Area clergy make room for evolution with the divine

Okay, religion can survive naturalism (Darwinism?) and Darwin's theory of evolution, but can it survive AI and modern theories of intelligence (Turingism?)?

For example, Dawkins says: "To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there', and be done with it." --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

Such a view as Dawkins' (and mine) assumes intelligence is a natural product of evolution (intelligent designers have to be explained by natural means eventually). But to believe in God (whatever God is) don't you have to assume an intelligence existed prior to the universe and thus cannot be naturally explained by merely the properties of the universe?

So, what do religious people make of the fact we are explaining intelligence by natural means?

But to believe in God (whatever God is) don't you have to assume an intelligence existed prior to the universe and thus cannot be naturally explained by merely the properties of the universe?

Human intelligence can be explained by natural means, but divine intelligence is unknowable by natural means. For those of faith, it is knowable to them through their faith, apparently. For those without faith, I guess it's just not an issue. But some kind of religion is endemic in everyone, so the anthropologists say.

Ken Willis wrote: "Human intelligence can be explained by natural means, but divine intelligence is unknowable by natural means."

So, there are two kinds of intelligence, natural and supernatural. The natural we can not only explain with neural net structures and brain chemicals but eventually but hope to create our own. But supernatural intelligence is spooky and leaves no evidence except for those who believe they experience it...

Sounds like N-rays to me:
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. (Dawkins)

So, what do religious people make of the fact we are explaining intelligence by natural means?

I am surprised that Dawkins is credited with inestimable insight in this matter, when all he asks is a slightly dressed-up version of the four-year-old-child's question: "Who made God?"

I am surprised that Dawkins is credited with inestimable insight in this matter, when all he asks is a slightly dressed-up version of the four-year-old-child's question: "Who made God?"

I think Heddle is rewording the question into the mouth of a 4-year-old to imply that it's a childish question, beneath the requirement for an adult such as himself to answer. But of course, all Heddle does is dismiss the question as childish, without venturing even a hint of any actual answer. Maybe he's laying the ground work for subsequently saying "I already addressed that question"?

I wonder what Heddle would do with an AI that passes the Turing test. Would he conclude that it had a soul? Would he change his mind only AFTER he discovered that someone who had become his close friend turned out to be silicon-based? If he sincerely could not tell how "natural" this personality was (without peeking), what threat would he fear? Would his religion not admit such an intelligence into the congregation? What if it shared Heddle's faith?

I'm not uncomfortable with the notion of a supernatural, untestable, unknowable, indetectible intelligence, evident only to those who were properly trained to agree it exists. Currently, human psychology is a very large, very black box.

Rephrasing the question does not mean any thing to any one

Heddle:

I notice you simply ignore Eugene Lai's question. Dawkins asked it, Lenny Flank asked you, and I asked you somewhat indirectly. So, what's the answer? Who DID make your god?

Dawkins isn't "celebrated" for asking a critically important question YOU can't answer, he is simply reiterating that without a good answer, your faith is empty. He does not ask as a charlatan, he asks to illustrate this very important point. Your repeated ducking the question only underscores what Dawkins and others are saying: put up or shut up. Can we presume from your repeated pretense that nobody is asking, that you can't read? Or that you are a charlatan and you hope nobody will notice that you can't answer?

I have collected one answer to this very same question, "Who made god?" on my website, More Evolution Theories. The answer turns out to be quite surprising.

Do you think Dawkins invented the question? That theologians throughout the ages never pondered it, and it waited for Dawkins, the old fraud, to come up with it?

Answer: God is eternal, nothing made God.

Now, we could speculate how String theory gives us at least a glimpse of how that might be possible: a universe with more than one non-compactified time dimension for example, but that would be just that, speculation.

Answer: God is eternal, nothing made God.

Do you think Dawkins invented the question? That theologians throughout the ages never pondered it, and it waited for Dawkins, the old fraud, to come up with it?

— David Heddle

Answer: God is eternal, nothing made God.

— David Heddle

"(...) and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there', and be done with it."

— Dawkins

Bob Davis wrote "... one answer to this very same question, 'Who made god?'"

And I saw another answer on the inside sleeve of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album. (Does anyone know what I'm talking about?)

David Heddle wrote: "God is eternal, nothing made God."

Then he shouldn't be damaged by any evolutionary theories... let's see, who really gets dropped down a peg in our estimations by Darwinian evolution -- wait it's us! Not goofy God ideas. We're no longer the crown of creation, we're just evolved apes ... sitting on a tiny planet far from the center of the universe -- and come to think of it, the church didn't like that Galileo guy telling us that either.

