics of deterministic materialism. I would claim that this is an example of a metaphysics blinding a true believer from seeing evidence contrary to it.FWIW, I don’t really have an opinion on this one way or another. I think the whole question of free-will and purpose is one of those things philosophers like to ask that has no real-world meaning (ie, unanswerable questions). I also don’t think the whole “lack of freedom/purpose = deterministic materialism” is as simple as you make out as it really depends on precisely how one defines these terms. There are plenty of writings out there that have attempted to reconcile determinism and free will. One many-worlds faq offers this brief hypothesis. (http://www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html#free-will) There’s also a whole branch of philosophy called compatibalism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/) that thinks free-will and determinism are, well, compatible. Daniel Dennett has written a lot on this in books like Consciousness Explained, Elbow Room, and Freedom Evolves.


The claim that our freedom can be reduced to random chance and chemistry, that our freedom is an "illusion", needs evidence before I, for one, will accept it. Perhaps “illusion” was a bad word. I don’t mean that freedom would be an illusion like, say, how magicians use sleight of hand illusions. What I mean is that it’s possible we mistake an intuitive feeling of freedom with actual (ie, ontological) freedom. It’s why I ask above about how the world would be different and all that.


Because the universe is not a deterministic machine.You do realize that the most popular interpretations of QM today (not just MW) are deterministic, right?


Regarding how a metaphysics changes for an individual, I've already mentioned the crisis model used by Eldredge-Gould called "punctuated equilibrium". Basically, things stay in equilibrium until that is punctuated by crises and then change occurs.I don’t see this as being an adequate description of how scientific beliefs change. I mean, I guess you could call Einstein’s eclipse experiment that proved Relativity a “punctuating crisis” for Newtonian physics, but it would only be on a metaphoric level. In general, I just don't see scientists so dogmatic when it comes to holding on to beliefs in the face of new, overwhelming evidence as do, eg, the religious.

[YesNo]

Right, so I was correct when I said that “by taking NDEs at face value” what you mean is “accepting that people are seeing into the afterlife.” I already stated that such an interpretation is EVERY BIT as much of an “explanation” as saying “oxygen deprivation” is.

Yes, it can be viewed as an interpretation. However, it is an interpretation that takes the evidence at face value.



What’s more, we actually do know a lot about how the brain behaves (and what people experience) when they are deprived of oxygen and they tend to mirror many aspects of many NDEs; is that just a coincidence? I don’t know why you equate seeking materialistic explanations of NDEs (the same materialistic explanations that have explained many, many things people once thought were supernatural) with “sanitizing the evidence.” People are generally quite ignorant about how their own brains function, so if you go through an experience that is traumatic for your brain, why is it more natural to assume that the experience was supernatural rather than neurological? How can you rule the latter out?

The only thing I want to point out is the use of "we know" and then the complementary part about other people being ignorant. Who is this "we"? It is an argument from authority and not evidence, like a modern clergy setting itself up against the laity.



Ugh, you still have no understanding of what MW actually is. MW does not “add on to” the “standard” (lol) “Copenhagen interpretation.” If anything, it’s Copenhagen that “adds on to” the much simpler interpretation of MW, and needs to add more if it hopes to reconcile itself with General Relativity and Locality.

The Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation. It is also a positivist interpretation, or one that tries to offer minimal metaphysics. If it gets nonlocality and uncertainty, it faces the facts. It doesn't rush to save its metaphysics from those facts.



Which may fit nicely into your metaphysics, but has no actual, you know, evidence to support it. It’s just a blatant example of the Wishful Thinking fallacy.

I agree. It has no evidence that you accept to support it. I don't expect it to.

From my end, many worlds has no evidence that I accept to support it either.



Yes, let’s look back 2300 years for insights into modern cosmology; you know, back before they even knew the Earth moved around the sun.

The materialistic metaphysics started with Leucippus and Democritus about 2500 years ago. With quantum physics that metaphysics has come to an end. I'm just looking for a different Greek to reference. The reality might be different from what Aristotle claimed.



Let’s assume for a moment that we DO live in a deterministic universe where we have no ACTUAL, ontological free-will or purpose. Now, let’s assume in this universe that we are given finite, fallible brains that found it evolutionary advantageous to equate their ignorance of these deterministic process with “free-will,” and equate what those processes lead them to do as “purpose.” Now, how would that world be DIFFERENT than the world we find ourselves in? Similarly, you can do this while supposing that we live in an indeterminate universe where there is ACTUAL, ontological free-will and purpose. AFAICT, there’s no difference (at least superficially/experientially) in these two hypothetical worlds and the world we experience now.

The difference would be this. A deterministic universe where all change was caused by chance and chemistry where there was no choice nor goal-orientation would be lifeless. Our experience would be nothing because we wouldn't be here at all. In a universe that allowed choice and goal-orientation throughout it would allow life to exist.

The reason for the lifelessness of a deterministic universe can be derived from the combinatorial explosion of possibilities that chance would have to have available for life to exist. Since life exists, that would be another argument, beside the uncertainty of quantum physics, that the universe is not deterministic.

The anthropic argument counters and says, well, just by chance we happen to be here. There is some chance, no matter how small, and we lucked out. That's fine, but we seem to be lucking out all the time because every post we make, assuming it is by chance, is not likely. And yet we still have the conversation.



Now, given that there’s no difference, the question then becomes which world is more likely and how do we determine that? The answer is found an old favorite known to laymen’s as Occam’s Razor, or, perhaps more technically/mathematically as The Conjunction Fallacy. To explain this, answer this illustrative question: Which of these two propositions is more likely: A) Jane is an accountant or; B) Jane is an accountant who plays jazz in her free time. The answer is A, though you’d be surprised how many get it wrong. B can never, ever be more likely than A. It can, hypothetically, be just as likely, but it can never be more likely.

I don't agree that there would be no difference, however, let's look at the situation like this.

A) Jane is an accountant because she chose to study accounting and had a goal to finish her degree and get a job.

B) Jane is an accountant because the cells of her body were positioned by chance to appear at an office where she by chance successfully can perform an accounting job.

Which is more likely?

I understand where you are going with adding an additional constraint on a proposition. That should make the proposition more unlikely. I don't see how it helps clarify the free-will and goal-orientation argument.



FWIW, I don’t really have an opinion on this one way or another. I think the whole question of free-will and purpose is one of those things philosophers like to ask that has no real-world meaning (ie, unanswerable questions). I also don’t think the whole “lack of freedom/purpose = deterministic materialism” is as simple as you make out as it really depends on precisely how one defines these terms. There are plenty of writings out there that have attempted to reconcile determinism and free will. One many-worlds faq offers this brief hypothesis. (http://www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html#free-will) There’s also a whole branch of philosophy called compatibalism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/) that thinks free-will and determinism are, well, compatible. Daniel Dennett has written a lot on this in books like Consciousness Explained, Elbow Room, and Freedom Evolves.

I've seen some of these. The most recent essay I've read is Harris, "Free Will", who summarized Dennett's position.



You do realize that the most popular interpretations of QM today (not just MW) are deterministic, right?

There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. I was recently reading Victor Stenger's "The Unconscious Quantum" whose position might be considered to be the opposite of Rupert Sheldrake's position in "The Science Delusion". It is from Sheldrake that I found the idea of the "cosmic egg".



I don’t see this as being an adequate description of how scientific beliefs change. I mean, I guess you could call Einstein’s eclipse experiment that proved Relativity a “punctuating crisis” for Newtonian physics, but it would only be on a metaphoric level. In general, I just don't see scientists so dogmatic when it comes to holding on to beliefs in the face of new, overwhelming evidence as do, eg, the religious.

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" describes a similar process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

[YesNo]

1) Dawkins talks about “purpose” constantly in “The Selfish Gene” (if memory serves, it’s been a couple of decades since I read it). I assume Dawkins was sophisticated enough to be speaking metaphorically – genes don’t “want” or “try” to do anything. Nonetheless, I think his choice of language was a mistake (from a literary perspective) on his part.

I've noticed that also. The selfish gene concept can't remove itself from purpose. If it had to rely on nothing but chance, no life would occur at all.

What I wonder is, if genes can have purpose, why not people?



2) I like Haught’s “layered explanations” of causation. The ‘scientific explanation” (“one answer is to say it’s boiling because H2O molecules are moving around excitedly, making a transition from the liquid state to the gaseous state.”) is incomplete and trivial. The water isn’t boiling “because” molecules are moving around: we call molecules moving around, “boiling”. It’s merely a coincidence of a state of molecular motion and the word we have chosen to describe it. “Because” (in normal English) generally means something else – for example, the “cause” of something can be the intentional act of a conscious agent (the wife putting the kettle on the stove). Of course it is correct that by definition H2O molecules moving around constitutes “boiling” – but I think the word “constitutes better describes that relationship than the word “cause”.

I also liked Haught's layered explanations. The water would not be boiling if Haught's wife had not turned on the heat. Can someone reduce why she turned on the heat to chance and chemistry? Is she not allowed any free will whatsoever? Not even the free will to tell Haught to turn the water on himself?

[MorpheusSandman]

However, the “conditions” necessary for water to boil are infinite. I guess if you consider having to account for all of cosmology, ie, why the laws of the universe and Earth are what they are, then, yes, the “conditions” would be approaching the infinite (at least to our finite brains). However, I think we can agree that on a scale from just stating intention to trying to lay out every particle in the universe, there are descriptions that are more and less complete in regards to explaining the boiling process. I still think the point stands that Haught’s “layered explanations” aren’t really “layered explanations” so much as they're either answers to different questions or very incomplete answers as to what’s actually happening.


As far as the shaky history of science, of course science progresses, in general (it sometimes regresses, too). However, my basic point was that we are still probably wrong about many things we consider to be “scientific facts”. I’ll grant it’s the best we can do – but it’s no guarantee.The fact that the best we can do (science) is “no guarantee” is why I refer to the website “lesswrong,” so often; sure, maybe we can’t ever reach absolute, eternal certainty, but we do have measurable ways in which we can be “less wrong” about how the universe functions. Quantum physics is less wrong than Relativity, Relativity is less wrong than Newtonian physics, Newtonian physics is less wrong than everything before it. I don’t see something like that progression reversing, or us finding out that the entire field of physics has been completely wrong for the last few hundred years.

FWIW, the fact that science has been wrong about things it considered “facts” is probably why you’ll find that scientists are quite cautious, if not suspicious, of calling things “facts.” We tend to have scientific “laws” and “theories” and “interpretations” more so than “facts.” Laws are meant to merely describe how things occur (though even these descriptions can also have hidden theoretical assumptions), Theories are meant to explain why things occur (and have substantial evidence to support them), and interpretations are like theories without the testing (see the various interps of quantum physics).


to my point about “understanding reality”, it’s not just literature that can help us understand things, it’s also non-scientific academic fields, like history. History is one of the “humanities”, not one of the sciences. Eye witnesses testify in court. Historical accounts, like eye witness testimony, are not “scientific” – but surely they help us “understand reality”.I’m not sure what you mean by “eye witnesses testimony isn’t scientific;” Eye witnesses are someone relating a reconstructed cognitive experience based on past sensory input; That process happens all the time in science (though there are usually means of repeating the experience). Yes, history is a whole other arena with its own set of epistemological problems, but even it shares a lot of the same general ideas with science on how to prove (or provide evidence) for one version of history over another. They’re even starting to incorporate Bayes’ Theory into historical studies. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616145595/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)


Why not? Is “experiential subjectivity” unreal? Also, isn’t one postmodern concept that we cannot HELP but confuse our experiential subjectivity with objective reality (or that there is no objective reality)?I provided two links that explained why not: One (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory) and Two (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy). Read those (and perhaps some of the subsequent links on those pages) and get back to me. I’m not claiming that “experiential subjectivity” is unreal, I’m claiming that people incorrectly make a leap from experiential subjectivity to statements about external reality, and that’s what should be avoided. Yes, postmodernism is (a lot, anyway) about the fractured natured of multiple, subjective experiences. However, anyone that argues from that to “there is no objective reality” is just once again confusing the map with the territory. We actually CAN keep from mistaking our subjectivity with reality, the same way we can check a map’s accuracy by comparing it with the territory it’s trying to describe.

[Ecurb]

I'll agree that we can check a map's accuracy; avoiding mistaking (to phrase it slightly differently) our subjective perception of reality with reality is more difficult. We can't perceive reality EXCEPT through our senses, which ARE our subjective perceptions. (This isn't particularly profound, of course.) When we check the map, we compare it not to "reality" (whatever that is) but to our perceptions of reality, or, perhaps, to our collective perceptions of reality. WE can't approach "reality" EXCEPT as mediated by our senses.

The only reason I mention eye witnesses is that they (it seems to me) are analagous to historical accounts, whereas forensic evidence (DNA, fingerprints, physical evidence) is analagous to science. Of course there are gray areas, and scientists "witness" the results of their experiments, etc., etc. In general, though, history departments are listed as Humanities, not Sciences.

[MorpheusSandman]

I'll agree that we can check a map's accuracy; avoiding mistaking (to phrase it slightly differently) our subjective perception of reality with reality is more difficult. We can't perceive reality EXCEPT through our senses, which ARE our subjective perceptions. It's true that our senses aren't perfect, however, the only assumption one has to make is that our perceptions change if reality changes. As long as that assumption is correct, then we can have a model of reality in our heads (the map), and then test that map to see if what we've drawn on it reflects our experience of the territory (reality). EG, if I believe that if I flip the light switch a few feet away from me a light will come on, that's a statement about my cognitive "map" of reality. The way I test this is to flip the switch and see if I see (sense) the light come on. If my belief/map is correct, then it should correctly predict what I will experience. It's implied that in every map/territory discussion that the map is our beliefs and the territory is our sense-experience predicted by those beliefs. Lesswrong says it better than I can:
The map is not the territory metaphorically illustrates the differences between belief and reality. The phrase was coined by Alfred Korzybski. Our perception of the world is being generated by our brain and can be considered as a 'map' of reality written in neural patterns. Reality exists outside our mind but we can construct models of this 'territory' based on what we glimpse through our senses.

