Kenneth Miller on The Colbert Report tonight

To paraphrase our "Faith based" leadership:

Sometimes you have to go with the concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.

Re: Comment #70800

Which is exactly why Intelligent Design does not belong in a science curriculum. There is absolutely no merit to it as a scientific, factual concept. Put it in a philosophy, religous, or world studies type curriculum, hell create a class of its own - but keep it out of the realm of science.

Two of my favourites together on one show!

If you haven't seen Kenneth Miller's presentations, you've missed a lot. This man has got some pretty good cajones on him. I was hoping the Case U format was actually going to be a debate, but the presentation and Q&A resulting from Dembski's no-show was excellent watching anyhow.

*laugh* I do get a kick out of Colbert's manufactured "persona" - a satire within a satire. Sometimes he can be fluffy on the interview; other times not.

I plan on staying up late to watch it :)

Too bad Ken Miller couldn't be on the Daily Show instead. Stephen Colbert is horrible at interviews; he needs to learn to shut up and let the guest talk.

Lets hope the ID folks have many years of "Runner up" both in euphamestic labels for creationism and court battles!

Ken Miller has all the pizzaz of a person who has absolutely nothing to hide and is modest to a fault. I don't have cable but I am sure I will get to watch the "news"cast one of these days.

If Ken Miller would write another book, he'd be invited onto the Daily Show in a minute! Most of the guests there seem to be pushing their latest book or movie these days.

I don't care if she accosts me again at another Board of Education meeting with this simple message, I'll say it anyway: she is a liar.

— Jeff McKee

If Ken Miller would write another book, he'd be invited onto the Daily Show in a minute! Most of the guests there seem to be pushing their latest book or movie these days.

Colbert was the... perfect. straight. man.

Brian, I'm not shocked by the behavior of folks like Ms. Fink (how appropriate her name is). Standard political tactics engaged in by the right since the neocons started trying to take power in the late 70's.

swiftboating has become quite a successful tactic.

It doesn't make it any better tho.

What never ceases to shock me though, is that after pulling this kind of stunt, they invariably STILL claim the moral "high ground".

and what disgusts me to the utmost extent, to the extent I'm working on leaving the US as we speak, is that most Americans let them get away with this crap.

... the audience in attendance at that meeting should have raised an immediate stink about Fink's behavior, and demanded an immediate halt to any further proceedings until her claims could be investigated and shown to be what they are.

but... other than a brief moment of silence, what did the audience actually do, Brian?

did they side with your correct indignation at such low tactics?

or did they just sit and watch the show.

I'm genuinely curious to know.

Loved it.

I accidentally posted my comment #70901on the wrong thread. I'll repost it where it belongs - on Intelligent Design on CNN.

Sir Toejam - I'll respond over there.

sounds good.

I would have simply asked Mrs. Fink why she was reading my emails, and inform her that if she did not seek help for her stalker tendencies, I should get a restraining order. Turn the topic from her misrepresentation of the email to the issue of how she obtained the email itself.

Saw the Prof. Miller segment on the Colbert Report. It was excellent. I have read most of the papers on his miller&devine web site but I have never heard him speak. As I mentioned on another comment thread here, I have seen Ed Brayton praise him to the hilt, and now I know why. Prof. Miller is affable, and not overbearing, but also authoritative. (The last from his papers, not his TV appearance)

One thing that I found interesting is that Colbert and Prof. Miller did get into Prof. Miller's Catholicism and evolution. I really do believe that things like that are very important--to reconcile evolution with peoples' religious beliefs so that they do not reject it out of hand. And Prof. Miller handled it in a very good way.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that the host (Colbert) and the guest (Prof. Miller) work out the dialogue ahead of time. And Prof. Miller would certainly have known that he was appearing on a comedy show.

Working upthread, regarding the comment about the contrast with the Jon Stewart show, I believe that they are produced by the same production company (the tie-in should be obvious). Yes, most of Jon Stewart's guests seem to be politicians or people pushing movies or books. And that's why I often tune out after the first quarter hour. I haven't figured out the nature of the guests on the Colbert Report, but I have watched some of them. Including Prof. Miller.

Colbert: "I don't get flu shots; they're too sciencey"

Miller: "perhaps too 'truthy'?"

~later~

colbert: "would you come back and explain this whole, sun-doesn't-go-around-the-earth thing?"

not bad.

... things like that are very important---to reconcile evolution with peoples' religious beliefs so that they do not reject it out of hand.

God involves himself in men's lives not by manipulating all the quarks and leptons like some great cosmic puppeteer but rather thru a purely spiritual mechanism not amenable to empiric investigation. This is why the majority of Christians have no issues with evolution or other theories but may have major issues with the application of the technology developed from them.

God involves himself in men's lives not by manipulating all the quarks and leptons like some great cosmic puppeteer but rather thru a purely spiritual mechanism not amenable to empiric investigation

Pro,

Don't like science?....Don't use it!

Rely on your beliefs for transportation, communication, education...or anything else that involves day to day living.

See how far the science of faith gets you.

Um, in case no one noticed, Pro is on our side.

Or do we just intend to provoke yet another pointless war between theists and atheists . . . ?

See how far the science of faith gets you.

The god of Christians and the Bible is too small for the universe science has shown us.

That's the God YOU comprehend, Norman, based on bits of the Bible that you cherrypicked, took out of context, and declared "central." It is most certainly NOT the God the rest of us comprehend.