"So, what do religious people make of the fact we are explaining intelligence by natural means?"

not a religious person myself, but I've never had a problem with the diea that "god" and "natural means" can be synonyms. This actually solves a lot of metaphysical questions, as it effectively removes the spiritual/natural conundrum. Species originated and descended through evolution. Evolution is a natural mechanism that follows known physical laws. If you are a christian then you can accept that "known physical laws" are the same thing as us trying to understand the mind and the mechanisms of God as best we can.

I've always felt that simple belief in a supreme being is a non-factor in terms of acceptance or not of science. What effects acceptance of science is a belief that this God acted upon nature in unnatural ways.

"Area clergy" - that sounds like a headline from The Onion.

Don't care about Heddle's rubbish, but wow, do American local papers really use the word "Area" in headlines as an adjective to mean "local"? I thought that was something The Onion made up.

No, your response is just another of a semi-infinite number of examples of PT logic that goes like this:

PT: answer this question
Whomever: here is the answer
PT: that answer doesn't count

You see, a child understands the answer, because a child is, well, smarter than Dawkins. A child recognizes, intuitively, that answers concerning God will reflect the supernatural.

Even a smart athiest would understand the answer to be sensible, for the same reasons, --even as he denied it.

Only a dummy like Dawkins would ask: who made God? and then declare victory when a naturalistic answer is not forthcoming. Like I said, he assumes his conclusion.

Hey BB, snap...

'"Faith and reason are not only compatible. They are complementary," testified Ken Miller'

See this is where Miller has always gotten lost to me. If you have evidence you don't really need faith. It is simply not reasonable to by into the tenets of one religion over another. As to Gods existence you can never know.

Wathcing Heddle try to assault Dawkins is really funny.

'Secondly, religion recognizes something supernatural called the "soul" which is distinct from intelligence.'

Just because it recognizes something doesn't make it real. The reason the 4 year old's question is embarrassing is because even a four year old can see through the most perverse apologetics. Shame many adults can't.

Heddle I'm a Christian and your dishonesty when it comes to intellectual matters is an embarrassment.

'PT: answer this question
Whomever: here is the answer
PT: that answer doesn't count'

No they took your answer as an answer. They were commenting on it's lack of quality.

'You see, a child understands the answer, because a child is, well, smarter than Dawkins. A child recognizes, intuitively, that answers concerning God will reflect the supernatural.'

So sad. So sad. The child understands what it is told by those it trusts. If the parents are honest and say 'Hey we don't know', then the child will be content with that. Or the child will accept whatever rubbish the parent runs into their helpless brain. To say what you said above is truly pathetic.

'Even a smart athiest would understand the answer to be sensible, for the same reasons, ---even as he denied it.'

I'm a Christian and I don't think you answer was sensible on any level. And for the record most atheists I have none are very well read, and those that aren't are usually good thinkers. I don't paint them with a big brush just as I hope they don't judge Christianity on people who offer up responses like yours.

'Only a dummy like Dawkins would ask: who made God? and then declare victory when a naturalistic answer is not forthcoming. Like I said, he assumes his conclusion.'

Do you not understand that you can say anything in regards to the supernatural and have it go unchallenged? And to make swipes at Dawkins-- a scientist many times your superior, is childlike and unChristian.

Please stop, just stop.

Then he shouldn't be damaged by any evolutionary theories

If you have evidence you don't really need faith.

Heddle you are wrong about this. No matter how you dress it up its still 'blind' faith.

You've never seen God. You've never seen Jesus. You never have seen Jesus rise. That doesn't mean he didn't. It just means you have no evidence that he did.

It's the very definition of blind. And you talk about hi healing the man or forgiving sins. Again blind faith. You weren't there and frankly neither was the man who wrote the story. Even using your example Jesus provided evidence of his power to those who were there. So it seems he knew the power of evidence. You have none.

And I'm correct, with evidence you don't need faith. Jesus acts allowed those that witnessed to follow him. He knew evidence was required. Evidence that you don't have.