The metaphor is useful for illustrating several ideas in a more intuitive way:

Scribbling on the map does not change the territory: If you change what you believe about an object, that is a change in the pattern of neurons in your brain. The real object will not change because of this edit. Granted you could act on the world to bring about changes to it but you can't do that by simply believing it to be a different way. For example, you could send a ball to the other side of a field by kicking it but you cannot send the ball across the field by believing it is on the other side of the field (unless you are connected to a machine that scans your brain an kicks the ball when you believe it's on the other side, but let's not be pedantic). The strategy that normally gives most control over reality is one where the 'map' is aligned to match the 'territory' as closely as possible. This way you can create accurate models and predict what will happen as a consequence of your actions. eg: If you know where the ball is, and you know what will happen if you kick it, and you want it on the other side of the field you can decide to kick it to achieve the desired end state of ball being across the field. Wishing the ball across the field would be futile. For some strange reasons (but explainable at least in principle, nothing is strange if you truly understand it), humans are wired to sometimes let their beliefs slip into what they would like to believe instead of what the evidence suggests. That is like erasing a mountain off a map because you would like to pass there or drawing an oasis on the map in a desert because you would like some water.

The map is a separate object from the territory and the map exists as an object inside the territory: The analogy encourages us to look from a frame of reference other than from the inside outward and hopefully realize that not only do we cause things to happen, and things cause other things to happen, but also things have caused us to be the way we are. For example, Why is the sky so blue and beautiful? It must have been made like that just for me. It was made beautiful so that I would enjoy looking at it. Except it's the other way around. The sky was not made to fit our sense of beauty, the sky was here before us, we have a sense of beauty that evolved to fit the sky because the sky happened to be blue! In a sense the sky caused us to be what we are (creatures who mostly agree that a blue sky is beautiful).

[cafolini]

It's true that our senses aren't perfect, however, the only assumption one has to make is that our perceptions change if reality changes. As long as that assumption is correct, then we can have a model of reality in our heads (the map), and then test that map to see if what we've drawn on it reflects our experience of the territory (reality). EG, if I believe that if I flip the light switch a few feet away from me a light will come on, that's a statement about my cognitive "map" of reality. The way I test this is to flip the switch and see if I see (sense) the light come on. If my belief/map is correct, then it should correctly predict what I will experience. It's implied that in every map/territory discussion that the map is our beliefs and the territory is our sense-experience predicted by those beliefs. Lesswrong says it better than I can:

I think our senses are indeed perfect. Otherwise we can have no God.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think our senses are indeed perfect. Otherwise we can have no God.You should watch the NatGeo show Brain Games (http://natgeotv.com.au/tv/brain-games/). It mostly takes what researchers have learned about how the human brain/senses function and makes it into an entertaining, half-hour show that's trying to perform the public service of telling people just how stupid they are. But if the Modus Ponens Logical argument you're making is that without perfect senses, there is no God, then, congratulations! You just proved there's no God! Anyone that believes our senses are perfect knows nil about neuroscience and sense perception.

[The Atheist]

I think our senses are indeed perfect. Otherwise we can have no God.

Ah, so that explains why I have no god! I make no claims as to perfection.

Do all theists have perfect senses, or just the god's chosen?

[cafolini]

Ah, so that explains why I have no god! I make no claims as to perfection.

Do all theists have perfect senses, or just the god's chosen?

This has nothing to do with theists. They were all atheists long before you came across the word "atheist." How could they otherwise know so much? LOL

This has to do with equality before The Lord. Otherwise any god would be evil to us.

[Ecurb]

"Language has a tyranny on thought." -- The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. I understand your point about the map and the territory, Morpheus, but it's not that simple. Since language (and this is just one example) is akin to "the map", if it influences how we perceive "the territory" as Sapir and Whorf suggest, then, although the map is still "not the territory" the distinction between the map and the territory (or, at least, the territory as we perceive it to the best of our abilities) is not absolute either. The map (language) influences our perception of the territory, and we can only know the territory through our perception of it. In this case, although scribbling on the map (i.e. developing new words or new grammars) doesn't change the territory, it changes how we see the territory.

[cafolini]

"Language has a tyranny on thought." -- The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. I understand your point about the map and the territory, Morpheus, but it's not that simple. Since language (and this is just one example) is akin the "the map", if it influences how we perceive "the territory" as Sapir and Whorf suggest, then, although the map is still "not the territory" the distinction between the map and the territory (or, at least, the territory as we perceive it to the best of our abilities) is not absolute either. The map (language) influences our perception of the territory, and we can only know the territory through our perception of it. In this case, although scribbling on the map (i.e. developing new words or new grammars) doesn't change the territory, it changes how we see the territory.

Life is not the one we lived, but the one we remember. ~ G. G. Marquez

[Cioran]

Taking an NDE at face value means that I accept it as what those experiencing it claimed it was. I don't have to explain it by saying it was some oxygen deprivation or whatever because it causes no problem on face value for my metaphysics.

So, IOW, you take an NDE at face value because you want it to be evidence of an afterlife, and blithely ignore all the evidence of its naturalistic cause?


For others the very existence of these experiences is evidence their metaphysics is wrong.

Totally false. We can and have duplicated the NDE experience through natural means.


They must sanitize the evidence or else change their metaphysics.

As noted, NDE's can be naturally induced in subjects who are not at death.


To handle this mathematically, I would do the same thing that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics has done. I would accept all of the evidence, and mathematics, that the standard Copenhagen interpretation has already provided for me and then I would add on to that the additional interpretation.

The many worlds formulation is the only interpretation of QM that does NOT "add on" something inexplicable to the equation. It is the most parsimonious and elegant solution to the ontology of QM available.


What the cosmic egg metaphor emphasizes is that the universe is not a deterministic machine, but contains purpose. This is different from "intelligent design" which assumes the universe is a machine that needs to be designed. Another way of looking at the difference is to consider Aristotle's four causes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes. The deterministic machine view of the universe only uses the first two of Aristotle's causes. The cosmic egg concept allows all four to operate.

What makes you think some metaphor that you happen to like in any way reflects reality? Wishful thinking?

[Cioran]

I've noticed that also. The selfish gene concept can't remove itself from purpose. If it had to rely on nothing but chance, no life would occur at all.

What I wonder is, if genes can have purpose, why not people?

Genes do not have a purpose. Where did you ever get this ridiculous idea?

[YesNo]

Genes do not have a purpose. Where did you ever get this ridiculous idea?

I got it from Dawkins. The "selfish gene" is a gene with purpose, because it is selfish. Of course, this selfishness is a metaphor, but for Dawkins to resort to metaphor is a sign his ideas aren't clear and implies that a materialism that claims to be able to reduce everything to chance and physics-chemistry is not true.

The idea that Ecurb expressed, and I agree with, is also summarized in Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion, p. 164:


What Dawkins does is to project on to the DNA molecules the purposive vital factors of vitalism, trying to squeeze the soul into chemical genes, which are thereby endowed with instructions, plans, purposes and intentions they cannot possibly have. He admits that these are metaphors, adding, 'Incidentally, there is of course no "architect".' But despite occasional disclaimers, the entire force of his argument depends on anthropocentric metaphors and molecules that have come to life. He is a vitalist in molecular clothing.

Sheldrake prefers a model of "morphic resonance".

[YesNo]

So, IOW, you take an NDE at face value because you want it to be evidence of an afterlife, and blithely ignore all the evidence of its naturalistic cause?

And it sounds like you don't take an NDE at face value because you don't want it to be evidence of an afterlife. I do agree with you that the evidence it points to at face value is "naturalistic". It is just the way nature is.



Totally false. We can and have duplicated the NDE experience through natural means.

Stimulating an experience does not make that experience false when it has not been artificially stimulated. It just means it is an "experience" and not a cultural artifact.



The many worlds formulation is the only interpretation of QM that does NOT "add on" something inexplicable to the equation. It is the most parsimonious and elegant solution to the ontology of QM available.

I am aware that MWI thinks it is superior by not letting the wave function collapse. This actually makes it vague, sort of on the order of removing the 5th, parallel, postulate from Euclid's geometry. Doing that would make Euclid more "parsimonious" at the expense of not being able to derive much about parallel lines. If Euclid had claimed that each configuration of the parallel postulate represented another real "world" that no one could see, so no one could refute, he would have anticipated MWI.

Otherwise, MWI takes a free ride on the results obtained from the Copenhagen interpretation. If it didn't it would be false.

There is also a MWI belief that by removing the wave function collapse, determinism and locality are restored. I don't think that has been proven. It is more of an assumption or metaphysical dogma that after one floods reality with a non-parsimonious infinity of universes the uncertainty of quantum mechanics would magically go away. I don't think one can make it go away even with MWI.



What makes you think some metaphor that you happen to like in any way reflects reality? Wishful thinking?

What makes you think it doesn't?

----------------------------------------

Now, how do we tie all this back to Hitchens and his distaste for Gods?

Perhaps we can consider it like this. If materialism, where all causality is reducible to either chance or the actions of chemistry, were true, then the Gods that Hitchens could imagine, God of the Gaps, Deism, intelligent design Gods, would exist to support that deterministic universe. In such a universe, I wouldn't care if these Gods existed or not.

However, if the universe is not deterministic, and it is not, then not only do all these deistic Gods have to go, but so does MWI and materialistic metaphysics.

[YesNo]

We can and have duplicated the NDE experience through natural means.


How did you do it?

As I recall Raymond Moody, the scientist who created the phrase "near death experience", was experimenting with some methods. Being able to have an NDE without actually dying first might have therapeutic benefits.

[MorpheusSandman]

"Language has a tyranny on thought." -- The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.Luckily, Lesswrong has a whole sequence on language (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/A_Human%27s_Guide_to_Words) that eloquently (and thoroughly) explains its place in the map/territory relationship as well. Language is, indeed, part of the map, and when language gets disconnected from anticipated experiences is when you start mistaking another kind of map for the territory. FWIW, language doesn't HAVE to have a tyranny on thought. We can think in terms of sense experiences just like any animal can. Sense experience has nothing to do with language... until we try to express it, and hence the need/reason for scientific reductionism (one term per referent) in language. If you don't want to read the whole guide, a good place to start would be here (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_substance/).

[MorpheusSandman]

Yes, it can be viewed as an interpretation. However, it is an interpretation that takes the evidence at face value.No, no, no, it’s not that it “CAN be viewed as an interpretation,” it’s very much that it IS an interpretation, no matter how you try to spin it. Any time you go from “I experienced this” to “this is why I experienced this,” you are INTERPRETING and offering at least an explanatory hypothesis that can be either true or false but should be falsifiable/testable if we are to take it seriously. You’re (deliberately now, I think) trying to pass off an actual, gosh-darn interpretation as taking it at “face value.” Is this how those Geocentrists took the sun’s movement “at face value?”


Who is this "we"? It is an argument from authority and not evidence, like a modern clergy setting itself up against the laity.Neuroscientists. Start here (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=neuroscience) and here. (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=cognitive+biases&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Acognitive+biases) Argument from authority isn’t a fallacy when you’re dealing with subjects where authorities are needed and the authorities are actual, you know, authorities.


The Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation. It is also a positivist interpretation, or one that tries to offer minimal metaphysics.What makes it “standard?” That it came first? That’s hardly a legitimate reason to make it the “standard.” It’s no more positivist than any interpretation, and has just as many “metaphysics” (if not more) than every other interpretation. Try again.


I agree. It has no evidence that you accept to support it. I don't expect it to. From my end, many worlds has no evidence that I accept to support it either. I just spent several posts explaining to you what evidence is and why some evidence is demonstrably better than others, and you come back with a post that acts as if I didn’t type any of it. WTF, man? What’s more, MW has as much evidence in favor of it as any QM interpretations, and actually more if we consider Bayesian logic and Occam’s Razor.


A deterministic universe where all change was caused by chance and chemistry where there was no choice nor goal-orientation would be lifeless. Our experience would be nothing because we wouldn't be here at all. In a universe that allowed choice and goal-orientation throughout it would allow life to exist. Proof please. Your teleological argument fails for many reasons, but one is if MW or any multi-verse theory is right; and, besides MW, we also have a multi-verse as predicted by Inflation, which actually DOES have some experimental evidence for it in the form of the CMBR.


There is some chance, no matter how small, and we lucked out. That's fine, but we seem to be lucking out all the time because every post we make, assuming it is by chance, is not likely. And yet we still have the conversation. For every probabilistic event that happens in Vegas on any given night, the chance that all those events would happen as they did is astronomically small. This is one reason the teleological argument fails; it assumes that life is somehow special and that everything exists solely so life can without the slightest reason for assuming this. Why is life not just something else that can and has happened given the laws, vastness, and age of the universe?

Besides, you didn’t really answer my question. I asked, assuming life was here anyway, how would we tell between an ontologically real free-will/purposeful reality and a mere subjectively real free-will/purposeful reality. The teleological argument deals with the probability of life itself existing, not what I asked.


I understand where you are going with adding an additional constraint on a proposition. That should make the proposition more unlikely. I don't see how it helps clarify the free-will and goal-orientation argument.I thought it was quite clear: either free-will/purpose exists both in our mind AND in reality, or it only exists in our mind. The latter is more likely for the same reason “Jane is an accountant” is more likely than “Jazz is an accountant and plays jazz.” You’re multiplying probabilistic propositions and that’s always going to result in something that’s less likely.


I've seen some of these. The most recent essay I've read is Harris, "Free Will", who summarized Dennett's position.So what’s your response?


There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics.Indeed, and MW is the one that assumes the least and adds the least to the situation. If Occam’s Razor handed out awards, MW would win.


And it sounds like you don't take an NDE at face value because you don't want it to be evidence of an afterlife.Why is it evidence of an afterlife as opposed to evidence that something wonky happens to our brains when having a traumatic experience? Especially when we know the latter actually, you know, happens?