Your understanding of spirituality is no stronger than an IDer's understanding of the basic concepts of science. You really ought to try to get out more, and stop going out of your way to insult your allies in this important political struggle.

That's the God YOU comprehend, Norman, based on bits of the Bible that you cherrypicked, took out of context, ...

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 08:55 AM (e) (s) ... You guys make a lot of claims about your "advanced spirituality" that sounds like so much obfuscation and also about my limitations --- let's see you back them up. Show me a part of the Bible I haven't cherry picked that would actually resonate with the universe science has discovered. Show me you actually comprehend anything through "spirituality" instead of just bragging.

You're demanding WE show our comprehension? That's rich, coming from someone who goes on at ridiculous length about a passage about snakes and completely ignores, not only the wisdom of Jesus, but a colossal mass of divine wisdom from Bhuddism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Paganism, Shintoism, and Gods-know-what else (pardon the pun).

Divine wisdom is not just about "the universe science has discovered;" it's mostly about the universes within our hearts and minds, and how those inner universes interact with the big one outside. It's subjective and largely unprovable and un-falsifiable. (That's why it's NOT SCIENCE and CAN'T BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE, remember?)

I used to believe as you do -- back when I was twelve. Then puberty came along, and my perspective began to change and deepen. It's still changing.

We can't do your homework for you here. It's up to you to get out and listen to people who have experienced things you haven't. Trust me on this: spirituality is no less real, no less relevant, and no less important in a balanced life, for being immaterial. And when you start to understand this, the orgasms get better...

we just intend to provoke yet another pointless war between theists and atheists?

Here is a link to Comedy Central's website:

The Colbert Report - Celebrity Interviews

Not yet updated, though I would expect that the Miller interview will be up tomorrow if not later today.

PS: if you want to see how real, uplifting, and powerful sincere spirituality can be, try a Narcotics Anonymous meeting.

There does seem to be a lot of theist bashing/attacks by the hard left atheists. Seems like some latent irrational hostility there that they aren't willing to address.

What happened to the live & let live, we don't interfere with your spiritual beliefs and we don't interfere with yours? Is that just lip service to the Constitution? Do you plan to use the same strategies as the fundamentalists - every belief is acceptable (as long as everyone believes the same as you)?

It is the religious fundies that claim that religion is science. Ask them to provide empirical evidence.

OTOH. Trying to use scientific knowledge to disprove God seems to be as daft (or at least in the same ball-park).

A nice tidbit from the "Words of the Year" link:

folksonomy: a taxonomy created by an ad-hoc group of non-experts

Reminded me of "kinds".

There does seem to be a lot of theist bashing/attacks by the hard left atheists

Who brings up religion and judges others by theirs? Atheists?

Actually, yes.

That's rich, coming from someone who goes on at ridiculous length about a passage about snakes and completely ignores, not only the wisdom of Jesus, but a colossal mass of divine wisdom from Bhuddism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Paganism, Shintoism, and Gods-know-what else (pardon the pun).

— Raging Bee

Raging Bee,

I sincerely apologize. I hammered you for a position that you don't hold (I intended it for Ben).

Please accept my apologies!

Jim, what does your post have to do with anything I said? Why did you quote RB in trying to "hammer" me? I must be missing something.

Who brings up religion and judges others by theirs? Atheists? There wouldn't even be the word 'atheist' if it weren't for theists' efforts to impose their beliefs and worldview on everyone. Like I said, keep the statement "god is X" out of your mouth, I'll keep it out of mine, and I promise we'll never have to worry about any "theist bashing" ever again.

— ben

Is there a reason for your rage?

You're demanding WE show our comprehension?

... coming from someone who goes on at ridiculous length about a passage about snakes...

...and completely ignores, not only the wisdom of Jesus...

... a colossal mass of divine wisdom from Bhuddism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Paganism, Shintoism, and Gods-know-what else ...

I used to believe as you do --- back when I was twelve. Then puberty came along, and my perspective began to change and deepen. It's still changing.

— Raging Bee

Norman wrote:

You might point to something simple like "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and I'm going to say that's not really all that wise --- it's trite and ambiguous and it's not really "spiritual" --- it's more like pop psychology advice.

So you quote a bit of divine wisdom, then brush it off as "pop psychology advice." You don't actually prove it WRONG or USELESS, nor do you offer any alternative wisdom of your own; you just argue by labelling, pretend you're "above" that sort of thing, and look down your nose at people who take it seriously, regardless of how such "pop psychology advice" might improve other people's lives or behavior.

I don't consider that spiritual --- I consider that psychological, an insight into the human condition. A story of the illusions of childhood lost. Is it wise? Perhaps as wise as most stories get and I've never denied it. But it doesn't prove anything supernatural or spiritual.

More argument by labelling. Labelling something "psychological" does not diminish its validity or spiritual resonance in others, and ignores the fact that the "spiritual" and "psychological" realms are often inseparable. In fact, they're both very valuable tools for understanding the same thing -- the human condition. Psychologists themselves acknowledge this, whether or not they believe in god(s) themselves.

I really don't know how to put this more clearly: you sound exactly like a twelve-year-old know-it-all who just learned what the word "rational" means, admires Mr. Spock (and/or possibly the Borg) as a role model, and snickers with unconcealed scorn at all the kissing, hugging and other "mushy stuff" older people do. And while you're snickering at us, we're laughing and shaking our heads at you, becsuse we know that puberty will absolutely blindside you when it comes.

jim: apology back at ya. I should have made it clear that I was responding to Norman.