David Heddle seems to be obsessed with Dawkins. Can it be that Dawkins has so forcefully hit Heddle's puerile faith that poor David has to resort, in his impotent fury, to insults and name-calling, as otherwise he has no means to save his faith? However many times he calls Dawkins fraud, charlatan, etc. this in no way can change the simple facts: Dawkins offers simple and clear notions while Heddle offers only empty assertions based on his blind faith. I'd not say Heddle is a charlatan or fraud, he is, imo, just a religious fanatic, captured by emotions stemming from his childhood experience. That is why he is so mean and malicious. Let him be - no sense arguing with such guys.

Comment #50697 Posted by David Heddle on October 3, 2005 06:15 AM (e) (s) I am surprised that Dawkins is credited with inestimable insight in this matter, when all he asks is a slightly dressed-up version of the four-year-old-child's question: "Who made God?"

First of all, you overstate the case. Secondly, religion recognizes something supernatural called the "soul" which is distinct from intelligence. So religion has nothing to fear from the advancement of AI, even if it ever, for once in its history, lives up to its own hype.

Christianity demands, at the very least, the inevitable emergence of creatures capable of sin. Without a history of human sin, there is no Christ. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18363

— Richard Lewontin

To refer indirectly to Dawkins once again, Heddle's answer boils down to "Maaaagic!" and I find that unfulfilling. Indeed, I find it absolutely astounding that *anyone* would be satsified with such an answer. I agree with Uber that the 4-year-old's question implies he's seen through the nonexistent wardrobe, and his acquiescence to the non-answer implies he realizes he isn't going to get a sensible answer because there is none to be had.

Answers regarding the supernatural, as I said before, are simply things people make up, knowing their fabrications cannot be subjected to any sort of testing or verification. The disadvantage is, these answers are intellectually hollow. They lack any content, any meaning, any relation to reality. They reinforce ignorance at the most fundamental level -- by eliminating curiosity.

I can understand the need of the Believer to create make believe answers. I will never understand his ability to think he actually HAS an answer.

Who made you arbiter? Or apologist for the thousands of years of failure of each and every religion to explain "where did the gods/god come from?"

— Moses

Flint wrote: "Answers regarding the supernatural, as I said before, are simply things people make up, knowing their fabrications cannot be subjected to any sort of testing or verification."

In the beginning, Man created GOD in his own image.
On the first day he created animal spirits and polytheistic gods and men lived in small tribes.
On the second day Egyptian Pharaohs declared themselves gods. They then went out and conquered the small tribes and made a great nation.
On the third day Moses took Pharaoh Amenhetep IV's monotheistic ideas about Aten, the sun god, and gave birth to a new religion.
On the fourth day, Rome kicked the asses of the worshippers of the new religion but good.
On the fifth day the worshippers of the new religion came up with yet another new religion and called it Christianity.
On the sixth day the neighbors of the new religion makers gave birth to Allah and Islam.
On the seventh day I woke up from the dream of gods and realized that our gods had been evolving right along with us and the preists never knew a damn thing from the beginning.

As a Christian, I agree with Lewontin's characterization. As long as the physical process from beginning (Big Bang or whatever) to end necessarily results in agents capable of sin (i.e., possessing reason, will, etc.), any other feature of the process is compatible with Christianity.

'I do not by any means wish to take up common cause with Heddle, but on this narrow topic I would reply that Aquinas resolved the question: God did not come "from anywhere"; his essence is existence'

And Hume refuted him. All the above Aquinas quote does is simply play on words. It essentially makes God nature.

'As long as the physical process from beginning (Big Bang or whatever) to end necessarily results in agents capable of sin (i.e., possessing reason, will, etc.), any other feature of the process is compatible with Christianity.

I think this, while somewhat more 'reasonable' is still missing the point. Why would you set a process up with the end result being an 'agent of sin'. It's silly to think that the first human born to parents who apperently where incapable of sin while the child was hence damned.

Why must people come up with the wildest philosophys to rescue their childhood belief systems. Is it so hard to simply admit your childhood belief system may be wrong?

Why is this so hard?

'I just find him to be a silly, little man.'

Oh, yes. I'm sure in professional circles you command so much more respect than he. But of course you had to throw yet another insult his way. So Christian of you.

You seem unable to just say 'I disagree with him' like you do the Mormons. That is a problem that comes from inside yourself.

'As for name calling, his comments about raising children in religion as being a form of child abuse, even worse than sexual abuse, shows him for what he is: a very, very, very stupid man.'

No one is ever going to agree with you Heddle. He's an excellent scientist, a formidable ambassador for science, and a great writer who brings clear thinking to the masses. We all owe him a debt that he has dedicated his life to something so noble.