I am aware that MWI thinks it is superior by not letting the wave function collapse. This actually makes it vague, sort of on the order of removing the 5th, parallel, postulate from Euclid's geometry. Doing that would make Euclid more "parsimonious" at the expense of not being able to derive much about parallel lines. If Euclid had claimed that each configuration of the parallel postulate represented another real "world" that no one could see, so no one could refute, he would have anticipated MWI.

Otherwise, MWI takes a free ride on the results obtained from the Copenhagen interpretation. If it didn't it would be false.

There is also a MWI belief that by removing the wave function collapse, determinism and locality are restored. I don't think that has been proven. It is more of an assumption or metaphysical dogma that after one floods reality with a non-parsimonious infinity of universes the uncertainty of quantum mechanics would magically go away. I don't think one can make it go away even with MWI. With every post you just prove how much you DON’T know about QM and MW. I don’t even know where to start with this, so I’ll just let Cioran handle if (if he’s up to it).


What makes you think it doesn't?To start with, a good mathematical argument: there are probably countless ways we can imagine reality being and only one way it actually is; so, mathematically speaking, your proposed reality (the cosmic egg), in the absence of substantial evidence (of the kind I described in previous posts), is very unlikely to be true.

[YesNo]

No, no, no, it’s not that it “CAN be viewed as an interpretation,” it’s very much that it IS an interpretation, no matter how you try to spin it. Any time you go from “I experienced this” to “this is why I experienced this,” you are INTERPRETING and offering at least an explanatory hypothesis that can be either true or false but should be falsifiable/testable if we are to take it seriously. You’re (deliberately now, I think) trying to pass off an actual, gosh-darn interpretation as taking it at “face value.” Is this how those Geocentrists took the sun’s movement “at face value?”

An explanation of "why" they experienced something is not interesting, but only what they experienced. When they say they experienced a "light at the end of a tunnel", for example, that is an interpretation because they used language to describe their experience. It is not an explanation for the light at the end of the tunnel.

What they describe will be different from each other though patterns have been noticed (for example, the light at the end of the tunnel). These are all case studies which have to be treated as such.



Neuroscientists. Start here (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=neuroscience) and here. (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=cognitive+biases&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Acognitive+biases) Argument from authority isn’t a fallacy when you’re dealing with subjects where authorities are needed and the authorities are actual, you know, authorities.

I do accept authorities. The problem is authorities can be wrong.



What makes it “standard?” That it came first? That’s hardly a legitimate reason to make it the “standard.” It’s no more positivist than any interpretation, and has just as many “metaphysics” (if not more) than every other interpretation. Try again.

I think you are right about "standard". I'll want to reserve the word "standard" for things like the "standard model of cosmology". I'll call it one of the "earliest and most commonly taught" based on this authority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation


The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.

I don't agree with your comment on positivism. A positivist interpretation is backed by some evidence. The peculiarities of MWI have none, and I think they would agree that they have none.



I just spent several posts explaining to you what evidence is and why some evidence is demonstrably better than others, and you come back with a post that acts as if I didn’t type any of it. WTF, man? What’s more, MW has as much evidence in favor of it as any QM interpretations, and actually more if we consider Bayesian logic and Occam’s Razor.

You can forget Occam's Razor. I know that works as an argument for people who believe in MWI, just as Jesus' resurrection works as an argument for Christians. But if you are not a believer, the unending number of alternate universes violates Occam's Razor. It seems a high price to pay merely for the hope that this will recover determinism and locality.



Proof please. Your teleological argument fails for many reasons, but one is if MW or any multi-verse theory is right; and, besides MW, we also have a multi-verse as predicted by Inflation, which actually DOES have some experimental evidence for it in the form of the CMBR.

The Big Bang (aka, Standard Model of Cosmology) does imply the universe had a beginning. That does imply the likelihood that other big bangs occurred. Together, all these big bangs could be called a "multi-verse". This is the only multi-verse that has enough evidence for me to consider accepting. However, the likely existence of this does not imply any of these universes is deterministic.



For every probabilistic event that happens in Vegas on any given night, the chance that all those events would happen as they did is astronomically small. This is one reason the teleological argument fails; it assumes that life is somehow special and that everything exists solely so life can without the slightest reason for assuming this. Why is life not just something else that can and has happened given the laws, vastness, and age of the universe?

What is the likelihood that life occurred on earth by chance alone? If that unlikelihood is large enough, and if we find that life existed on another planet of our solar system, say, microbial life on Mars, even fossilized life, we can conclude using statistical reasoning that something besides chance was the cause.



Besides, you didn’t really answer my question. I asked, assuming life was here anyway, how would we tell between an ontologically real free-will/purposeful reality and a mere subjectively real free-will/purposeful reality. The teleological argument deals with the probability of life itself existing, not what I asked.

I did answer it by saying the assumption that "life was here anyway" was inconsistent. If life exists, the universe is not deterministic.



I thought it was quite clear: either free-will/purpose exists both in our mind AND in reality, or it only exists in our mind. The latter is more likely for the same reason “Jane is an accountant” is more likely than “Jazz is an accountant and plays jazz.” You’re multiplying probabilistic propositions and that’s always going to result in something that’s less likely.

Let's try this on many worlds.

A) Many worlds exist in our minds AND in reality.

B) Many worlds exist in our minds.

Which is more likely? I assume you will have to say B. So let's continue where I think you're leading and conclude that many worlds more likely exists only in our minds. This may not be a useful conclusion, but I suspect it is what you want me to conclude about free will.



Indeed, and MW is the one that assumes the least and adds the least to the situation. If Occam’s Razor handed out awards, MW would win.

Above, I used your reasoning to show that many worlds is more likely just a fantasy in the minds of MWI supporters. Earlier, I claimed that invoking Occam's Razor is like invoking Jesus' resurrection for Christians. The Occam's Razor argument is most effective if you are already a believer.



Why is it evidence of an afterlife as opposed to evidence that something wonky happens to our brains when having a traumatic experience? Especially when we know the latter actually, you know, happens?


Who is this "we"? I bring this up because I really don't like the phrase "we know", no matter who is using it.

To get back to your question, an NDE should not be evidence for your metaphysics. I don't expect it to be. However, it is for mine. I also accept neuroscience with the modern brain scan technologies. You may find this surprising, but I see them as evidence for my metaphysics. Basically, NDEs are "experiences".



To start with, a good mathematical argument: there are probably countless ways we can imagine reality being and only one way it actually is; so, mathematically speaking, your proposed reality (the cosmic egg), in the absence of substantial evidence (of the kind I described in previous posts), is very unlikely to be true.

So we can imagine there being many fanciful worlds, but only one of them that actually is? If that is what you are saying, then we agree. The "cosmic egg" concept implies there is purpose and goal orientation throughout the universe that we see in our own behavior.

---------------------------------

To bring this back to Hitchens, rejection of a set of Gods and accepting another set of Gods, is a side-effect of our metaphysics which is our view of the universe. Hitchens thinks he is rejecting all Gods, but he is just cleaning house for a materialistic metaphysics. Acceptance or rejection of views of the universe is the flip side of acceptance or rejection of metaphors for God.

One can test whether an atheistic perspective makes sense or not by shifting the question to what the atheistic view of the universe happens to be. Although atheists tend to claim they don't believe in any Gods, they usually believe there is something called a "universe".

[The Atheist]

He admits that these are metaphors, adding, 'Incidentally, there is of course no "architect"

In other words, despite Dawkins clear double assurance that his explanation was completely metaphorical - a perfectly reasonable tactic when dealing with a largely scientifically-illiterate readership - Sheldrake still accuses of him of being a vitalist.

"I'm not a racist, but...."

[YesNo]

In other words, despite Dawkins clear double assurance that his explanation was completely metaphorical - a perfectly reasonable tactic when dealing with a largely scientifically-illiterate readership - Sheldrake still accuses of him of being a vitalist.

"I'm not a racist, but...."

I think the question is whether there was much to the selfish gene concept but metaphor and metaphysics.

Sheldrake also mentioned that the promise of the gene didn't deliver even when good money was thrown at it in the late 20th century. He quotes Jonathan Latham, director of the Bioscience Resource Project who wrote in 2011 (page 169):


"The most likely explanation for why genes for common diseases have not been found is that, with few exceptions, they do not exist."

If Latham and Sheldrake are right and represent current scientific opinion, perhaps the only people still fascinated with genes are the "scientifically illiterate" readership.

[The Atheist]

I think the question is whether there was much to the selfish gene concept but metaphor and metaphysics.

Sheldrake also mentioned that the promise of the gene didn't deliver even when good money was thrown at it in the late 20th century. He quotes Jonathan Latham, director of the Bioscience Resource Project who wrote in 2011 (page 169):


"The most likely explanation for why genes for common diseases have not been found is that, with few exceptions, they do not exist."

If Latham and Sheldrake are right and represent current scientific opinion, perhaps the only people still fascinated with genes are the "scientifically illiterate" readership.

You've got yourself horribly confused here - Latham isn't saying what you think he is. He's not claiming that viruses and bacteria don't have genes, he's claiming (quite rightly) that human diseases like cancer, heart disease and diabetes, are not based on genetic factors.

[YesNo]

You've got yourself horribly confused here - Latham isn't saying what you think he is. He's not claiming that viruses and bacteria don't have genes, he's claiming (quite rightly) that human diseases like cancer, heart disease and diabetes, are not based on genetic factors.

What makes you think I'm claiming they don't have genes?

The power of genes, not their existence, is what is at issue. The gene, whether selfish or not, is not the kind of deterministic replicator materialists hoped it would be.

[The Atheist]

What makes you think I'm claiming they don't have genes?

It was the only thing that made sense even though it's wrong.


The power of genes, not their existence, is what is at issue.

Uhh, right. So you were going to prove that by mentioning the non-existence of a certain type of gene that had only ever been posited as a possibility?


The gene, whether selfish or not, is not the kind of deterministic replicator materialists hoped it would be.

You're making less sense as the post goes on.

What is this "hoped it would be" nonsense? Dawkins is a scientist, he reports what he finds, and I find the idea that he - or anyone else - had hoped to find anything laughable.

[MorpheusSandman]

What is this "hoped it would be" nonsense? Dawkins is a scientist, he reports what he finds, and I find the idea that he - or anyone else - had hoped to find anything laughable.YesNo is under the impression that the way all humans (including scientists) operate is by twisting everything they find/see/experience to fit their metaphysical beliefs. This means that Dawkins, being a materialistic atheist, looks for anything that can possibly confirm that belief. The notion that people reach conclusions based on logical inferences from the objective data without such biases, and that such data actually does favor some interpretations/theories over others, seems completely alien to YesNo.

[YesNo]

What is this "hoped it would be" nonsense? Dawkins is a scientist, he reports what he finds, and I find the idea that he - or anyone else - had hoped to find anything laughable.

Perhaps you are confusing the gene with Dawkins' meme?

Materialists need a method of cultural inheritance and Dawkins presented one like the gene that he portrayed as a deterministic physical replicator. The purpose in the process was the selfishness of the meme to replicate.

To meet a materialistic metaphysics this replicator has to be material and inside the brain. Sheldrake has a field theory of cultural inheritance and contrasted this with a comment by Dawkins on it that illustrates Dawkins' driving metaphysics: (Pages 183-4)


I once attempted to discuss this point with Richard Dawkins. I said to him that memes and morphic fields seem to play a similar role in cultural inheritance. He replied, "They have nothing in common whatsoever. Memes are real because they are material. They exist inside material brains. Morphic fields are not material and therefore they don't exist.'"

Regarding memes I would claim that they don't exist. I have only recently read about morphic fields, but considering that science accepts electromagnetic fields, I don't have any reason at the moment to reject them. Regarding genes, they exist but are not the determinants materialists hoped to find.

Just to bring this back to the original topic, we are discussing Gods and atheistic rejection of Gods. To flip the spotlight back onto atheists, we need to understand how they view the universe. To even understand a theist's God, we need to examine the theist's universe.

[YesNo]

YesNo is under the impression that the way all humans (including scientists) operate is by twisting everything they find/see/experience to fit their metaphysical beliefs. This means that Dawkins, being a materialistic atheist, looks for anything that can possibly confirm that belief. The notion that people reach conclusions based on logical inferences from the objective data without such biases, and that such data actually does favor some interpretations/theories over others, seems completely alien to YesNo.

Scientists don't even trust they behave the way you describe them. That is why they created blind, double blind and triple blind experiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

[MorpheusSandman]

I'm very aware of blind/double blind testing; they're yet another method scientists use to eliminate, as far as possible, various human biases that distort our perception of reality. But every scientific experiment is designed to do this on some level; hence the whole notion of peer-review, repeated results, and falsification. The entire scientific framework is set up so that if, indeed, human bias is in any way distorting the results, we can find a way to eliminate it and get to the truth. That's why I call your harping on the "metaphysical bias" of scientists completely out of touch with how science and scientific beliefs have progressed historically. Compared to religion, it's basically a long tome of new evidence overturning old beliefs, old metaphysics.

[cafolini]

I'm very aware of blind/double blind testing; they're yet another method scientists use to eliminate, as far as possible, various human biases that distort our perception of reality. But every scientific experiment is designed to do this on some level; hence the whole notion of peer-review, repeated results, and falsification. The entire scientific framework is set up so that if, indeed, human bias is in any way distorting the results, we can find a way to eliminate it and get to the truth. That's why I call your harping on the "metaphysical bias" of scientists completely out of touch with how science and scientific beliefs have progressed historically. Compared to religion, it's basically a long tome of new evidence overturning old beliefs, old metaphysics.

Give it up. This is not even good marketing.

[MorpheusSandman]

I have no idea what you mean...

[The Atheist]

Materialists need a method of cultural inheritance and Dawkins presented one like the gene that he portrayed as a deterministic physical replicator.

Do you dream this stuff, then post later, or just type whatever comes to you when you're writing a reply?

I ask, because the ideas are again, ridiculous. Materialists don't need any means of anything, while the idea of cultural inheritance is simply Lamarckism and long-since debunked.