Comment #71002 Posted by jim on January 13, 2006 09:20 AM (e) (s) There does seem to be a lot of theist bashing/attacks by the hard left atheists. Seems like some latent irrational hostility there that they aren't willing to address.

Jon Stewart's interviews suck. Colbert is a much better interviewer.

AC wrote:

By the time I finished college, I didn't see any use for a concept of God other than comforting people. At this point, I really wish people would just stop wasting so much time with it and do something useful instead. You know, useful outside their own minds. Useful for something other than personal comfort or ego-stroking. Useful in the mutually-observable world.

You mean, like, sacrificing their own material comfort and safety to help people less fortunate than themselves? Like bringing food and medical help into godforsaken war-zones? Like preaching, and practicing, a moral code for people to follow in order to get along better and live more honorable lives? Or how about living our lives with a deeper understanding that there's more to civilized life than the daily grind of meeting our material needs? Is that "useful" enough for you? People of all faiths do these sorts of things all the time, and they're inspired to do so by the notion, in many guises, that there's a being/law/set-of-priorities bigger and more important than their own personal wants and complaints.

I should have made it clear that I was responding to Norman.

There does seem to be a lot of theist bashing/attacks by the hard left atheists

Moses: jim's comment #71002 was spot-on and not hypocritical at all. The issues covered in this blog revolve around the misrepresentation of certain religious doctrines as "science" in order to disguise/justify politicized religious discrimination. Many persons of various faiths are on the SAME SIDE as the atheists on this, and bashing the faith of people who share our priorities (on a very important issue) is ignorant and pointless and (IMHO at least) should be criticized as such.

... like, sacrificing their own material comfort and safety to help people less fortunate than themselves?

... a moral code for people to follow in order to get along better and live more honorable lives?

People of all faiths do these sorts of things all the time,...

Russell,

I agree whole heartedly with you. As long as people's beliefs do not adversely fringe on how I live my life, I say let them believe what they want.

I've never seen (moderate) religious people here attack the beliefs of the atheist personalities here.

So why do certain atheist personalities here feel it's their right/duty to malign the theists and/or religions in their midst? Also why do they keep bringing the topic up? Are they spoiling for a fight?

If so, take it somewhere else. Their beliefs are NOT rational, scientific, and have very little basis in facts & evidence.

FWIW, my beliefs are equally NOT rational, scientific, and have very little basis in facts & evidence but I freely admit it.

At the risk of bodily harm. I'd like to yank this thread back on topic.

*YOINK*

Does anyone know if Ken Miller's interview is available on the web?

Neither "the pro" nor "raging bee" wrote anything I can imagine taking umbrage at.

Who brings up religion and judges others by theirs? Atheists? Actually, yes.

I used to believe as you do --- back when I was twelve. Then puberty came along, and my perspective began to change and deepen. It's still changing.

I used to believe as you do --- back when I was twelve. Then puberty came along, and my perspective began to change and deepen. It's still changing.

None of which has anything to do with the reality of the supernatural propositions and it also suggests that this is an exclusively religious phenomena.

If "supernatural propositions" motivate some people to do something in the real world, than they are, for all practical purposes, real, at least for those people and the people affected by their deeds. And why deny the reality of "supernatural propositions" that motivate people to do something good? Shouldn't such "supernatural propositions" be met with respect, even by those who don't themselves believe them?

Yet you have atheists like Bill Gates and George Soros donating millions to charity too. In fact Soros has promised to give away most of his money before he's 80.

None of which I ever denied -- or belittled, as you routinely belittle persons of faith.

Are you suggesting that people who don't believe in god don't have a moral or ethical code?

If you actually read what I wrote, without the irrationality you impute to others, you would see the answer is "no."

Shouldn't such "supernatural propositions" be met with respect, even by those who don't themselves believe them?

If "supernatural propositions" motivate some people to do something in the real world, than they are, for all practical purposes, real...

...why deny the reality of "supernatural propositions" that motivate people to do something good?

Shouldn't such "supernatural propositions" be met with respect, even by those who don't themselves believe them?

...as you routinely belittle persons of faith.

If you actually read what I wrote, without the irrationality you impute to others, you would see the answer is "no."

bulman writes:

However, I feel obligated to point out that action prompted by belief does not validate that belief.

Then he adds:

Not all ideas deserve respect, but people should be afforded it by default.

How can you respect people without respecting the beliefs that motivate them to do things that earn them respect? If you don't respect a person's beliefs, then you are not respecting the whole person, only those parts of him that you choose to acknowledge. That's not sincere respect. It sounds to me like you are reserving the right to thumb your nose at a person's beliefs, intelligence and/or values, while taking for granted any good deeds they might have motivated him to do. That's called "ingratitude," "arrogance," or "snobbery," among other things.

If a belief motivates large numbers of people to do something good and necessary, then the good result does indeed tend to validate the belief, just as bad deeds would make the underlying belief look bad.

You mean, like, sacrificing their own material comfort and safety to help people less fortunate than themselves? Like bringing food and medical help into godforsaken war-zones? Like preaching, and practicing, a moral code for people to follow in order to get along better and live more honorable lives? Or how about living our lives with a deeper understanding that there's more to civilized life than the daily grind of meeting our material needs? Is that "useful" enough for you? People of all faiths do these sorts of things all the time, and they're inspired to do so by the notion, in many guises, that there's a being/law/set-of-priorities bigger and more important than their own personal wants and complaints.