I don't agree with everything he says or does, but he is far from stupid and frankly I must wonder about the brain power of someone who would characerize so accomplished an individual as such.

And he defended his comment about religion being a form of abuse quite well. People have no problem protecting their children from violence on tv while filling their heads with thoughts of hell, demons, punishment and other horrors. He makes an interesting case. I don't agree, but he presents an interesting case. And its not name calling to present such a case.

It is name calling an petty to say Heddle is a little man who is very stupid. And that is the difference.

Uber,

PZ Myers referred to Nobel Laureate Charles Townes as a pious fraud and a babbler.

Does your abhorrence of someone who resorts to name-calling of accomplished intellectuals extend to PZ Myers, or does he have a get-out-of-jail-free card?

A the tu quoque defense, not very original David. Take personal responsibility I'd say.
Perhaps the participants of this thread may want to return to its topic?

PZ Myers referred to Nobel Laureate Charles Townes as a pious fraud and a babbler. Does your abhorrence of someone who resorts to name-calling of accomplished intellectuals extend to PZ Myers, or does he have a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Most people with two brain cells to rub together are in awe of the utter mystery that is the universe. Contemplating its metaphysical conundrums and asking the big, vacuous questions is a pedestrian activity that everyone indulges, in particular people least qualified to do something useful (or so it usually seems, at least on the Internet.) Someone, I forget who, called it a pleasant music.

But that doesn't mean we have data to test the different hypotheses (tunes) or even know where to find the requisite information. Without data it's one side manipulating meaning (notes) and the other saying "That's what _you_ say."

I don't know if evolution is "true" in the metaphysical or word salad sense and care even less. I know it's good science: it generates research and produces results; it controls and predicts nature. ID? No.

PvM,

It is not a "tu quoque"--I'm not acusing my accuser of the same offense. I'm just wondering if he is consistent. I think that is a fair question.

Doug T,

Same thing.

Is anyone going to answer? Is PZ calling Townes names any different than me calling Dawkins names?

Heddle repeated the word "stupid" (referring to Dawkins) several times. Paraphrasing Einstein, if Dawkins indeed were stupid, it would suffice to say so just once. Heddle, you're angry, so you must be wrong. I don't know what PZ Myers said about Townes, but what if he did? Does this justify your rabid attacks on Dawkins? You've mentioned Dawkins just on this thread so many times, each time with pejorative epithets, that it is hard to believe you are not obsessed with Dawkins. You obviously have no reasonable arguments against him so you give vent to your rage by hurling insults. There is a Russian proverb, "A serf was displeased with the lord, but the lord was not aware of it" (it is rhymed in Russian). Green tea helps sometimes in such situations.

Cash Money,

Is every significant question answerable by science? Alternatively, if a question cannot be answered by science, is its subject matter nonsense?

Just for starters, try some moral questions out. Hit me with the "data," I'm all ears.

AR, What do you mean I gave no reason--I gave my reason--his child abuse comments, and his logical fallacy of assuming his conclusion. (you're angry, so you must be wrong? Where does that law of nature come from? Anyway, Dawkins amuses me, he doesn't anger me. Bishop Spong--now he gets me mad.) Why don't you know what PZ said about Townes, I just told you.

You are another one who dodges the question: Is PZ calling Townes names any different than me calling Dawkins names?

If I provide the link, will you then answer the question?

OK, I'll answer your question, Heddle. If PZ Myers has indeed publicly insulted Townes (I have no direct knowledge of it and simply assume that you have not made it up) it was improper regardless of Townes's status of a Nobel laureate. Hurling insults (a genre you seem to be an accomplished practitioner of) does not substitute for arguments. If somebody else is doing the same, it is not supporting your position. The angrier you sound the less convincing your assertions are.

AR, thanks you gave a good answer. By the way, you called me a "religious fanatic." So you are not immune to the use of pejoratives.

Now that's is a "tu quoque"

The "who made God?" retort follows from an argument something like this:

IDist: All objects with property X must be designed (complexity or whatever).

Interlocuter: The designer you propose then must also have property X. Ergo, it must've been designed too. Ditto for its designer and on down the line.

The IDist, likely believing his designer is God, does not think it has a designer. Ergo, the attempt is to put the IDist in a bind. Some will say it's different because "the designer" is supernatural. Some will argue "the designer" is responsible for its own nature. And so on. But it's not a childish response. It's a sharp, albiet obvious objection.

Sure, I'll answer:

It depends, to some degree, does it not, what are the names, and what was the specific pronouncement that spurred the name-calling?