Can I suggest you have a look at some websites or books and learn about what genes are and what they do?


The purpose in the process was the selfishness of the meme to replicate.

Yet again, you're confusing "purpose" with actions. Genes don't have a purpose is replicating, it's just what they do.

Have you ever made rock candy? Give it a try. Mix sugar into boiling water until the solution is saturated (can dissolve no more sugar) then let it cool. Crystals will grow on the inside of the receptacle. Those crystals are absolutely analogous with genes - they will form into sugar crystals, not because there's any purpose in doing it, but because that's how those molecules act.


To meet a materialistic metaphysics this replicator has to be material and inside the brain. Sheldrake has a field theory of cultural inheritance and contrasted this with a comment by Dawkins on it that illustrates Dawkins' driving metaphysics: (Pages 183-4)

As Dawkins says, Sheldrake is wrong.

It does amuse me how you're complaining about Dawkins taking an a priori stance, which he does not, while supporting a bloke - Sheldrake - who does exactly that.



Just to bring this back to the original topic, we are discussing Gods and atheistic rejection of Gods.

And just to keep you to reality and not fantasy, materialist atheists generally don't reject anything. They examine the evidence and haven't found any for god/s yet.

I'm perfectly open to evidence of god/s, and in the lack of any, what is there to reject? I'm not going to reject the invisible pink unicorn either - I'll wait until there's some evidence of its existence.


To flip the spotlight back onto atheists, we need to understand how they view the universe.

With telescopes, mostly.


To even understand a theist's God, we need to examine the theist's universe.

As far as I've found, they don't do it themselves, in general. The churches and preachers don't like their flocks contemplating the universe, because they start wondering at the lunacy of their own beliefs that an entity would create something so immense, so replete with so many unbelievable wonders, only to use one infinitesimal bit of it.

[Ecurb]

As far as I've found, they don't do it themselves, in general. The churches and preachers don't like their flocks contemplating the universe, because they start wondering at the lunacy of their own beliefs that an entity would create something so immense, so replete with so many unbelievable wonders, only to use one infinitesimal bit of it.

No, Christians would never contemplate why an entity would build something so immense, only to use one infinitesimal bit of it, unless, that is, they were to read the 8th Psalm, which asks:


O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the Earth! who has set thy glory above the heavens.
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

[The Atheist]

That might even make sense if about 99.99999% of the stars and objects in the universe weren't invisible to the naked eye, and considering that those heavens were thought to be being viewed from the centre of the universe by people at that time.

Very good of you to reinforce my point about christians not thinking.

[Ecurb]

Thanks, Atheist! I knew you'd come around!

[MorpheusSandman]

With telescopes, mostly. :smilielol5: I genuinely laughed out loud.

[YesNo]

As far as I've found, they don't do it themselves, in general. The churches and preachers don't like their flocks contemplating the universe, because they start wondering at the lunacy of their own beliefs that an entity would create something so immense, so replete with so many unbelievable wonders, only to use one infinitesimal bit of it.

One of the best ways not to look is to generate self-righteousness against another group. This keeps one busy so one doesn't have the energy to think and deflects critical attention elsewhere.

As far as who does this more, Christians or atheists, that would depend on the individual.

[The Atheist]

One of the best ways not to look is to generate self-righteousness against another group. This keeps one busy so one doesn't have the energy to think and deflects critical attention elsewhere.

As far as who does this more, Christians or atheists, that would depend on the individual.

I'm going to pick theists, not just christians. I haven't ever heard of atheists torturing people who refuse to disbelieve in god/s, blowing people up for believing in the wrong god, hanging people for witchcraft, or trying to get The God Delusion included in school curricula. The 97% of NAS scientists who don't believe in god seem to have plenty of time to devote their critical attention to the tasks in hand as well.

[YesNo]

I'm going to pick theists, not just christians. I haven't ever heard of atheists torturing people who refuse to disbelieve in god/s, blowing people up for believing in the wrong god, hanging people for witchcraft, or trying to get The God Delusion included in school curricula. The 97% of NAS scientists who don't believe in god seem to have plenty of time to devote their critical attention to the tasks in hand as well.

It's not hard to find atheists acting badly, very badly. Just search YouTube for the Khmer Rouge.

When I hear the word "atheist", a scene from "The Killing Fields" of a young, self-righteous, Khmer Rouge girl putting a plastic bag over her victim's head immediately comes to mind. That is probably not the image that comes to your mind when you hear the word "atheist", but you can't assume everyone sees the world the same way.

This thread is about Hitchens' writing and some negative responses to it. From my reading of Hitchens, the most annoying part is his self-righteousness.

We can switch the focus from the pseudo-scientific view of the universe that atheists present to the self-righteousness they exhibit. One of the questions then would be how does atheistic self-righteousness differ from that of racists, homophobes or antisemitic people? My answer is that the only difference is in the targets.

[MorpheusSandman]

We can switch the focus from the pseudo-scientific view of the universe that atheists present to the self-righteousness they exhibit. One of the questions then would be how does atheistic self-righteousness differ from that of racists, homophobes or antisemitic people? My answer is that the only difference is in the targets.Wow... really? Pseudoscience has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Something is pseudoscience based on whether or not it follows the rigorous methodology of scientific inquiry. I don't know what "atheist pseudoscience" you have in mind, but I'm guessing it's not psuedo at all.

However, your vague accusation of atheist views as being "pseudo-science" is innocuous compared to your downright offensive and ludicrous comparison of atheists to racists, homophobes, and antisemites. That claim is just stupidity on a mind-boggling scale. Firstly, racists, homophobes, and anti-semites are OVERWHELMINGLY religious, and they USE their religion to JUSTIFY their hatred and attempted oppression of minorities. The notion that atheists "hate" theists, or that they're trying to suppress/oppress them in remotely the same way the religious have done to others is about the most flaming hypocritical turd of nonsense as I've ever heard. The Daily Show even did an excellent piece (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/daily-show-debunks-christians-being-persecuted-anti-gay-beliefs-video#) exposing how ludicrous the idea was. Atheists disagree with a believe theists share, and they often openly disagree with them by saying it publicly in debates, books, online arguments, etc., but please point to me one example of an atheist doing something that would suggest they hate Christians, the way racists have lynched black people in cold blood, or the way homophobes have beaten homosexuals to death solely for their sexual orientation. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, certainly not in a country where the overwhelming majority of people are Christian theists.

No, what's happened is that in such a country the majority builds up a ridiculous amount of privilege and, yes, sense of self-righteousness that comes along with it. They basically think they rule everything, and the minute someone says "no, you can't oppress us; no you can't treat us as second-class citizens; no, you can't infringe upon our governmental rights," that same privileged majority starts throwing a hissy fit like a bunch of crybabies. That's precisely what we see from those Christians interviewed in The Daily Show segment. They actually think that being called homophobes is an example of THEM being victimized. It's the Christians who are self-righteous, and whom, the minute their beliefs are questioned, perceive it as an attack on that righteousness and then psychologically project that self-righteousness on to everyone else. "No, no, it's not me who's self-righteous for condemning homosexuals, it's YOU for saying I can't do it!" "No, no, it's not me who's self-righteous for claiming how the universe works based on a 2000 year old book without a stitch of evidence, it's YOU whom are self-righteous with your provable science and logic and reason!"

Get a clue.

[Ecurb]

Religion has a long, sordid history of promoting tribalism, bigotry, self-righteousness, and irrational hatred. However, to excuse atheists who make bigoted or self-righteous statements by saying, "They're not as bigoted or self-righteous as religious people" constitutes a false dichotomy. Bullies who beat people up aren't as bad as murderers, either. That doesn't mean that assault and battery shouldn't be a crime.

[MorpheusSandman]

to excuse atheists who make bigoted or self-righteous statements by saying...I don't think I'm excusing anything, I'm saying I don't see it happening--certainly not on the levels various paranoid theists/Christians claim it's happening. Watch that Daily Show link; I find that level of paranoia far more common than actual examples of actual atheists displaying comparable levels of self-righteous bigotry that's so common amongst the religious. Online, the number of actual, bullying, bigoted atheists full of hate for theists I've encountered I could count on one hand (and I've been a part of several forums for over a decade now), while the number of actual, bullying, bigoted Christians full of hate for, say, homosexuals are so common I couldn't count them all. Plus, I don't even think the common difference is comparable to your murderers/batterers analogy; it's more like murderers VS someone saying "I think your beliefs suck and are false and you can't oppress people," which isn't illegal.

Plus, let's please make a distinction here between being bigoted against people for something they can't control, like the color of their skin or sexual orientation, VS being bigoted against someone's chosen belief system. I'm fairly sure most people are bigoted against belief systems that would excuse going out and killing someone because of the color of their skin, yet is that a negative kind of bigotry? Intolerance of intolerance is not a oxymoron or paradox, yet it's precisely the kind of thing atheists of are accused of when we condemn Christians' condemnation of things like homosexuality.

[Ecurb]

I understand your points, morpheus, but I'm not sure the fact that we "can't control" skin color or sexual orientation is significant. I've never quite understood why Gay Rights Activists make a big deal out of sexual orientation being innate -- what does it matter? Would it be any more justifiable to discriminate against homosexuals if their orientation was NOT innate? If other sexual orientations are innate (like pedophelia or sadism), does that mean we should see them as somehow OK? (By the way, I grant that an orientation is not evil -- acting upon it may be.)

IN addition, although here in the (relatively liberal) West, religious faith is a choice, that is not always the case. If you live in Iran, your religious behavior may be coerced -- and religions are generally "inherited" (although not genetically) in that they are passed, like language, from parents to children. It would be silly to be bigoted against English speakers, or Spanish speakers, even though these are learned behaviors, just like religion. Bigotry against religious people is a form of ethnocentrism. Obviously, it's reasonable to argue for freedom from religion-based oppresion (like laws banning homosexuality or fornication), and for reasonable educational goals (like teaching evolution), and it's reasonable to contemn (a good word, by the way) self-righteousness, without condemning it. What is not reasonable is to call anyone expressing religious beliefs "morons" (not that you've done that, morpheus, but some atheists have, in this very thread).

[MorpheusSandman]

I think the innateness of sexual orientation was more an issue from the religious side of the argument. It's easier (ie, more personally psychologically justifiable) to condemn a choice than it is to condemn something someone was born with. So it was a matter of the religious claiming homosexuality was a choice while simultaneously knowing nothing about it, and homosexuals responding by saying "uhh, no, it wasn't a choice at all." IE, more a matter of false claim leading to a backlash of attempted correction. I certainly agree, however, that it wouldn't be any more right to discriminate against homosexuals if it WAS a choice, merely that I think certain people who WANT to discriminate against them would find it more psychologically justifiable to do so.

You make good points about religious beliefs being inherited in a sense, and there are definitely more extreme forms of this than elsewhere, but I'm mostly limiting it to the Western experience since, afterall, how many Iranians does a Westerner encounter online? However, even if someone has "inherited" a religion, that doesn't mean they aren't still free to disinherit that belief as they experience and learn more and break away from their roots. This is precisely what happened to me and, I imagine, most atheists in the countries dominated by religious belief. I'd also agree it's not reasonable to call anyone a moron solely because of their beliefs, as I've meant plenty of morons with every belief system under the sun, but at what point in a debate is it reasonable to do so after it becomes clear that a person is clinging to their beliefs and ignoring all facts and reason to the contrary?

[The Atheist]

It's not hard to find atheists acting badly, very badly. Just search YouTube for the Khmer Rouge.

You forgot Stalin & Mao.

I find it amusing when people have to resort to that kind of dribble to attack atheism. The killings of Pol Pot, Stalin et al were not done in the name of atheism, but nice of you to try the oldest chestnut in the book.


When I hear the word "atheist", a scene from "The Killing Fields" of a young, self-righteous, Khmer Rouge girl putting a plastic bag over her victim's head immediately comes to mind. That is probably not the image that comes to your mind when you hear the word "atheist", but you can't assume everyone sees the world the same way.

I can't help what goes in your mind, but it amuses the hell out of me.



We can switch the focus from the pseudo-scientific view of the universe that atheists present to the self-righteousness they exhibit. One of the questions then would be how does atheistic self-righteousness differ from that of racists, homophobes or antisemitic people? My answer is that the only difference is in the targets.

This has now officially become the funniest thread ever. You're hilarious.

Pseudoscience, racism & homophobia - just brilliant, my man.

[The Atheist]

I'd also agree it's not reasonable to call anyone a moron solely because of their beliefs, as I've meant plenty of morons with every belief system under the sun, but at what point in a debate is it reasonable to do so after it becomes clear that a person is clinging to their beliefs and ignoring all facts and reason to the contrary?

I tend to think the assertion that atheists call religious people morons is more fantasy than reality. Have you seen examples of people being called morons solely for their religious belief?

I'm happy to call IDiots morons, but intelligent design isn't a religion; it's a denial of established scientific fact.

Even in this thread, the only abuse has been directed at atheists, rather than by atheists.

I do, however, find it highly amusing that atheists are the subject of so many fallacies.

[Ecurb]

I tend to think the assertion that atheists call religious people morons is more fantasy than reality. Have you seen examples of people being called morons solely for their religious belief?

I'm happy to call IDiots morons, but intelligent design isn't a religion; it's a denial of established scientific fact.

Even in this thread, the only abuse has been directed at atheists, rather than by atheists.

I do, however, find it highly amusing that atheists are the subject of so many fallacies.

From an earlier post in this thread:



Only a moron would examine The Little Mermaid for evidence on mermaids, and likewise only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus.

On a more positive note, I admire the Atheist's ability to find humor everywhere he looks. He's always finding someone's posts "hilarious" or "highly amusing". Perhaps I should ask him to read my attempts at writing humor. If only they could meet with such enthusiasm! Also, I'm glad that calling IDiots "morons" makes the Atheist "happy". Let PEACE and JOY reign throughout the world!

[The Atheist]

Still completely dishonest - how surprising.