A god that acts through "spiritual" means, not empirical ones? Such an entity cannot be demonstrated through any amount of rational thought, observation, and experimentation. The scientific method specifically rejects assertions which cannot in principle be tested, because the truth or falsehood of such assertions can never have any consequences or implications. It literally makes no difference at all.

How far will we bend backwards to pretend faith is compatible with reason, so that people who live their lives by faith won't reject everything we value? How much are we willing to compromise our integrity to make science palatable to those that would reject it if they actually grasp its implications? What kind of "public relations" are we willing to indulge in?

If we make science prosper by ensuring that people accept it without really understanding what it is, have we really won? That is a tactic of our enemies. To what degree are we willing to become them in order to defeat them?

Norman has once again revealed his bigotry, and the blind spot that results from it: in his latest post, he has lumped all "supernatural propositions" together into one amorphous, undifferentiated mass, refusing to acknowledge the difference between -- for just one example -- believing God wants us to treat each other with compassion and respect, and believing God wants us to give money to al-Qaeda-Pat.

Just because you use the same big word to "describe" all religious beliefs, does not mean they're really all the same in any meaningful sense. Your refusal to see the differences -- which were obvious to me even in my prepube-atheist phase -- renders you utterly unable to understand what's being discussed here.

How can you respect people without respecting the beliefs that motivate them to do things that earn them respect?

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 11:37 AM (e) (s) A god that acts through "spiritual" means, not empirical ones? Such an entity cannot be demonstrated through any amount of rational thought, observation, and experimentation. The scientific method specifically rejects assertions which cannot in principle be tested, because the truth or falsehood of such assertions can never have any consequences or implications. It literally makes no difference at all. How far will we bend backwards to pretend faith is compatible with reason, so that people who live their lives by faith won't reject everything we value? How much are we willing to compromise our integrity to make science palatable to those that would reject it if they actually grasp its implications? What kind of "public relations" are we willing to indulge in? If we make science prosper by ensuring that people accept it without really understanding what it is, have we really won? That is a tactic of our enemies. To what degree are we willing to become them in order to defeat them?

But religion is not a prerequisiste to doing good.

Maybe not for you or me, but, like it or not, for many people, it is. And if they need to do good, then I, for one, would not begrudge them the tools they need to do it. Expedit esse deos, et ut expedit, esse putemus.

You might point to something simple like "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and I'm going to say that's not really all that wise --- it's trite and ambiguous and it's not really "spiritual" --- it's more like pop psychology advice.

Newton deserves a lot of respect for his science, but he still had some crazy ideas about alchemy that might have inspired them. Same with other people, they have feelings, accomplishments, good ideas and bad.

So you see my point then. I was about to give up on you.

Well, what IS the difference between God wanting us to treat everyone with compassion and love, and God wanting us to give money to Pat Robertson?

How was this desire expressed? How was it communicated? How can we verify its source? And how can we judge the worthiness of the desire, particularly since one of those beliefs has shaped our cultural mores for centuries? We're conditioned to consider it as "virtuous" and "morally correct" as a given.

If a person comes to us with a tale that an undetectable entity told them to love everyone, why should we apply different standards of evidence and reasoning to that claim than to the claim that an undetectable entity told them to slaughter all those who would not obey?

All this defending and attacking of "faith", or trying to prove or disprove something that is unprovable one way or the other. Sheeze!

I can see from these discussions where the "deists" of the Enlightenment came from. If "faith" is a personal response to the wonder of Nature, how can one honestly claim that another's "faith" is "wrong"?

It's sad when one's "belief" requires (sometimes violently) that everyone else is "wrong".

Just let it be, and everyone can get on with more fruitful discussions.

That's called "ingratitude," "arrogance," or "snobbery," among other things.

Norman has once again revealed his bigotry, and the blind spot that results from it: in his latest post, he has lumped all "supernatural propositions" together...

... into one amorphous, undifferentiated mass, refusing to acknowledge the difference between...

... one example --- believing God wants us to treat each other with compassion and respect, and believing God wants us to give money to al-Qaeda-Pat.

That's called "ingratitude," "arrogance," or "snobbery," among other things.

I think you are trying to project the standards of science onto religious belief. IMO. That is just as silly as the fundie ID supporters trying to force religion onto science.

— Stephen Elliot

Different people hold all sorts of personal views. One is not necessarily better than another.

We are all trying to get through this life the best way we can. I am sure everyone here wants the best for themselves and their loved ones. Your personal beliefs are no better than mine and vice-verce.

Maybe not for you or me, but, like it or not, for many people, it is. And if they need to do good, then I, for one, would not begrudge them the tools they need to do it.

So you see my point then. I was about to give up on you.

And if they need to do good, then I, for one, would not begrudge them the tools they need to do it.

— Raging Bee

How far will we bend backwards to pretend faith is compatible with reason, so that people who live their lives by faith won't reject everything we value? How much are we willing to compromise our integrity to make science palatable to those that would reject it if they actually grasp its implications? What kind of "public relations" are we willing to indulge in?

The Creationists and ID supporters are willing to lie, slander, misrepresent, and appeal to fallacious reasoning. They are willing to do all of these things because they are convinced in the rightness of their goal, and they are willing to use whatever tools are necessary to accomplish that good, and are willing to reject whatever is incompatible with that good.