You called Dawkins a "charlatan" for asking a version of the question "Who made God," which you see as duplicitous for "assuming the conclusion." But Dawkins's point has more to do with the logic of explanation, in which an uncaused "first cause" can be inserted anywhere in the process of "explaining." Furthermore, "charlatan" would imply professional dishonesty more than asking a leading question you find childish to make a rhetorical point.
PZ called Townes a "pious fraud." I don't know why, so I'll withold judgement, but I have good reason to believe that he may have had substantiation from some actual episode that involved willful dishonesty, not just rhetorical disingenuousness (arguably Dawkins's sin).
You called Dawkins "stupid, stupid" for calling religion child abuse (more often attributed to Dennett, by the way, but I'm sure Dawkins has made the paralel too). I'm not sure how this gives you ground to insult his intelligence, except in the puffed-up schoolyard bully fashion: "Oh, now you've gone and made me mad. That was stupid."
PZ called Townes a "babbler" which is a condition often correlated with dim-wittedness, but I do not feel is necessarily equivalent to "stupid," moreso to "intemperate of speech."

So even lacking the context of PZM's remarks, I'd say your insults are more vituperative, and less justified. I wouldn't be surprised if full-disclosure (care to provide the citation?) wouldn't make you look even worse by comparison.

As a follow up to my post, Dawkin's response, if we are reduce it into a cliche, is simply "You are replacing a mystery with an even bigger mystery. We've gained nothing." The origin of DNA is held to be so mysterious and inconcievable that that fact alone begs us to posit a designer. But the "designer" believer, who clearly cannot account for the origin of the designer he posits that is at least as equally mysterious and inconcievable, doesn't then conclude it must have a designer. He's making a special exemption in his own argument for his designer. Naw. Let's just call it what it is. God.

You know, there's a continuum from neutral descriptive adjectives/nouns all the way to completely vacuous spleen-venting epithets.

For instance, if I call person X a "%*!@ing @##}ole" it doesn't tell you much other than I really dislike him.

If I call someone a "religious fanatic" it's rather more informative.

Likewise, "pious fraud" and "babbler" convey fairly definite meanings as well as suggesting that the writer doesn't much care for the person he's describing.

"Silly little man" falls a lot closer to "%*!@ing @##}ole" on that spectrum. (Though it does potentially communicate that Dawkins is below average height - a fact of which I was unaware but in which I'm not at all interested.) It tells me a lot more about the writer than the object of the writer's anger.

Comment #50737 Posted by David Heddle on October 3, 2005 10:13 AM (e) (s) No, your response is just another of a semi-infinite number of examples of PT logic that goes like this: PT: answer this question Whomever: here is the answer PT: that answer doesn't count You see, a child understands the answer, because a child is, well, smarter than Dawkins. A child recognizes, intuitively, that answers concerning God will reflect the supernatural.

'Does your abhorrence of someone who resorts to name-calling of accomplished intellectuals extend to PZ Myers, or does he have a get-out-of-jail-free card?'

Good to see you equate Dawkins with accomplished intellectuals now. But yes PZ could have been less abrupt. However the difference was PZ actually backed up his case for pious fraud. Something you haven't done. There is a difference. How this helps your case is beyond me.

You just call names. By the way do you find religious fanatic offensive?

Dawkins rarely acts like, in your words, a stupid little man. He is quite bold and more often than not very well studied.

'Just for starters, try some moral questions out. Hit me with the "data," I'm all ears'

We discussed this on a thread a few days ago. it was actually a productive thread unlike this one. Also give Shermers 'The Science of Good and Evil' a read. There is alot more developing science on this than many are aware of.

I would hasten to add that I would think science can do at least as well as anything else when it comes to morality. It's not like their is a coherent answer anywhere else.

"Is every significant question answerable by science?"

Yes, every phenomenon has a scientific description. Also a religious one. Is this a problem?

"Just for starters, try some moral questions out."

What's morality supposed to be, some kind of "Beware of God" sign to keep scientists away? There's a naturalistic basis for morality. Chimps, for example, exhibit moral relations.

CJ, Sure, here it is.

So maybe you could provide a ranking of names, like how many points for "stupid", how many for "pious fraud", etc?

Or maybe we could take a nationwide pool, to see if more people find Dawkin's statements that being raised Catholic is worse than sexual abuse "stupid" than find that Townes's quote clearly defines him as a babbling, pious fraud.