This:

Only a moron would examine The Little Mermaid for evidence on mermaids, and likewise only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus.

... in no way corresponds to this:


Have you seen examples of people being called morons solely for their religious belief?

I've bolded and underlined the relevant piece to assist with your demonstrated lack of comprehension.


Perhaps I should ask him to read my attempts at writing humor.

I already am - you're extremely good!

[Ecurb]

Logic lesson:

P1: One standard Christian religious belief is that accounts in the bible provide historical "evidence".
P2: The Bible is a religious text that offers accounts of an Israeli exodus.
P3: "Only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus."

What, junior logicians, can we conclude from this evidence about the correspondence, in The Atheists opinion, of religious beliefs and being a "moron"? Also why does The Atheist call me "dishonest" for merely quoting his posts, without commentary?

[The Atheist]

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/funny.gif

Gosh, I really cannot wait until you post some deliberate comedy, because this stuff is pure gold, and you aren't even trying!


Logic lesson:

P1: One standard Christian religious belief is that accounts in the bible provide historical "evidence".

Wrong, on two counts. The discussion is about belief in god/s, of which a majority of believers do not even use the bible. I'm guessing you don't realise that the OT is actually Jewish and has been co-opted by christianity? Not to mention that many major sects see the OT as metaphorical rather than literal. In fact, biblical literalists are few & far between, but don't let facts get in the way of another very funny joke.


P2: The Bible is a religious text that offers accounts of an Israeli exodus.
P3: "Only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus."

What, junior logicians, can we conclude from this evidence...

That your logic is well attuned to your honesty.

Based upon your logic, we should be looking for evidence of Noah's Ark, the garden of Eden, unicorns, people who have survived three days inside a great fish and men who lived to 900 years old.

Also, note that "an account" is not "evidence". I recommend you try Dictionary.com or other site to help you.


Also why does The Atheist call me "dishonest" for merely quoting his posts, without commentary?

Because it was self-explanatory. There is an obvious miss as well: if you weren't making a commentary by default, why are you now trying - and failing - to defend it? You're making no sense whatsoever. If you still don't get it, I'm happy to use words of one syllable to help you out of the hole you're digging yourself.

My guess is that you prefer digging....

[MorpheusSandman]

From an earlier post in this thread:I'm with The Atheist here: I think you misunderstood that comment and, even as stated, I don't think it falls under the category of calling all religious people morons because of a belief. Perhaps it was somewhat tactlessly stated, but try the same statement with a different inflection: "Only a moron would point to a text to prove its veracity when it's the veracity of the text that is in question." IE, if X text says Y, and Skeptic questions the veracity of Y, Believer can't just say "but X says so," since Skeptic is obviously questioning the veracity of X as well. Now, I did question The Atheist's reasoning for this (that The Bible is wholly fictional VS The bible is part fiction/part history), but I think the point stands. If a skeptic is questioning the veracity of a Biblical claim, then believers have to point to something outside The Bible to corroborate its claims, and I would say it takes a certain level of mental deficiency to not get that.


I'm glad that calling IDiots "morons" makes the Atheist "happy". I've got to agree with him there. It's a good illustration of the point: when science is so overwhelmingly against ID, and when the ID arguments have been so thoroughly demolished and evolution been so thoroughly established, when the dishonesty and outright lies of ID's biggest supporters (Discovery Institute) have been exposed; at what point IS it OK to actually claim that ID's advocates are, indeed, morons who are willfully ignoring all science, fact, reason, etc.? It's not about the believe itself, it's about the fact that its believers have held on to the belief in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, and if that's not "moronic," by any basic definition of the word, I don't know what is.

[cacian]

i came across this whilst reading about Philo of Alexandria.
''he believed that literal interpretations of the Hebrew Bible would stifle mankind's view and perception of a God too complex and marvellous to be understood in literal human terms''

could this mean that our knowledge of god is restricted and that everything we talk about is pure specualtions?

[YesNo]

You forgot Stalin & Mao.

I find it amusing when people have to resort to that kind of dribble to attack atheism. The killings of Pol Pot, Stalin et al were not done in the name of atheism, but nice of you to try the oldest chestnut in the book.


I didn't forget Mao or Stalin. I'm sure there are many other examples. The Khmer Rouge is a clear-cut case of atheistic self-righteousness leading to what some might call genocide. Your excuse isn't any better than a religious person claiming that witch hunts weren't done by truly religious people and so don't count against their religion.

Based on body count, Hitchens should have been begging the world's forgiveness for atheism rather than ranting against religion.

Self-righteousness generates three groups of people, not two as is often assumed.

The first group contains people who get their hearts pumping with self-righteous, me-good-you-bad inanity. They can now stop thinking and start hating gays, communists, capitalists, blacks, Chinese, Jews, or religious people. It doesn't matter who this targeted group is as long as hatred can be generated against them through defamation.

The second group, of course, contains those targeted, but the most important group is the third.

This third group holds those who listen to the brain-dead, self-righteous, me-good-you-bad rhetoric and get disgusted with it. They become self-righteous in response. These are not necessarily members of the targeted group, but they are the principal opposition that people like Hitchens forget they are creating.

For example, I don't like homophobic rhetoric, but I am not gay. So I become anti-homophobic. I don't like antisemitic rhetoric, but I am not Jewish. So I become anti-antisemitic. I don't like racist rhetoric, but I am not black. So I become anti-racist.

Similarly, I don't like atheistic, self-righteousness, pseudo-scientific BS, especially the Hitchens and Dawkins variety. That doesn't mean I'm a theist, although I like to think I am. It primarily means that I am now, thanks to this rhetoric, anti-atheistic. I'm at a point where I'll pick any God, even the tooth fairy, just to piss off these atheists.

It's this third group that atheists need to be careful about especially when they try to excuse their own acts of violence while defaming others. The injustice of that is a major source of self-righteousness against them coming from this third group.

[MorpheusSandman]

Your excuse isn't any better than a religious person claiming that witch hunts weren't done by truly religious people and so don't count against their religion.When Christians claim such a thing, they're committing a No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) fallacy; Atheists, however, are pointing to facts that the reasons for those atrocities had nothing to do with those figures' lack of beliefs in God, it was all politically motivated. In that sense, certain political ideologies are just as damaging as certain religious ideologies. Atheism, not having any ideologies, can't be used as a means to justify such actions. Christians can actually point to Biblical passages to condone the killing of witches. So I wouldn't say that, eg, Pol Pot, Stalin, et al. weren't "real atheists," since anyone who disbelieves in God is a "real atheist," but what I would say is that disbelieving in God is not justification for anything else a person does.


I don't like atheistic, self-righteousness, pseudo-scientific BS, especially the Hitchens and Dawkins variety.Please point to me what is either self-righteous or pseudo-scientific about anything in Dawkins. Dawkins actually IS a scientist, and one whom is tremendously respected in his field. Hitchens isn't a scientist and I don't know of any scientific or pseudo-scientific things he's ever written. But to call Dawkins pseudo-scientific is tripping quite closely to moron level.


It's this third group that atheists need to be careful about especially when they try to excuse their own acts of violence while defaming others. I want to make sure to make this as clear as possible: When Christians do unspeakably evil things, they can actually point to the book on which their creed is based to defend their actions, because, much of the time, the book is portraying and condoning not just those evil things, but things much more vile. Perhaps the leading theologian today, William Lane Craig, is actually on record for DEFENDING the genocides portrayed in The Bible. Atheism HAS NO HOLY BOOK ON WHICH THEIR LACK OF BELIEF IS BASED. Not having a Holy Book on which they base their disbelief, atheists really can't do anything IN the name of atheism. They can't point to an Atheist Bible and say "well, I killed this person because this passage in this book on which my Atheism is based told me to." The Religious, however, have always done this. You say you dislike homophobic rhetoric, but you do realize that most of that rhetoric is Biblically based, right?

[Ecurb]

]


That your logic is well attuned to your honesty.

Based upon your logic, we should be looking for evidence of Noah's Ark, the garden of Eden, unicorns, people who have survived three days inside a great fish and men who lived to 900 years old.



....

As usual, Atheist, your logic is nonsensical. Anyone with the slightest notion of logical inference would know that we can conclude from my argument only that we should not call everyone who looks for evidence of Noah's ark, the garden of Eden, etc. "a moron". Some kindly people might suggest that we shouldn't call anyone a moron, or, at least, shouldn't call entire groups of people "morons" when some of them, misguided though they might be, are clearly not morons.

[Ecurb]

I'm with The Atheist here: I think you misunderstood that comment and, even as stated, I don't think it falls under the category of calling all religious people morons because of a belief. Perhaps it was somewhat tactlessly stated, but try the same statement with a different inflection: "Only a moron would point to a text to prove its veracity when it's the veracity of the text that is in question." IE, if X text says Y, and Skeptic questions the veracity of Y, Believer can't just say "but X says so," since Skeptic is obviously questioning the veracity of X as well. Now, I did question The Atheist's reasoning for this (that The Bible is wholly fictional VS The bible is part fiction/part history), but I think the point stands. If a skeptic is questioning the veracity of a Biblical claim, then believers have to point to something outside The Bible to corroborate its claims, and I would say it takes a certain level of mental deficiency to not get that.

.

There are two issues: one is the veracity of the text, in which case you are clearly correct that the text itself doesn't serve to verify the text (arguing that it does would be circular). The other is the veracity of the exodus, in which case it is arguable whether the text provides evidence for the event (I'd say it does, albeit weak evidence).

[MorpheusSandman]

There are two issues: one is the veracity of the text, in which case you are clearly correct that the text itself doesn't serve to verify the text (arging that it does would be circular). The other is the veracity of the exodus, in which case it is arguable whether the text provides evidence for the event (I'd say it does, albeit weak evidence).I took Atheist's comment to be more to the former, that he was arguing against the very common believer statement of "it's true because it's in The Bible" even though it's The Bible being true that people are questioning. I think, as you said, it's some kind of evidence for an exodus, but certainly not anything approaching proof, and there is definite need for something external.

[Cioran]

I got it from Dawkins. The "selfish gene" is a gene with purpose, because it is selfish. Of course, this selfishness is a metaphor, but for Dawkins to resort to metaphor is a sign his ideas aren't clear and implies that a materialism that claims to be able to reduce everything to chance and physics-chemistry is not true.

Of course it is a metaphor; are you actually suggesting that Dawkins means the gene is selfish in the way, say, someone who plots and schemes to hog all the ice cream for dessert is selfish?


The idea that Ecurb expressed, and I agree with, is also summarized in Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion, p. 164:


What Dawkins does is to project on to the DNA molecules the purposive vital factors of vitalism, trying to squeeze the soul into chemical genes, which are thereby endowed with instructions, plans, purposes and intentions they cannot possibly have. He admits that these are metaphors, adding, 'Incidentally, there is of course no "architect".' But despite occasional disclaimers, the entire force of his argument depends on anthropocentric metaphors and molecules that have come to life. He is a vitalist in molecular clothing.

Sheldrake prefers a model of "morphic resonance".

Sheldrake's analysis is total nonsense.

[Cioran]

The Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation.

Wrong. It is the instrumentalist interpretation; the one that is used to illustrate the science of Qm without bothering asking questions about the philosophy of Qm or what Qm implies for ontology. As Max Tegmark pointed out years ago, a majority of scientists who work with QM physics subscribe to the many worlds.


It is also a positivist interpretation, or one that tries to offer minimal metaphysics.

Nope, that's dead wrong. Copenhagen is a wave-function collapse metaphysics. Nothing in the Schroedinger wave equation produces a wave function collapse. It's just made up. It's completely added on without any explanation. Take away the wave function collapse and you get many worlds, in perfect harmonious accord with the wave equation.



If it gets nonlocality and uncertainty, it faces the facts. It doesn't rush to save its metaphysics from those facts.

As has been explained to you, oh, a million times, nonlocality and indeterminism are artifacts of presupposing wave function collapse. Take away the collapse, you take away the nonlocality and indeterminism.

[Cioran]

The reason for the lifelessness of a deterministic universe can be derived from the combinatorial explosion of possibilities that chance would have to have available for life to exist. Since life exists, that would be another argument, beside the uncertainty of quantum physics, that the universe is not deterministic.

Incorrect. First, as repeatedly explained to you, QM is nondeterministic on a wave-fucntion collapse postulate that arbitrarily divides the world into quantum and classical realms. MW simply says the world is wholly quantum, with no classical realm. Such a world is deterministic.

You've done nothing but assert that a deterministic universe would be lifeless. In fact I don't believe I've ever even come across such a claim.

Finally, the universe is probably spatially infinite. Assume life is incredibly unlikely, such that it will arise only once in a trillion tries. In a spatially infinite universe, that means there will be an infinite number of inhabited worlds, by pure chance alone.

You are also wrong about the many worlds violating Occham's Razor. The razor does not apply to worlds; it applies to explanatory hypothoses that themselves then cry out for further explanation. MW clearly is preferred by the razor over Copenhagen, since the latter supplies a wave function collapse that is wholly unexplained and nowhere in the maths.

[MorpheusSandman]

QM is nondeterministic on a wave-fucntion collapse postulate that arbitrarily divides the world into quantum and classical realms.Also--and correct me if I'm wrong since it's been a while since I was reading about this--wasn't the initial postulation that there was some "hidden variable" that would explain the quantum/classic world "split," and then Bell's Theorem pretty much put the death knell in that postulation? In light of that, what grounds, really, do people have for supposing reality is NOT "wholly quantum"?


Finally, the universe is probably spatially infinite.Isn't space expanding?


You are also wrong about the many worlds violating Occham's Razor.Yeah, it's painful to try and get people to realize that OR doesn't apply to the worlds, it applies to the underlying hypothesis in which you get the worlds.

[YesNo]

When Christians claim such a thing, they're committing a No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) fallacy; Atheists, however, are pointing to facts that the reasons for those atrocities had nothing to do with those figures' lack of beliefs in God, it was all politically motivated. In that sense, certain political ideologies are just as damaging as certain religious ideologies. Atheism, not having any ideologies, can't be used as a means to justify such actions. Christians can actually point to Biblical passages to condone the killing of witches. So I wouldn't say that, eg, Pol Pot, Stalin, et al. weren't "real atheists," since anyone who disbelieves in God is a "real atheist," but what I would say is that disbelieving in God is not justification for anything else a person does.