Why do we condemn this? Is it merely because we hold an opposing goal, and so are justified in condemning their strategies regardless of their merit? NO - it's because those strategies have no merit.

You say people can believe whatever they wish, as long as they don't cause harm to others. Well, what happens when you encounter people whose definition of 'harm' isn't compatible with yours, and they attempt to act in accordance with their beliefs?

I love this quote:

Oliver Wendell Holmes

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Caledonian:

"You say people can believe whatever they wish, as long as they don't cause harm to others. Well, what happens when you encounter people whose definition of 'harm' isn't compatible with yours, and they attempt to act in accordance with their beliefs?"

I think that was directed at me (the first sentence is mine anyway!). And I already answered it:

"I have problems with organised religions. I have big problems with fundamentalist people who try to force their faith into science classes and propagate lies about established science because it doesn't agree with an over-literal reading of some old fairy tales."

Teaching religion to school children while pretending that it's science is causing harm, by my definition.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

— Bulman

Caledonian:

I think most of it can be prohibited by mutual consent. Some people call them 'laws'.

Teaching religion to school children while pretending that it's science is causing harm, by my definition.

— Tim Hague

How do we judge the laws? We can hold "personal beliefs" about them, as well. And about their content. We could establish laws that say the nose begins three inches into the face, and thus punching people on the surface of the face isn't hitting their nose. That wouldn't make the law accurate. It wouldn't make it correct. And it wouldn't avoid objective harm - noses bleed and break whether we acknowledge them in our laws or not.

Cut the sophistry.

Semantic, but true. I like to interpret it as meaning, "I can do whatever I want so much as it does not have an effect."

That's quite a fundie interpretation, but I like the idea. It doesn't address what type of effect we should be able to make, but the sentiment is no effect no foul. This at least gives us a starting point on the harm debate. If there is no effect, then harm does not exist by any definition.

Just don't think of siblings going, "I'm not touching you!" over and over with a fist just inches from your nose. =P

And by the IDers' definition, it's a good. Your definition of harm is not compatible with their definition of good, and it's not possible for both standards to be applied at the same time. So which should we choose? After all, aren't both beliefs "equally valid"? Isn't the truth subjective, so neither side can be said to be right or wrong? Who are you to contradict their personal beliefs? Post-modernism is the denial of reality. Science is about accepting and acknowledging reality. Which do you support?

You say people can believe whatever they wish, as long as they don't cause harm to others. Well, what happens when you encounter people whose definition of 'harm' isn't compatible with yours, and they attempt to act in accordance with their beliefs?

— Caledonian

I like to interpret it as meaning, "I can do whatever I want so much as it does not have an effect."

— Bulman

The pro science theists here no more support or agree with the ID/fundamentalist crowd than you agree with communism/Stalinists.

— jim

... you quote a bit of divine wisdom,...

... then brush it off as "pop psychology advice."

You don't actually prove it WRONG or USELESS,...

... nor do you offer any alternative wisdom of your own;

... you just argue by labelling,

Labelling something "psychological" does not diminish its validity or spiritual resonance in others,...

...ignores the fact that the "spiritual" and "psychological" realms are often inseparable.

Caledonian,

Are you having a bad day? I wish to extend to you the benefit of the doubt before I reframe my "Hey, I kinda like this quote and think it's neat" post by defining what I mean by the individual words 'Hey', 'I', 'kinda', etc. Clearly I do not mean 'no effect' in a thermodynamic or quantum sense. Please read my posts in context. You can call my starting point invalid and I can 'go all Descartes' on you and build from the ground up.

I would rather just start a new thread on after the bar closes and lurk if that is what this thread is turning into.

BTW my starting point is not invalid, if I did not have an effect on a person then I did not harm the person. Negligence is based on inaction and wI believe we are talking about causing harm.

I'll let you get the last potshot if you want to quibble over semantics, but I hope that we are just a little high strung after a debate that has spanned years.

I do agree that science and religion lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. To be clear.

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 11:37 AM A god that acts through "spiritual" means, not empirical ones? Such an entity cannot be demonstrated through any amount of rational thought, observation, and experimentation.

The scientific method specifically rejects assertions which cannot in principle be tested, because the truth or falsehood of such assertions can never have any consequences or implications. It literally makes no difference at all.

How far will we bend backwards to pretend faith is compatible with reason,

so that people who live their lives by faith won't reject everything we value?

How much are we willing to compromise our integrity to make science palatable to those that would reject it if they actually grasp its implications?

What kind of "public relations" are we willing to indulge in? If we make science prosper by ensuring that people accept it without really understanding what it is, have we really won? That is a tactic of our enemies. To what degree are we willing to become them in order to defeat them?

So then, which is it more important for me to have: spirituality or truthiness? Both seem equally effective in telling me that my perspective is the correct one. Oh, and I can't believe the arrogant atheist card has been played yet again. Which is more arrogant: claiming that your conception of God is the truthiest, or claiming that there's insufficient evidence that a god exists? I'm inclined to think the latter is less arrogant, but go ahead and convince me otherwise.

Ken Miller really seems to serve as a wedge in this community, and though I dislike the tone Lenny typically uses, I second his question as to why people who agree that the theory of evolution needs to be protected against anti-intellectual assault constantly belabor this theism issue. Ain't nobody gonna convince me there is a god without physical evidence and there ain't no way I'm gonna convince somebody else that his/her spirituality is meaningless.