But then again, a common refrain on PT is that the majority of Americans are stupid.

Be sure to look in the comments (page 2), where PZ declares:"A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with science, because its followers would have to be idiots."

I am not sure if Townes declares the bible inerrant and compatible with science, but certainly some intellectuals do, such as Francis Schaeffer. I am also fairly certain that that Nobel Laureate Penzias falls into that category, and also Heinemann Prize (for mathematical Physics) Robert Griffiths. Oh, and he has labeled the entire Roman Catholic Church as idiots, because Rome declares the bible to be inerrant. That's got to be worth more points than my calling just one single guy stupid, doesn't it?

Uber,

PZ did not back it up any more than I did. There is no way to back it up--he can just give Townes's quote and declare it the babbling of a pious fraud. Just like I referred to Dawkins's abuse comments and declared him to be stupid. Or, are you actually saying that Myers proved that Townes was a pious fraud? I think what you refer to as "backing it up" is nothing more than your being sympathetic to his arguments.

Hey David: a week or so ago I asked you a question and you never answered it. Maybe try again?

Last month you said something about how you practice the truth faith (Calvinism), and that other religions were false. I asked you what your proof of this was, how you know your faith is right while everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You didn't answer me.

Got an answer this time? Seems to me that since most of your arguments are based on an a priori sense of the rightness of your beliefs, it's not a trivial question.

I think, as I believe I made clear, that any such "ranking" should be on a scale, not absolute according to the name employed, but relative, according to the correspondance of the implication of the term of abuse to the objectionable content of the declaration that inspired it.

On such a scale, the epithet "stupid" would rank high if, for instance, it were employed in response to a statement that did not: a)ignore or garble facts readily verified, or b)fail to display understanding of rudimentary logic.

However much you may dislike the conflation of religious instruction with child abuse, it's not "stupid" under the working definition above.

Arden Chatfield:

Let me guess: Heddle knows his faith is the one true faith (and those who disagree are small and stupid) because his god tells him so. And the gods who tell all other believers that THEIR faith is the one true faith are all lying, for the same reason. Dawkins likened religion to a parasite, whose first job is to destroy the host's defense, and whose second job is to reproduce. Sound familiar?

Heddle:

I agree that no matter how much you wave your arms and no matter how circular your answers, they won't satisfy me. My amazement wasn't so much at how content-free your answer was, so much as that you could pretend to find any substance in it. I don't think you're dishonest in claiming to find substance in something that lacks any semblance of it, though. I think you are a victim of *precisely* the child abuse Dawkins so astutely points out. You should be able to understand that for anyone not sharing your particular dementia, you are as ideal a poster child as Dawkins could hope to find. Also an illustration that for many people, once some critical age has been reached, there is simply no recovery. You are a perpetual cripple in perpetual denial, all the more terrifying because you ARE satisfied with the "explanation" that magic is caused by magic, which is caused by magic. You'll never run out of turtles, that' clear enough.

Arden,

First of all, it was an answer to dismiss Lenny. But anyway, I am just like anyone else--I think my religion is true, otherwise I wouldn't hold to it. You can't possibly be any different--whatever your views are you must think them to be correct. Or do you live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance?

Now if you are asking seriously, as in you are really interested in what Christianity (or the Calvinistic flavor thereof) has to say, I'd be delighted to take up that discussion on another forum--maybe email.

C.J., I think Dawkins's statement fits your description. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of practicing and lapsed Catholics would contend that regardless of how much they did or did not like being raised Catholic, it was preferred to being sexually abused. Stupid is as stupid does. It's not a question of IQ, I have no doubt Dawkins's IQ is way up there.

See, it would be equally stupid to say "bringing up your child as an atheist is a form of mental child abuse possibly worse than sexual abuse."

Now about PZ calling all those good Catholics idiots...

Flint, I wasn't raised a Christian, so Dawkins's asinine statement doesn't apply to me. I am actually your worst nightmare--I was converted to Christianity after being exposed to cosmological ID in college.

David H
The quick resort to name calling is one of the reasons that I post infrequently on blog comments. I don't care if you did it, PZ did it or anyone else on the thread did it. It doesn't advance the argument. And saying "PZ did it, too" (intended or not on your part, that's sure what it sounded like to me) shouldn't pass muster here any more than it did with any of our parents when we were kids. Next thing, you'll be saying that PZ started it.

Maybe it's just me, but the irony of Mr. Heddle's comments is just unbearable.