Although it has been a while since I read Hitchens "God is Not Great", I was curious last night how Hitchens himself handled the case of the Khmer Rouge. Although I couldn't find the Khmer Rouge in the index, there were plenty of other atheistic states that he discussed.

Just skimming, it seemed he used the "no true Scotsman" argument that you identified. He admitted there were atheistic regimes that acted very badly, but then he seemed to claim that the reason for their bad behavior was that they had become somehow religious. Here's a quick quote, page 250, that I think summarizes that position:


Totalitarian systems, whatever outward form they may take, are fundamentalist and, as we would now say "faith-based."

Is Hitchens any better than the Scotsman? I consider that kind of argument dishonest whether it is done by a theist, an atheist or a Scotsman.



Please point to me what is either self-righteous or pseudo-scientific about anything in Dawkins. Dawkins actually IS a scientist, and one whom is tremendously respected in his field. Hitchens isn't a scientist and I don't know of any scientific or pseudo-scientific things he's ever written. But to call Dawkins pseudo-scientific is tripping quite closely to moron level.

The true Scotsman argument discussed above is a way to take evidence and make it fit one's metaphysics. Note how the metaphysics is primary, not the evidence. Couple that kind of reasoning with the delusion that one is somehow representing "science" against "religion" and you have pseudo-science.

There is nothing more to pseudo-science than that. All one has to do is present irrational arguments with bogus evidence authoritatively as if it were scientific.

[MorpheusSandman]

Is Hitchens any better than the Scotsman?Saying that atheistic regimes committed horrific acts is different than saying those horrific acts were motivated by their atheism. As long as Hitchens (and others) aren't saying "they aren't REAL atheists" then they're not committing the Scotsman fallacy, since that's what the fallacy requires. Religious people can't really say that such horrors weren't committed directly in the name of religion, so they resort to the Scotsman fallacy.


Note how the metaphysics is primary, not the evidence. Couple that kind of reasoning with the delusion that one is somehow representing "science" against "religion" and you have pseudo-science. There is nothing more to pseudo-science than that. All one has to do is present irrational arguments with bogus evidence authoritatively as if it were scientific.All fine and dandy, but you did not respond to my actual challenge: point to something in Dawkins that's stated with scientific authority that is "pseudo-science;" or are you claiming all scientific claims against religion are pseudo-science?

[YesNo]

Saying that atheistic regimes committed horrific acts is different than saying those horrific acts were motivated by their atheism. As long as Hitchens (and others) aren't saying "they aren't REAL atheists" then they're not committing the Scotsman fallacy, since that's what the fallacy requires. Religious people can't really say that such horrors weren't committed directly in the name of religion, so they resort to the Scotsman fallacy.

I think the horrific acts committed by the Khmer Rouge were motivated by their atheism especially as they targeted Buddhists.

I think Hitchens is saying that these atheistic regimes, once the body counts start rolling in and they get bad press, have turned into some "fundamentalist", "faith-based" group regardless what they call themselves. He is effectively saying they are not "real" atheists.

What such an argument does is sets up atheism so that it can do no wrong. This is convenient for Hitchens, because then only religious groups, his targets, can do wrong and he has his intellectual justification for self-righteousness. Is there anything that an atheist can do that would make atheism look bad by this reasoning?

Notice how such an ideology cannot be falsified. Couple that with a claim that one is on the side of science, and one gets pseudo-science.

Now, here's the key point: Also consider that Hitchens is using this me-always-good-you-always-bad argument to target real people and you have a pseudo-intellectual justification for social harassment.



All fine and dandy, but you did not respond to my actual challenge: point to something in Dawkins that's stated with scientific authority that is "pseudo-science;" or are you claiming all scientific claims against religion are pseudo-science?

As far as taking up your challenge, I've already done that with the "selfish" gene.

I haven't checked, but I suspect Dawkins is using a similar argument to keep atheists, such as the Khmer Rouge, from being blamed as atheists when they behave badly the same way Hitchens tries to keep his atheism clean. This would promote a non-falsifiable social theory targeting a subset of the population. Since he's a "scientist", one who supposedly does not create such non-falsifiable theories, he along with Hitchens would be pseudo-scientific.

So I guess I just have to check how Dawkins handles the Khmer Rouge.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think the horrific acts committed by the Khmer Rouge were motivated by their atheism especially as they targeted Buddhists.LOL, no. The outlawing of religion was a means to lead the state into a form of agrarian communism with the regime saw as ideal. This resulted in much more than just persecution of the religious, but also closing schools, hospitals, factories, banks, etc. They pretty much killed/tortured anyone who went against that ideal, including those who picked berries for themselves, were intellectuals, or whom wouldn't evacuate to the communes. They essentially wanted to isolate their state from the rest of the world and abolishing religion was just one aspect of that, not motivated by atheism, but motivated by their agrarian communist ideal state.


I think Hitchens is saying that these atheistic regimes, once the body counts start rolling in and they get bad press, have turned into some "fundamentalist", "faith-based" group regardless what they call themselves. He is effectively saying they are not "real" atheists. Well, I'm not going to speak for a dead man. All I'd say is that if he's saying that, he's wrong. If they disbelieved in God, they were atheists. However, it's abundantly clear that it was their political ideologies that fueled all their actions.


What such an argument does is sets up atheism so that it can do no wrong. This is convenient for Hitchens, because then only religious groups, his targets, can do wrong and he has his intellectual justification for self-righteousness. Is there anything that an atheist can do that would make atheism look bad by this reasoning?I honestly don't think so. Perhaps you think that's entirely unfair, but it goes back to what I said about atheism not having any tenets, any ideology. Atheism simply means a lack of believe in God. Outside of that, it doesn't tell people how to act or what to think about anything else. People need an ideology in order to do terrible (or, often on the flip-side, amazing) things. Religion, unlike atheism, gives peoples tenets and rules and ideologies that people use to justify their actions. As I said, there's nothing about atheism that an atheist can point to justify, eg, killing witches or committing genocide.

However, and I've made this argument many times, I don't think it's really an affective argument for either side to point to the horrors that have been committed by atheists or in the name of religion. To me, the issue rests on whether God exists or not. The fact that some believers and unbelievers do great/terrible things really means nothing as to the truth of the proposition itself. I think the only time its relevant is when the religious attempt to take a moral high ground and claim religion is the only way to do that; then noting those horrible acts is an affective rebuttal.


Notice how such an ideology cannot be falsified. Couple that with a claim that one is on the side of science, and one gets pseudo-science.I don't know what you mean by "cannot falsify such an ideology," because a lot of ideologies (or elements in them) can't be falsified because they aren't making claims about reality. Besides, as I said, what should be falsifiable are the claims about God's existence that leads to religion to begin with, not what believers/unbelievers do.


As far as taking up your challenge, I've already done that with the "selfish" gene. Yes, and you failed miserably as many have pointed out. Describing how something works and using metaphors is not "pseudo-science," it's an attempt to find terms for things we otherwise don't have terms for. It's been long discussed how even in science man can't completely escape metaphor. But this is completely different than "pseudo-science." In order to be pseudo-science Dawkins would have to claim something about DNA that was untrue/unfalsifiable.


I haven't checked, but I suspect Dawkins is using a similar argument to keep atheists, such as the Khmer Rouge, from being blamed as atheists when they behave badly the same way Hitchens tries to keep his atheism clean. This would promote a non-falsifiable social theory targeting a subset of the population. Since he's a "scientist", one who supposedly does not create such non-falsifiable theories, he along with Hitchens would be pseudo-scientific.
All of this is really completely irrelevant to your claim of pseudo-science. You seem to be off in your own YesNo world again where words don't mean what they actually mean. I suggest you look up "pseudo-science" and get some real-world examples, because someone giving opinions (like Hitchens) or using metaphors to describe scientific observations (like Dawkins) are not "pseudo-science," and even if Dawkins DID try and defend atheism from the Khmer Rouge, that wouldn't automatically make it pseudo-science since he'd have to be actively building up some kind of pseudo-scientific framework around it. A good example would be to look at Tarot Cards; believers have this entire system set up regarding what each card means and further believe that depending on how you deal them they tell the future. THAT is pseudo-science; it's "science" part comes from the the system of rules/claims made about what the cards mean and how they work; It's "pseudo" because it has not been tested in any way resembling the rigors of the scientific method. So even if Dawkins claims something that's not necessarily scientific, that doesn't automatically make it "pseudo-science". All of his statements about how genes behave are, AFAIK, accurate.

[cafolini]

Right after the fartvolution of 1917, Henry Ford established a tractor factory in Russia.

[YesNo]

LOL, no. The outlawing of religion was a means to lead the state into a form of agrarian communism with the regime saw as ideal. This resulted in much more than just persecution of the religious, but also closing schools, hospitals, factories, banks, etc. They pretty much killed/tortured anyone who went against that ideal, including those who picked berries for themselves, were intellectuals, or whom wouldn't evacuate to the communes. They essentially wanted to isolate their state from the rest of the world and abolishing religion was just one aspect of that, not motivated by atheism, but motivated by their agrarian communist ideal state.

Similar arguments could be used by religious groups to excuse their past behavior. I don't think it works for either the theists or the atheists.



Well, I'm not going to speak for a dead man. All I'd say is that if he's saying that, he's wrong. If they disbelieved in God, they were atheists. However, it's abundantly clear that it was their political ideologies that fueled all their actions.

I honestly don't think so. Perhaps you think that's entirely unfair, but it goes back to what I said about atheism not having any tenets, any ideology. Atheism simply means a lack of believe in God. Outside of that, it doesn't tell people how to act or what to think about anything else. People need an ideology in order to do terrible (or, often on the flip-side, amazing) things. Religion, unlike atheism, gives peoples tenets and rules and ideologies that people use to justify their actions. As I said, there's nothing about atheism that an atheist can point to justify, eg, killing witches or committing genocide.

No one should be interested in some Platonic ideal of atheism nor of any other religion. Real people are being targeted.

Atheism is an ideology or a metaphysics about the world that leads atheists to commit the crimes they have in the past just as any religion might. They are not excused because they are delusional and dogmatically believe they don't have tenets, rules or ideologies.



However, and I've made this argument many times, I don't think it's really an affective argument for either side to point to the horrors that have been committed by atheists or in the name of religion. To me, the issue rests on whether God exists or not. The fact that some believers and unbelievers do great/terrible things really means nothing as to the truth of the proposition itself. I think the only time its relevant is when the religious attempt to take a moral high ground and claim religion is the only way to do that; then noting those horrible acts is an affective rebuttal.

I think it is legitimate to use past abuses against both theists and atheists. What I don't think is legitimate is to excuse atheism and then go on a rant against religion.

It is atheists who are trying to grab some illusory moral high ground by attempting to restrict the argument to cultural expressions of some God. The issue has to do with an overall metaphysics which is about the universe. God is a side issue.



I don't know what you mean by "cannot falsify such an ideology," because a lot of ideologies (or elements in them) can't be falsified because they aren't making claims about reality. Besides, as I said, what should be falsifiable are the claims about God's existence that leads to religion to begin with, not what believers/unbelievers do.

To put this more clearly, Hitchens and Dawkins are presenting rhetoric that is no different from that of your common bigot and they are doing this as "intellectuals" or "scientists".



Yes, and you failed miserably as many have pointed out. Describing how something works and using metaphors is not "pseudo-science," it's an attempt to find terms for things we otherwise don't have terms for. It's been long discussed how even in science man can't completely escape metaphor. But this is completely different than "pseudo-science." In order to be pseudo-science Dawkins would have to claim something about DNA that was untrue/unfalsifiable.

Dawkins own metaphysics does not allow genes to have purposive behavior. He knows it is at best a metaphor and yet he still pumps it. Doing that while presenting himself as a "scientist" is to grab the authority associated with science to make his case. That is pseudo-science.



All of this is really completely irrelevant to your claim of pseudo-science. You seem to be off in your own YesNo world again where words don't mean what they actually mean. I suggest you look up "pseudo-science" and get some real-world examples, because someone giving opinions (like Hitchens) or using metaphors to describe scientific observations (like Dawkins) are not "pseudo-science," and even if Dawkins DID try and defend atheism from the Khmer Rouge, that wouldn't automatically make it pseudo-science since he'd have to be actively building up some kind of pseudo-scientific framework around it. A good example would be to look at Tarot Cards; believers have this entire system set up regarding what each card means and further believe that depending on how you deal them they tell the future. THAT is pseudo-science; it's "science" part comes from the the system of rules/claims made about what the cards mean and how they work; It's "pseudo" because it has not been tested in any way resembling the rigors of the scientific method. So even if Dawkins claims something that's not necessarily scientific, that doesn't automatically make it "pseudo-science". All of his statements about how genes behave are, AFAIK, accurate.

I think it might be more effective to see the intolerance to targeted groups expressed by Hitchens and Dawkins as bigotry. From their bigotry you can get the pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-scientific characteristics.

Considering this intolerance, I don't see the "atheism" they are presenting as any different from that of the Khmer Rouge.

[MorpheusSandman]

I really see no reason for continuing this conversation. Much like with the QM/MW debate, you seem intent on repeating the same claims ad nauseam even as you ignore arguments that rebut the bases those claims rest on. It gets rather tiring.

[The Atheist]

Comedy award of the week goes to this quote.

If I didn't already have such an excellent sig line already, I'd use it; this is a work of sheer genius:


I think the horrific acts committed by the Khmer Rouge were motivated by their atheism especially as they targeted Buddhists.

[mal4mac]

Here’s a Salon article...

What a sad pretence of scholarship, he can't even get the most basic facts right about the subject he is attacking. For instance, the author says "Nor did he [Christopher Hitchens] take the trouble to learn about the secular Buddhism advocated by lay scholars like Stephen Batchelor, author of “Confession of a Buddhist Atheist.” Hitchens actually gave this book a rave review, a review which takes up a large chunk of the back of the hardback edition!