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 12:33 PM (e) (s) . But they're willing to suspend critical thought when it would conflict with their own personal sacred cows. On that topic, they DO agree with the ID/fundamentalist crowd. Science just isn't compatible with religion, and everyone who insists otherwise is either lying to themselves or lying to others. People can believe what they like about matters for which there are no actual truths. When there is a truth about something, the only way we can accomplish anything (whether as individuals or as a society) is to acknowledge that truth. When you treat unreality as reality, reality becomes unreality.

I seem to have started this by saying what science has shown us is that man is a petty detail in this universe, tiny and ephemeral, and I couldn't see how to fit the kind of god described in the Bible into that picture and then said the god of the Bible seemed too small. Well, that is just me and the implied question there is "how do you do that?"

This seems to make some people angry. No one can tell me how they do that, that just get pissed off at me for asking.

Amanda looked sad. "That is possibly the worst aspect of this whole mess," she said. "It's the modern Vulcan word which we translate as 'logic'. But what it more correctly means is 'reality-truth'. The truth about the universe, the way things really are, rather than the way we would like them to be. It embraces the physical and the inner realities both at once, in all their changes. The concept says that if we do not tell the universe the truth about itself, if we don't treat it and the people in it as what they are -- real, and precious -- it will turn against us, and none of our affairs will prosper." She sighed. "That's a child's explanation of the word, I'm afraid. Whole books have been written attempting to define it completely. What Sarek is saying is that if we don't handle this matter with the utmost respect for the truth, for what is really needed for everyone involved, it will end is disaster."

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 12:46 PM (e) (s) I seem to have started this by saying what science has shown us is that man is a petty detail in this universe, tiny and ephemeral, and I couldn't see how to fit the kind of god described in the Bible into that picture and then said the god of the Bible seemed too small. Well, that is just me and the implied question there is "how do you do that?" This seems to make some people angry. No one can tell me how they do that, that just get pissed off at me for asking.

...Which is more arrogant: ...

— yorktank

Science just isn't compatible with religion...

Have you ever heard the saying "Good fences make good neighbors?" Science and religion are perfectly compatible, provided the boundaries between them are drawn honestly, carefully and sensibly. Millions of persons of faith hold the principles of scientific inquiry, and belief in (at least) one all-powerful and all-knowing Creator, together in their heads, and their heads somehow manage not to explode, and they somehow manage to lead reasonably happy, sane and productive lives without making such truly egregious mistakes as the "Cdesign Proponentists" have made.

Note to radical atheists: calling something impossible, when people can see it being done every day, does not help your credibility.

I believe according to some polls, about half of all scientist find a way to accommodate their religious beliefs to their scientific ideas,
is this not exactly how it should be? People like Wesley,Ken Miller,and Francis Collins are seen to be doing world class science and studying the natural world,and NOT letting that conflict with their beliefs in the supernatural. Exactly how they manage to do this, has always been a enigma to me personally,but the fact is they do.

Can people of faith not be rational?

I don't know why you guys are even arguing about this. Science does not threaten religious philosophy. What it DOES threaten is religious mythology. The question is whether you are able or willing to separate the two when considering yourself to be truly "religious".

Science does not threaten religious philosophy.

I don't know why you guys are even arguing about this. Science does not threaten religious philosophy.

— Lixivium

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 12:55 PM (e) (s) Stephen Elliott asked: Can people of faith not be rational? They can be rational about some things, they can do science and understand logic but I've seen no evidence they are rational about their most basic religious/supernatural beliefs. Instead of rationality - I get anger and lies when I ask my questions. In the end - I get no answer to my questions.

Since then, other atheists have told me what I believe ( I am not even sure myself).

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 01:15 PM (e) (s) Yea, you told me you were a Christian awhile back and I stupidly assumed that meant you believed in the Bible and that Jesus was a god. I think you're going to have to get used to that assumption if you call yourself a Christian, annoying or not, people do tend to think they know what that word means.

Note to radical atheists: calling something impossible, when people can see it being done every day, does not help your credibility.

— Raging Bee

... maybe that is because you ask religious questions in a way that demands scientific type answers.

... maybe you would be better asking them of the idiots who believe their religious opinions are scientific.

That sounds very similar to the "all evolutionists are atheists" argument.

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 01:25 PM (e) (s) Stephen Elliott wrote: ... maybe that is because you ask religious questions in a way that demands scientific type answers.

... maybe you would be better asking them of the idiots who believe their religious opinions are scientific.

Can you even say what the word "God" means to you?

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 01:33 PM (e) (s) ... And look around --- it just so happens a lot of us evolutionists are atheists, and vocal about it too. So you can see why people would make that assumuption. However, I think the assumption that people who call themselves Christian think Jesus was some kind of god is even more common than that. There are fewer counter examples of it.

Do you wish theistic allies to dishonestly deny faith?

Yeah! Who are you, Norman, to tell Stephen what he believes? Just because Stephen says he's a Christian doesn't mean you can tell him what "Christian" means. The word doesn't have any objective meaning, it's just another personal belief. If he wants to say he's Christian and believes that the Cargo Gods will bring us extraterrestrial shipments of luxury goods and we must build landing strips to lure him back, that's just fine. He can determine for himself what "Christianity" does and does not mean. After all, he's not harming anyone, right?

Besides stripping the meaning out of language, which profoundly harms everyone, of course...

At the risk of bodily harm. I'd like to yank this thread back on topic. *YOINK* Does anyone know if Ken Miller's interview is available on the web?