"I am just like anyone else---I think my religion is true, otherwise I wouldn't hold to it. You can't possibly be any different---whatever your views are you must think them to be correct."

He's able to say things like these, and not see the parallel with his "cosmological ID".

Doug T,

It should be clear that I am not saying "PZ did it, that makes it right." I wanted to see if Uber would excuse PZ, that is--I wanted to see if he was consistent.

By the way, there is an awful lot of name calling that goes on here that doesn't seem to get people upset. You don't suppose Dembski or Gonzalez have ever been called a name by the PT faithful, do you? And Last week, Lenny called me an arrogant self-righteous prick. Uber was not outraged.

Aureloa, what parallel--if you point it out maybe I'll agree I do see it. And, based on your comment, can I assume that you do not think your own religious views, whatever they may be, are correct?

'Or maybe we could take a nationwide pool, to see if more people find Dawkin's statements that being raised Catholic is worse than sexual abuse "stupid" than find that Townes's quote clearly defines him as a babbling, pious fraud.'

A nationwide pool? oh, poll. Again your statement lacks merit. If the entire poll said Dawkins statement was silly it still wouldn't make him wrong per se. You seem to think the truth is determined by majority vote. Dawkins analogy has some merit. The same folks who are so offended at TV violence and such ARE filling the minds of innocent children with far worse imagery.

That is the point.

And many, many Protestants will agree with Dawkins that being raised Catholic is terrible.

'I am not sure if Townes declares the bible inerrant and compatible with science, but certainly some intellectuals do, such as Francis Schaeffer'

That doesn't make them correct. Especially when he uses illogical and irrational steps to make his case. Again that wonderful Shermer, 'Why Smart people believe wierd things'

' "bringing up your child as an atheist is a form of mental child abuse possibly worse than sexual abuse."'

Why? The atheist doesn't place vivid imagery of terrible things in innocent childrens heads. You could say that all you want but it simply wouldn't make any sense. The atheist can consistently worry about TV images if they choose without being a BIG hypocrite.

'Flint, I wasn't raised a Christian, so Dawkins's asinine statement doesn't apply to me. I am actually your worst nightmare---I was converted to Christianity after being exposed to cosmological ID in college.'

Why would that be anyones nightmare? You seem to think someone would care, why so much ego? Just because you bought something hook line and sinker doesn't mean your more correct than Flint because he finds your 'reasoning' and behaviour spacious.

'I wanted to see if Uber would excuse PZ, that is---I wanted to see if he was consistent.'

I was.

' Lenny called me an arrogant self-righteous prick. Uber was not outraged.'

Or answer B. Uber was not here but running from a hurricane hence Uber did not read said comments. But alas that is to simple an explanation for you, read into it whatever conspiracy you like.

The inconsistency of Heddle.

'You can't possibly be any different---whatever your views are you must think them to be correct. Or do you live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance?'

Or open mindedness to accepting you could very well be wrong. The hallmark of a great thinker, allowing for other possibilities. Unlike an idealogue who KNOWS or more correctly thinks he is always correct.

'It's not a question of IQ, I have no doubt Dawkins's IQ is way up there.'

Of course this comes after repeatedly calling him a stupid, stupid man.

'I am willing to bet that the vast majority of practicing and lapsed Catholics would contend that regardless of how much they did or did not like being raised Catholic, it was preferred to being sexually abused.'

Of course. But it doesn't excuse the harm done to them by the religion. And hence the parallel. Sorta like choosing the lesser of two evils. A vote wouldn't disprove Dawkins assertion.

Mr. Heddle,

you think your ideas are right, and cannot possibly think they are wrong.

This is just because your ideas are your ideas, i.e. it has no bearing on whether those ideas are indeed right or wrong.

You also look at the universe and claim it is fine-tuned to allow life; yet, if it did not allow life, you wouldn't be here claiming anything.

This, too, has no bearing on whether the universe is indeed fine-tuned or not.

I already made the point that the universe looks like it is expanding away from us, yet this is due to being looked at from our specific point of view. You have so far failed to give any reason to think otherwise about your claims.

As to your other question, I think my opinions are as correct as I can make them; in fact, I try to form them on the basis of evidence. Which is why I have no religious opinion, but only opinions on religion.

...but certainly some intellectuals declare the bible inerrant and compatible with science, such as Francis Schaeffer. ...PZ has labeled the entire Roman Catholic Church as idiots, because Rome declares the bible to be inerrant.