[mal4mac]

Well, I agree with him about New Atheism (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) VS Old Atheism (Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus). However, I want to say that it's a bit of an unfair comparison because Dawkins and Harris (at least) are scientists trying to transition into philosophy; philosophy is a complex enough subject to spend a lifetime meditating on without mastering, much less trying to move from one similarly complex, demanding discipline (science) into philosophy.

The argument that scientists can't do philosophy, and that they can't make a transition into it, is totally ridiculous. Kant made a transition from science into philosophy, or at least did both at the same time, and his first big idea was scientific - the hypothesis that the milky way reveals that stars form a galactic cluster. Descartes and Pascal are other examples. Pascal's Pensees came late in his career, and he did a lot of his mathematical work early on, so he clearly made a transition from "serious scientist" to "serious philosopher". Bertrand Russell made a transition from mathematician to philosopher, Wittgenstein made a transition from aeronautical engineer to philosopher. Looking at these figures I kind of feel that the best philosophers were initially scientists! (Plato demanded that his pupils became expert mathematicians, because that gives you the kind of critical, exact mindset that is needed to do decent philosophy.) Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus certainly write some stirring stuff but the main arguments that made me more certain of my atheism came initially from Bertrand Russell, and his fellow travellers, backed up more recently, mostly, by Dawkins, and his fellow travellers. Nietzsche and the Hitch write some gutsy stuff, that is well worth reading, but the backbone of atheism comes from more scientific minds.

[MorpheusSandman]

Mal, I still think my point stands that it's unfair to critique many of the New Atheists whom have spent most of their lives in very specific scientific fields for not being as good as philosophers who studied philosophy their entire life. Of course, any scientist can make this transition, but it's not an easy one, and it's not as if they can take in thousands of years of philosophical thought in no time flat. My impression is also that most of the New Atheists, those that have made that science-to-philosophy transition, are mostly relying on their scientific areas of expertise to form their philosophies, and are often not aware of philosophers that have engaged with those same ideas already elsewhere. When I listen to Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, (though less so Harris) I feel like I'm listening to a scientist much more than a philosopher. On the other hand, I can read Russel, Wittgenstein, et al. and not get that sense at all, so it depends on where they're coming from.

Likewise, it's unfair to compare philosophers of the past (especially the distant past) who made this transition to modern scientists. There's been a profound explosion of knowledge in just the past 100 years. So much that no individual could assimilate it all, hence the need for extremely specialized forms of science and scientists. As I said, you could spend a lifetime studying a single branch of science and not assimilate it all, much less trying to spread your time between studying that branch and then taking on all of philosophy! We'll probably never see another Goethe or those kinds of "universal geniuses" whom seemed to be able to know as much as anyone about a variety of subjects. The age of the generalist is over with; everything is specialized, and expecting specialists whom are making a transition to another specialized area to be as good as those whom have been specialist in that area all their life is a bit unreasonable.

[Melanie]

There are so many Christian Thinkers in Science.
As early as Hunayn ibn Ishaq (c.809–873 AD)
to the more recent living John Lennox and Mike Hulme
who both debate Dawkins (atheist).

This list goes from oldest to living. Click on this link
and then scroll all the way down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

[mal4mac]

In earlier times scientists had to believe in God, or at least pretend belief, or they risked being burned at the stake by Christians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

The recent scientific believers quoted are insignificant figures. I mean who are John Lennox and Mike Hulme? Anyone heard of them? Having looked at their wikipedia pages, they appear to be worthy workers in intellectual fields, but no more so than millions of other people. The main claim to fame for Lennox seems to be that he managed to engage Dawkins in a debate or two. Dawkins tries to avoid debating minor figures too much as it raises their profile beyond what they deserve. He doesn't consider Lennox a worthy opponent:

"... the onus is on those who espouse 'serious theologians' to nominate at least ONE who is serious enough to be worth bothering to engage. It cannot be ... John Lennox, who masquerades as a scientist while believing Jesus turned water into wine..." - Richard Dawkins, http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/643752-archbishop-calls-for-nhs-bill-to-cover-spiritual-health/comments?page=2

I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science contains Bruno, even though the Catholic Encyclopedia labels his system of beliefs "an incoherent materialistic pantheism." I guess he sneaks on because some Christians think "incoherent materialistic pantheism" is still Christianity, whatever the Catholics say. What I take from this is that Christianity is incoherent claptrap.

[Drkshadow03]

In earlier times scientists had to believe in God, or at least pretend belief, or they risked being burned at the stake by Christians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno



Don't you mean being burned by the Catholic Church (a specific institution).

[mal4mac]

Don't you mean being burned by the Catholic Church (a specific institution).

Are Catholics not Christians? Protestants also persecuted heretics, for similar reasons, so I think it's worth using the general term.

[mortalterror]

In earlier times scientists had to believe in God, or at least pretend belief, or they risked being burned at the stake by Christians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

The recent scientific believers quoted are insignificant figures. I mean who are John Lennox and Mike Hulme? Anyone heard of them? Having looked at their wikipedia pages, they appear to be worthy workers in intellectual fields, but no more so than millions of other people. The main claim to fame for Lennox seems to be that he managed to engage Dawkins in a debate or two. Dawkins tries to avoid debating minor figures too much as it raises their profile beyond what they deserve. He doesn't consider Lennox a worthy opponent:

"... the onus is on those who espouse 'serious theologians' to nominate at least ONE who is serious enough to be worth bothering to engage. It cannot be ... John Lennox, who masquerades as a scientist while believing Jesus turned water into wine..." - Richard Dawkins, http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/643752-archbishop-calls-for-nhs-bill-to-cover-spiritual-health/comments?page=2

I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science contains Bruno, even though the Catholic Encyclopedia labels his system of beliefs "an incoherent materialistic pantheism." I guess he sneaks on because some Christians think "incoherent materialistic pantheism" is still Christianity, whatever the Catholics say. What I take from this is that Christianity is incoherent claptrap.

Wasn't Bruno killed for his unorthodox religious beliefs rather than his science?

Also, if you want recent Christians who are top level scientists how about the Belgian priest who first hypothesized the Big Bang Theory: Georges Lemaitre. You might also consider Pierre Teilhard de Chardin a Jesuit priest who discovered Peking Man a major figure. Then there is Charles Hard Townes, who won the Nobel Prize for invention of the maser, and Francis Collins project director for the Human Genome Project.

[mortalterror]

Saying that atheistic regimes committed horrific acts is different than saying those horrific acts were motivated by their atheism. As long as Hitchens (and others) aren't saying "they aren't REAL atheists" then they're not committing the Scotsman fallacy, since that's what the fallacy requires. Religious people can't really say that such horrors weren't committed directly in the name of religion, so they resort to the Scotsman fallacy.
While you can't say that all of the violence of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or the Khmer Rouge in the twentieth century was motivated by atheism, even though the perpetrators were nominally atheists, you could claim that the anti-clerical violence was motivated by atheism. That goes for parts of the reign of terror during the French Revolution too.


It is an enormous problem, as the 20th century saw the worst persecution of Christians since Roman times. For instance, millions of Orthodox believers perished in purges by atheists in the former Soviet Union. In the anti-Christian campaign by Stalin and Soviet communism, many churches were closed, and monks were arrested and deported to labor camps. As many as 40,000 Orthodox priests were killed or died from abuse during the first half of 1936 alone, and it is believed that the total number of priests, monks, and nuns killed during the purges of the 1930s are in excess of 200,000 (Foreset, 1997, pp. 134-149; Wynot, 2004). Estimates of the total number all Christian martyrs in the former Societ Union are about 12 million. Estimates from the 20th century of Christians who died from secular antireligious violence worldwide are over 25 million, more than all previous centuries combined (Bergman, 1996).
http://books.google.com/books?id=LBv...page&q&f=false

The French Revolution, particularly in its Jacobin period, initiated one of the most violent episodes of anti-clericalism in modern Europe; the new revolutionary authorities suppressed the church; destroyed, desecrated and expropriated monasteries; exiled 30,000 priests and killed hundreds more.[2] As part of a campaign to de-Christianize France in October 1793 the Christian calendar was outlawed, replaced with one reckoning from the date of the Revolution, and then an atheist Cult of Reason was inaugurated, all churches not devoted to that cult being closed.[3] In 1794, the atheistic cult was replaced with a deistic Cult of the Supreme Being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

Following the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the new Mexican Constitution of 1917 contained further anti-clerical provisions. Article 3 called for secular education in the schools and prohibited the Church from engaging in primary education; Article 5 outlawed monastic orders; Article 24 forbade public worship outside the confines of churches; and Article 27 placed restrictions on the right of religious organizations to hold property. Most offensively to Catholics[citation needed], Article 130 deprived clergy members of basic political rights. Many of these laws were resisted, leading to the Cristero Rebellion of 1927–1929. The suppression of the Church included the closing of many churches and the killing of priests. The persecution was most severe in Tabasco under the atheist"[26] governor Tomás Garrido Canabal.

The war had a profound effect on the Church. Between 1926 and 1934 at least 40 priests were killed.[27] Between 1926 and 1934, over 3,000 priests were exiled or assassinated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

La Violencia refers to an era of civil conflict in various areas of the Colombian countryside between supporters of the Colombian Liberal Party and the Colombian Conservative Party, a conflict which took place roughly from 1948 to 1958.[33][34]

Across the country, militants attacked churches, convents, and monasteries, killing priests and looking for arms, since the conspiracy theory maintained that the religious had guns, and this despite the fact that not a single serviceable weapon was located in the raids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

The Civil War in Spain started in 1936, during which thousands of churches were destroyed, thirteen bishops and some 7,000 clergy and religious Spaniards were assassinated.[43] Catholics largely supported Franco and the Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939.

Anti-clerical assaults during what has been termed by the Nationalists Red Terror included sacking and burning monasteries and churches and killing 6,832 priests,[44] including 13 bishops, 4,184 diocesan priests, 2,365 members of male religious orders, among them 259 Claretians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers, 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits.

One source records that 283 nuns were killed, some of whom were badly tortured.[45] There are accounts of Catholic faithful being forced to swallow rosary beads, thrown down mine shafts and priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

[Drkshadow03]

Are Catholics not Christians? Protestants also persecuted heretics, for similar reasons, so I think it's worth using the general term.

You confused the parts with the whole or in this case a specific institution with the general group.

Well, had you brought up many examples that included Protestant's burning scientists at the stake or the average population of Christians doing so without a particular institutions' authority you'd then be able to use the general term. But the specific example you have only demonstrates that the Catholic Church has done such things.


You originally wrote: "In earlier times scientists had to believe in God, or at least pretend belief, or they risked being burned at the stake by Christians:"

Notice that in your response as quoted above at the very top of this post compared to your original words: you switch from "scientists . . . burned at the stake," to any "persecuted heretic." We jump from "burning at the stake" to any kind of persecution.

But really my point is one needs to be careful with confusing an entire group of people with a specific institution that may include certain members of that group. Or to put it more simply not to confuse the parts with the whole.

[mal4mac]

While you can't say that all of the violence of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or the Khmer Rouge in the twentieth century was motivated by atheism, even though the perpetrators were nominally atheists, you could claim that the anti-clerical violence was motivated by atheism.

I don't think you can, the communists destroyed any group that was not controlled by them. For instance, in the communist regimes of Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungry, post WWII, *all* non-communist activities were frowned upon. For instance, even the scouts were banned, and leaders of "the movement" imprisoned. If the social groups were not under direct control of the communist apparatus then they were hounded out of existence. Churches just happened to be part of the non-communist set up that had to be annihilated. I just read the "Iron Curtain : the crushing of Eastern Europe" 1944-56 by Anne Applebaum who shows the extent of totalitarian destruction imposed on these countries. The religious insitutions were thoroughly destroyed, but so was any atheist opposition (from social democrats, chess clubs (!), or anyone else...)

[mal4mac]

You confused the parts with the whole or in this case a specific institution with the general group.

Well, had you brought up many examples that included Protestant's burning scientists at the stake or the average population of Christians doing so without a particular institutions' authority you'd then be able to use the general term. But the specific example you have only demonstrates that the Catholic Church has done such things.


I thought it was a well known fact that protestants and catholics were burning all kinds of people for heresy. Do you really doubt that many scientists were amongst them? For instance, white witches, i.e., women with benign non-Christian beliefs, are famous for seeking out herbal cures, an early form of medical science. But its not hard to find examples of "heavyweight" scientists being persecuted. For instance, Michael Servetus, the first European to correctly describe the function of pulmonary circulation, was a polymath versed in many sciences. He was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council. Calvin himself believed Servetus deserving of death on account of what he termed as his "execrable blasphemies". What were these blasphemies? Questioning the trinitarian nature of God and the necessity of pre-infant baptism (what a devil!)

The crucial ideology informing the decisions of the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant Geneva governing council was Christian - both Bruno and Servetus were burned for heresies against the Christian faith. It's the Christian faith that is the problem, and we don't want it taking "controlling power" again. Do we?

[MorpheusSandman]

Mortal, I think mal thoroughly covered my answer. In fact, I think I already addressed that issue on a previous page.

[mortalterror]

I thought it was a well known fact that protestants and catholics were burning all kinds of people for heresy. Do you really doubt that many scientists were amongst them? For instance, white witches, i.e., women with benign non-Christian beliefs, are famous for seeking out herbal cures, an early form of medical science.
Your definition of scientist is impractically inclusive to the point of being useless. You could define anyone as a scientist with that broad a rubric.