— jim

... just because you did not like the way your parents introduced you into Christianity. That does not mean I have to fit into yours or their mold.

Ken Miller did try to answer a similar question --- I did not find his answer satisfying and I suspect others on both sides of the question feel the same.

You didn't like Miller's answer as to how he reconciled his science with his Catholicism. So? It was his answer.

When creationists present any evidence for a creator, or IDers present any evidence for an Intelligent Designer, I'll sit up and listen. Until then, no. And neither have.

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 01:46 PM (e) (s) ... No. Just be prepared for the other questions that must follow: How in the world does God and the Bible fit into the world science has shown us?

Why do you seem so bothered about people who believe?

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 01:48 PM (e) (s) Yeah! Who are you, Norman, to tell Stephen what he believes? Just because Stephen says he's a Christian doesn't mean you can tell him what "Christian" means. The word doesn't have any objective meaning, it's just another personal belief. If he wants to say he's Christian and believes that the Cargo Gods will bring us extraterrestrial shipments of luxury goods and we must build landing strips to lure him back, that's just fine. He can determine for himself what "Christianity" does and does not mean. After all, he's not harming anyone, right? Besides stripping the meaning out of language, which profoundly harms everyone, of course...

Then I realized that God need not be defined by the Bible (or any other religious book/person).

You can't be that dense surely. If science proves something. I accept it.

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 02:07 PM (e) (s) ... When it comes to religion, no one has ever given me a rational answer. That does bother me a bit. Why shouldn't it?

dammmmmn! if we started one of these religious wars in the thread we are trying to push to 1000 posts, it would only take a day!

amazing.

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 02:19 PM (e) (s) Stephen Elliott wrote: You can't be that dense surely. If science proves something. I accept it. And if science can't disprove it --- you can believe whatever you want without reasons, elves, fairies, ESP, UFOs and flying pigs?

I'm sure this is way late and redundant, but Raging Bee wrote in response to AC's comment about the relative inutility of a "god concept":
"You mean, like, sacrificing their own material comfort and safety to help people less fortunate than themselves? Like bringing food and medical help into godforsaken war-zones? Like preaching, and practicing, a moral code for people to follow in order to get along better and live more honorable lives? Or how about living our lives with a deeper understanding that there's more to civilized life than the daily grind of meeting our material needs?"

I think the point is that these things are not unique to someone holding a "god concept". And as is abundantly clear from history the "god concept" is often the very thing responsible for "people less fortunate", "godforsaken war-zones", ignoring moral codes (e.g. christians lying under oath in Dover)and imposing their will on, detracting from, and impeding our material needs (witness all anti-science shenanigans a notable minority are engaged in).
~Gary

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 02:20 PM (e) (s) dammmmmn! if we started one of these religious wars in the thread we are trying to push to 1000 posts, it would only take a day! amazing.

hmm.

how 'bout:

God is X i tells ya!

now go here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/intelligent_des_19.html

and argue He isn't.

... it was said by Jesus. It actually appears in the Koran, the Talmud and the Analects of Confucius as well. I don't care either way who said it first, ...

You mean, like, sacrificing their own material comfort and safety to help people less fortunate than themselves? Like bringing food and medical help into godforsaken war-zones? Like preaching, and practicing, a moral code for people to follow in order to get along better and live more honorable lives? Or how about living our lives with a deeper understanding that there's more to civilized life than the daily grind of meeting our material needs? Is that "useful" enough for you? People of all faiths do these sorts of things all the time, and they're inspired to do so by the notion, in many guises, that there's a being/law/set-of-priorities bigger and more important than their own personal wants and complaints.

— Raging Bee

The weird thing is that it was not the Bible that made me believe in God. Rather it was Stephen Hawkins book Brief History of Time.

— Stephen Elliott

Sez Norman to Stephen:

...I'm just telling you it's going to be viewed with suspicion if you can't answer some basic questions about what you believe.

"Viewed with suspicion" by whom? And what "basic questions" is Stephen expected to answer? Since you were so wretchedly bad at second-guessing other people's beliefs, why should we listen to you when you try to second-guess other people's "suspicions" about someone's professed faith? Who else here (or elsewhere, for that matter) has voiced such "suspicions," and what makes you, Norman, entitled to lecture us about what questions or suspicions we should expect to encounter and answer for?

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 02:11 PM (e) (s) .... Then what does define God? Do you think there is a being out there that created the universe and it has desires, intentions, self-awareness, a plan?

I can't give you a rational answer.

However when my father was dying I cried out to God. I will not deny that.

It might be nothing or it might be something. I do not know. But never again shall I pretend that I do not believe.

Depends what you mean.

AC wrote:

I don't deny that people can act in ways that are beneficial to others because of religious beliefs. I'd just prefer that they realize that religious belief is not necessary for those endeavors.

This is exactly what the religious bigots say: they're quite aware that people of other faiths do good things, but they'd just "prefer" that those others realize that their alien faiths aren't "necessary" (at least in the bigots' opinion).

Who are you to judge the "necessity" of other people's beliefs? If they're doing the right thing, what else do you have to judge? Will you look at their accomplishments and say "Thanks for your help, but your beliefs need to be debunked, so just follow me to our shiny new reeducation camp?"

Fanatical evangelical: A person who cannot permit others to believe other than as he/she does, and is unwilling to even change the subject. Choice of theism or atheism is optional.