— Heddle

Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 1999 "For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that 'the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of 'that truth' with 'for the sake of our salvation'."

New Advent, massive Roman Catholic website "Although inerrancy isn't limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn't mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn't integral to what they assert."

It may be just me but I find that Catholic material in quotes above to be an illogical mess. I can at least respect fundies for their consistency on this issue. If you can't accept the bible as a whole you have no real way of weeding out the parts that you find unacceptable.

I mean either God inspired it or he didn't. I mean I think Genesis being intact is an important part of the Christian salvation plan. Likewise I think the Catholic doctrines of the virgin Mary, wafer to flesh, and all the rest ARE science claims to a large degree.

So really they are picking and choosing which verses apply to salvation. Which leads to lots of inconsistency and confusion.

Flint, I wasn't raised a Christian, so Dawkins's asinine statement doesn't apply to me. I am actually your worst nightmare---I was converted to Christianity after being exposed to cosmological ID in college.

Why would that be anyones nightmare?

The Second Vatican Council (1965) says the authors of the Bible were preserved from error in matters of "moral and dogmatic teaching, excluding everything in the bible relating to history and the natural sciences."

The title of this thread is misleading. It should be renamed The David Heddle show. So should several other threads.

Mr. Heddle:

You are even more reading-impaired that I thought possible.

I had written:
"As to your other question, I think my opinions are as correct as I can make them; in fact, I try to form them on the basis of evidence. Which is why I have no religious opinion, but only opinions on religion."

You respond:
"Aureola, surely you know it is impossible to have no opinions on religion, even if it only to reject all religions."

Read (slowly and carefully, this time) these two short excerpts, and try to understand why you are impossible to take seriously.

Also, I think you would have a hard time obtaining either a religious opinion or an opinion on religion by a three-month-old kid.

I think my opinions are as correct as I can make them; in fact, I try to form them on the basis of evidence.

Again Heddle I said I didn't agree with Dawkins earlier. But I can see where he is going with his idea. His idea is more consistent that your thinking. Abuse is abuse. One is sexual the other is mental and lifelong. That is what he is thinking. Both punish the victim.

'Gee, did you somehow miss the boat? Why is was relevant whether the bible actually is inerrant?'

It isn't and I didn't make a case of it. I just said some Protestants would agree with him about Catholism.

'The point is that PZ called these intellectuals, all with credentials in the same ballpark as Dawkins, idiots for believing it to be so. So you are not consistent, not at all. At least I don't see where you say PZ was wrong for such language. No, all you do agree with him, in effect.'

Then you can't read. I said PZ could have been less abrupt. Meaning I feel he could choose better words. Same as you.

'This is in evidence when you excuse Dawkins's stupidity because you believe that images of hell do constitute abuse (worse than molestation??)'

I feel that placing horrific images of something you have never seen into a childs mind is terrible. Well shoot me then. If, usung your ploy, we were to take a poll of people who felt it ok to show torture and pain to children I suspect most would not. I would be among them.
'
'But that is just an opinion.'

yes but a rational one

'No better than if I said raising a child as an atheist is abuse because it risks eternal damnation for the child.'

your wrong, you have no evidence that hell even exists let alone knowledge of what it takes to send one there. However implanting such imagery into the head of a child can have very real and terrifying effects for a child in the real world.

'Just an opinion (one, as a Calvinist, I do not hold)---but nevertheless just as defensible as Dawkins's and your opinion.'

Not even close to being as defensible.

'Arden and DougT showed some integrity. Not you.'

How on Earth can you come to that conclusion? I have been honest and upfront. I have said I felt PZ should have picked his words more carefully, I don't even agree with Dawkins on his stance but am arguing what I feel is an inconsistent point on your end. The fact is your integrity is nonexistent. Your would likely argue against violence on TV and images harmful to children while at the same time subjecting children to that which you oppose. And then run the ruse that you are doing it for their benefit.

You attacked Dawkins a man neither your or I know with insults intended to demean him on a personal level. You have acted childishly by bringing a 3d party PZ into something he wasn't involved in. Then accused others of poor behaviour or 'lacking' integrity.

You are interesting I'll give you that.

Uber, Flint,Aureola, others.

Please stop. You folks have been honest and upfront with him. As a Christian man I appreciate all your candor and honesty. Even on the points I don't share with you.

He started with insults and isn't finishing any better. Please let the troll go away. I think he sees himself doing battle with the hordes of evil or something because he never makes any sense to me.