But its not hard to find examples of "heavyweight" scientists being persecuted. For instance, Michael Servetus, the first European to correctly describe the function of pulmonary circulation, was a polymath versed in many sciences. He was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council. Calvin himself believed Servetus deserving of death on account of what he termed as his "execrable blasphemies". What were these blasphemies? Questioning the trinitarian nature of God and the necessity of pre-infant baptism (what a devil!)
Again, it seems that Michael Servetus, like Bruno, was killed for his heresies as a theologian, not for his scientific discoveries. When a scientist dies in an earthquake, we don't say that the earthquake targeted him for being a scientist. And when modern states execute scientists who've committed murder we don't claim they are persecuting scientists either. You have a case for institutional violence if you cite the Inquisition, but you don't have a case for the Church being anti-science. Besides, in the famous cases where a scientist was persecuted like say Galileo, we have many examples of church officials taking his side in the dispute or being his benefactors; so it's untrue to claim that the event was more than a localized incident perpetrated by the actions of a few politically motivated individuals. All of the available evidence points the other way, since the Catholic Church was the single greatest benefactor of science and education through the middle ages and the Renaissance. They are the ones responsible for all the universities in Europe after all.


The crucial ideology informing the decisions of the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant Geneva governing council was Christian - both Bruno and Servetus were burned for heresies against the Christian faith. It's the Christian faith that is the problem, and we don't want it taking "controlling power" again. Do we?
I'm for a separation of Church and state, but not because I think that churches are more violent than states. I view the violence of the world as a natural part of human nature and competition for resources. The Christian faith is actually with a few exceptions fairly benign and mostly occupies itself setting up hospitals, feeding and sheltering the poor.

[mal4mac]

Again, it seems that Michael Servetus, like Bruno, was killed for his heresies as a theologian, not for his scientific discoveries.


The Inquisition made sure to get Bruno every way they could; his scientific notions were part of Luigi Firpo's list of charges made against Bruno. From Bruno's wikipedia page, one such charge was 'claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity'. Others charges may have also have scientific aspects, but that one is sufficient to disprove your claim.



...the Catholic Church was the single greatest benefactor of science and education through the middle ages and the Renaissance.


They held science and education back. Their period of greatest power was called "the dark ages" for a good reason.


The Christian faith is actually with a few exceptions fairly benign...

More than a few, and certainly not benign, for instance:

The Crusades
European wars of religion
Expulsion of the Jews from Spain
The Salem Witch trials
... the list goes on and on...

[mal4mac]

Again, it seems that Michael Servetus, like Bruno, was killed for his heresies as a theologian, not for his scientific discoveries.


The Inquisition made sure to get Bruno every way they could; his scientific notions were part of Luigi Firpo's list of charges against Bruno. From Bruno's wikipedia page, one such charge was 'claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity'. Others charges may have also have scientific aspects, but that one is sufficient to disprove your claim.



...the Catholic Church was the single greatest benefactor of science and education through the middle ages and the Renaissance.


They held science and education back. Their period of greatest power was called "the dark ages" for a good reason.


The Christian faith is actually with a few exceptions fairly benign...

More than a few, and certainly not benign, for instance:

The Crusades
European wars of religion
Expulsion of the Jews from Spain
The Salem Witch trials
... the list goes on and on...

[mortalterror]

The Inquisition made sure to get Bruno every way they could; his scientific notions were part of Luigi Firpo's list of charges made against Bruno. From Bruno's wikipedia page, one such charge was 'claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity'. Others charges may have also have scientific aspects, but that one is sufficient to disprove your claim.
Not necessarily. The complete charges were:


holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;
dealing in magics and divination.
And you are assuming that the charge of "claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity" was based on an objection to his science and not his theology, or that his belief in a plurality of worlds was even based in science and not mysticism. Either way, it looks like a tacked on charge he could have easily walked away from, when the real meat of the prosecution was concerned with the divinity of Christ, the status of the trinity, and other religious concerns.


They held science and education back.
Actually, that is a popular misconception.

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since Classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and other commentators. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse. Recent commentators have characterized the relationship in varying categories. Discussions of what is science and what is not science, the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science, have intersected with discourse on religion in some instances and both have had complex relations in their historical interactions.

The conflict thesis, which states that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, remains generally popular for the public; most historians of science no longer support it.[1][2][3][4] Some contemporary scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould, Francisco J. Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins have held that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber have proposed an interconnection between them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
Actually, many of the best scientists of the period were Catholic clergy who studied natural theology as a way to understand God's universe.

Isidore of Seville (c.560–c.636) Catholic Archbishop who preserved many scientific selections from the ancient worlds. His most popular work was Etymologiae which contained information on medicine, mathematics, astronomy, atomic theory, geography, agriculture, zoology, minerology, physiology, and other topics. His work was widely used throughout the medieval ages for its extent of research topics.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Nuremberg_Chronicle_Venerable_Bede.jpg/70px-Nuremberg_Chronicle_Venerable_Bede.jpg
Bede, the Venerable (c.672–735) Catholic monk, venerated as a saint and Doctor of the Church. He was an influence for early medieval knowledge of nature. He wrote two works on "Time and its Reckoning." This primarily concerned how to date Easter, but contained a new recognition of the "progress wave-like" nature of tides.

Leo the Mathematician (c.790–a.869) Archbishop of Thessalonica, he later became the head of the Magnaura School of philosophy in Constantinople, where he taught Aristotelian logic. Leo also composed his own medical encyclopaedia. He has been called a "true Renaissance man" and "the cleverest man in Byzantium in the 9th century".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Silvester_II_276x368crop.jpg/70px-Silvester_II_276x368crop.jpg
Pope Sylvester II (c.950–1003) Benedictine monk, scientist, teacher, and later Pope; he promoted such knowledge as mathematics and astronomy in Europe. As professor of the cathedral school at Rheims, he raised it to the height of prosperity. He also reintroduced the abacus and armillary sphere to Europe, which had been lost to the continent since the end of the Greco-Roman era.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Works_of_Hugh_of_St-Victor_750x1000crop.jpg/70px-Works_of_Hugh_of_St-Victor_750x1000crop.jpg
Hugh of Saint Victor (c.1096–1141) Influential mystic and philosopher who embraced science as a tool for approaching God. He was master of the monastic school of Saint Victor. His work presents knowledge of reality as redemptive of fallen man; and technology as source of physical relief and able to help reunite man with divine wisdom. "Learn everything," he urged; "later you will see that nothing is superfluous."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Hildegard_464x672crop.jpg/70px-Hildegard_464x672crop.jpg
Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) Benedictine abbess, writer, composer, philosopher, mystic, visionary, polymath and Germany's first female physician. She conducted and published comprehensive studies of natural science and medicine. Hildegard was well known in her own century as "the female prophet" and is venerated as a Catholic saint.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Bishop_Robert_Grosseteste%2C_1896_%283x4crop%29.jp g/70px-Bishop_Robert_Grosseteste%2C_1896_%283x4crop%29.jp g
Robert Grosseteste (c.1175–1253) Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Roger-bacon-statue_cropped.jpg/70px-Roger-bacon-statue_cropped.jpg
Roger Bacon (c.1214–1294) He was an English philosopher who emphasized empiricism and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method. He joined the Franciscan Order around 1240, where he was influenced by Grosseteste. Bacon was responsible for making the concept of "laws of nature" widespread, and contributed in such areas as mechanics, geography and, most of all, optics.

Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) He was an English archbishop, often called "the Profound Doctor". He developed studies as one of the Oxford Calculators of Merton College, Oxford University. These studies would lead to important developments in mechanics.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/William_of_Ockham.png/70px-William_of_Ockham.png
William of Ockham (c.1285–c.1350) He was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher. He is a major figure of medieval thought and was at the center of the major intellectual and political controversies of his time. Commonly known for Occam's razor, the scientific/methodological principle that bears his name, he also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Oresme-small.jpg/70px-Oresme-small.jpg
Nicole Oresme (c.1323–1382) Theologian and bishop of Lisieux, he was one of the early founders and popularizers of modern sciences. One of his many scientific contributions is the discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Nicholas_of_Cusa.jpg/70px-Nicholas_of_Cusa.jpg
Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) Catholic cardinal and theologian who made contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. His philosophical speculations also anticipated Copernicus’ heliocentric world-view.


Their period of greatest power was called "the dark ages" for a good reason.
For the most part historians no longer use that term since they deem it inaccurate, and there was actually a great deal of progress and scholarship that occurred in the middle ages.

The Dark Ages is a historical periodization used originally for the Middle Ages, which emphasizes the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire.[1][2] The label employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the "darkness" of the period with earlier and later periods of "light".[3] The period is characterized by a relative scarcity of historical and other written records at least for some areas of Europe, rendering it obscure to historians. The term "Dark Age" derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[4]

Originally the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages, or roughly the 6th to 13th centuries, as a period of intellectual darkness between extinguishing the "light of Rome" after the end of Late Antiquity, and the rise of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century.[5] [3] This definition is still found in popular use,[1][2][6] but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages has led to the label being restricted in application. Since the 20th century, it is frequently applied to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century).[7][8] However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.


While Petrarch's concept of a Dark Age corresponded to a mostly Christian period following pre-Christian Rome, the use of the term today applies mainly to those cultures and periods in Europe least Christianized and thus most sparsely covered by chronicles and other contemporary sources, nearly all written by Catholic clergy at this date.[citation needed]

However, from the mid-20th century onwards, other historians became critical of even this nonjudgmental use of the term for two main reasons.[10] First, it is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "Dark Ages" effectively in a neutral way; scholars may intend this, but it does not mean that ordinary readers will so understand it. Second, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages, which 20th-century scholarship has achieved,[39] means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians avoid it altogether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29#Modern_academic_use


More than a few, and certainly not benign, for instance:

The Crusades
European wars of religion
Expulsion of the Jews from Spain
The Salem Witch trials
... the list goes on and on...
If you take the whole of history, then every civilization and institution has some marks against it. But I was largely thinking of current events, the state of religion today and their attitudes toward charity.

Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?
A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer.

Q. But aren’t they just giving to religious charities and houses of worship?
A. These enormous differences are not a simple artifact of religious people giving to their churches. Religious people are more charitable with secular causes, too. For example, in 2000, religious people were 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The value of the average religious household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average secular household, even after correcting for income differences.

Religious people were also far more likely than secularists to give in informal, nonreligious ways. For example, in 2000, people belonging to religious congregations gave 46 percent more money to family and friends than people who did not belong. In 2002, religious people were far more likely to donate blood than secularists, to give food or money to a homeless person, and even to return change mistakenly given them by a cashier. http://www.american.com/archive/2008...tion-of-givers
Those studies have shown that just on a person to person basis, religious people tend to be more charitable than non-religious people. The actual number of religious organizations set up to help the needy is mind boggling, so I'm having trouble tracking down aggregate numbers on how much they give collectively.

[The Atheist]

The Christian faith is actually with a few exceptions fairly benign and mostly occupies itself setting up hospitals, feeding and sheltering the poor.

I find that quite amusing in the face of armed forces in the western world being overwhelmingly staffed by christians, allegedly led by a bloke who didn't think killing other humans was a good thing.

How many politicians - like Blair & Bush - do you need to see claiming guidance from their sky-daddy to realise that they are not so dissimilar from a man in a cave promising virgins as a reward for self-sacrifice?

[mortalterror]

I find that quite amusing in the face of armed forces in the western world being overwhelmingly staffed by christians, allegedly led by a bloke who didn't think killing other humans was a good thing.
Maybe the majority of the armed forces are Christian because the majority of the population is Christian.


How many politicians - like Blair & Bush - do you need to see claiming guidance from their sky-daddy to realise that they are not so dissimilar from a man in a cave promising virgins as a reward for self-sacrifice?
I do see a difference between a Democracy or a Republic who's head of state happens to hold religious beliefs and a Theocracy where the head of state is the head of a religion. Considering that every U.S. president has held Christian beliefs, I am not concerned with this development in regards to George W. Bush or Obama, and I do not consider their manner of leadership to be akin to that of either the Ayatolla Khomeini or Taliban era Afghanistan. I feel that their economic policies, social policies, and international policies are more important factors in how they lead than their religious beliefs. I don't know that much about Blair, but my impression was that he was rather popular during his term, liberal, intelligent, well spoken, and socially progressive; sort of the opposite of Bush. If you are trying to make a case that their motivation in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was the result of religious conviction, I would suggest that the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and 7/7 had more to do with it.

[The Atheist]

Maybe the majority of the armed forces are Christian because the majority of the population is Christian.

My point is that in spite of Augustine's* "just war", the words of Jesus himself are explicit that violence is not ok. On that basis, I would expect to see exactly zero people in any armed forces who professed to live by the WWJD principle.


I do see a difference between a Democracy or a Republic who's head of state happens to hold religious beliefs and a Theocracy where the head of state is the head of a religion.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Given the invasion of Iraq is known to have taken place on spurious grounds and evidence, the fact that both US and UK leaders sought their god's approval makes it no different to the suicide bombers & pilots of the two terrorist attacks.

What do you think Bush & Blair would have done if their god had screamed out "No!"?

[mal4mac]

If you take the whole of history, then every civilization and institution has some marks against it. But I was largely thinking of current events, ...

OK here's something right up to date from the Richard Dawkins twitter feed:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/10/03/lse-what-happened-to-freedom-of-thought/

It's not quite the crusades, but still an example of Christian oppression. Banned from wearing a t shirt at the fresher's fair! We're a long way from the 1960s! They'll all be forced to wear ties next...

Have you read Jesus & Mo. Laugh out loud funny:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/archives/

[cacian]

actually I was just pondering.
what is god's real name? he must have a name like Jesus has one.
god is just a reference like diety is or spirit.

[SentimentalSlop]

It depends on which religion you're addressing. But since you brought up Christ, I would tell you that Christians tend to just call him God, with a capital G, or God the Father. Jesus Christ is God the Son, and then there's God, the Holy Spirit--one God in three Divine Persons.

[The Atheist]

Christians may call it "God" but according to their own scriptures, its name is Yahweh, usually amended to Jehovah in English.

[NikolaiI]

Christians may call it "God" but according to their own scriptures, its name is Yahweh, usually amended to Jehovah in English.

Good golly I miss you!

Don't remember much except you had a good sense of humor I think.