There is now a thread at After the Bar Closes to handle this topic. Please take the discussion there. Also, I'd appreciate it if in any thread here on PT starts to go down this road that someone post a link to the AtBC thread. Thanks.

...what makes you, Norman, entitled to lecture us about what questions or suspicions we should expect to encounter and answer for?

Posted by Norman Doering on January 13, 2006 02:42 PM (e) (s)

Are we wrong to insist that ID isn't scientific? There seem to be people who believe it is. We must be fanatics to insist that our opinions are actually correct, and others are misguided. Right?

It's a common tactic of evangelists to claim that anyone who contradicts them is a fanatic evangelist. It makes it harder to point out that they're the ones evangelizing and being fanatical.

Norman,
I read your piece on christianity; good piece, thanks for the link.
I know why these people drive you crazy; it's the wasting of humanity. You can see that we all have so many more productive things that we could be doing with our time on the rock, instead of bashing each other's head in over who gets to carry the gourd (Life of Brian reference).
The only thing is, it is that quality that you describe in your article that dooms you to get nowhere in arguments like these.
However, all of that pointlessness is negated by the joy of making the little buggers squirm.
Besides, it is very entertaining to watch!

Are we wrong to insist that ID isn't scientific?

Did anyone here say you were?

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 03:03 PM (e) (s) Are we wrong to insist that ID isn't scientific? There seem to be people who believe it is. We must be fanatics to insist that our opinions are actually correct, and others are misguided. Right? It's a common tactic of evangelists to claim that anyone who contradicts them is a fanatic evangelist. It makes it harder to point out that they're the ones evangelizing and being fanatical.

The willingness of human beings to suspend reason in order to protect cherished beliefs is at the core of the Culture War. We can't condemn the use of shoddy reasoning when IDers use it but tolerate it from people who support the use of reason for *most* things but ignore it when it comes to their religion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions on matters that are not factual. On factual matters, opinions are invalid. Evolutionary biology is a factual matter, and baseless beliefs are not a part of it. Whether something is science or not is a factual matter. Whether two assertions are logically compatible is a factual matter.

On those subjects, opinions are irrelevant.

Raging Bee wrote:
"Who are you to judge the "necessity" of other people's beliefs? If they're doing the right thing, what else do you have to judge? Will you look at their accomplishments and say "Thanks for your help, but your beliefs need to be debunked, so just follow me to our shiny new reeducation camp?""

Assuming we define the right thing as bringing comfort to the grieving, health to the sick, helping the poor, advocating for peace, fighting illiteracy, etc. etc. then one cannot disagree that religious beliefs are not "necessary" to do the right thing (assuming we agree on what the "right thing" is). I'm pretty sure that is the point. They can clearly coexist with doing the right thing and may indeed spur people to do it. But those entirely without theism or religion are equally capable of it and anyone who might argue otherwise ignores the evidence and/or engages in an outrageous lie. Not accusing you,(unless of course you are making that arguement, I dont think you are) just trying to clear that up.
~Gary

But maybe there is more happening than we can comprehend.

Fill your boots

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 03:17 PM (e) (s) The willingness of human beings to suspend reason in order to protect cherished beliefs is at the core of the Culture War. We can't condemn the use of shoddy reasoning when IDers use it but tolerate it from people who support the use of reason for *most* things but ignore it when it comes to their religion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions on matters that are not factual. On factual matters, opinions are invalid. Evolutionary biology is a factual matter, and baseless beliefs are not a part of it. Whether something is science or not is a factual matter. Whether two assertions are logically compatible is a factual matter. On those subjects, opinions are irrelevant.

Also, in the same vein as Gary's comment #71218, the religion is often a hidden (or not-so-hidden) payload of religiously motivated aid.

Raging Bee, consider this also as a response to your comment #71248, and spare me the histrionic persecution complex.

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 03:25 PM (e) (s) Fill your boots translate please? I'm not fluent in islander ;)

Too bad Ken Miller couldn't be on the Daily Show instead. Stephen Colbert is horrible at interviews; he needs to learn to shut up and let the guest talk.

Deja vu...all over again.

Yeah, back to Miller. I think he did a stand-up job. Either, as Raj suggested, Colbert gave him some warning about what he was going to say, or Miller is very quick-witted. Maybe both.

I think it's a shame the whole religion thing came up again (and sparked another religious war here). But it was just Colbert having a laugh, and Miller handled it reasonably well. If he is going to be our poster-boy for the theistic biologist, then we can't expect to answer any differently than he did, can we?

One of Miller's suggestions which I thought was good (if not-entirely serious, and somewhat unrealistic), is that every time someone gets a 'flu shot, they should have to sign a form saying that they accept the theory of evolution. Do most people realise that the reason they have to get a shot every season is because of evolution? Might force them to think about it a bit harder?

There was a recent Doonesbury comic in which a doctor asks his patient whether he was a Creationist or not. The patient had contracted TB, and the doctor wanted to know if he should use the new drugs, or the old ones that the TB had evolved resistance to. (It seems that the TB microbes weren't up on the latest theosophistry.)

I think it's a great idea.

Stephen Elliott,

You're invited here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43c82bc3457c8d5a;act=ST;f=14;t=144;st=10

Or are you no longer interested in answering questions?

Posted by Norman Doering on January 14, 2006 12:44 AM (e) (s) Stephen Elliott, You're invited here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/i... Or are you no longer interested in answering questions?

Athiesm is a belief. Science is not a search for "THE TRUTH".. It is a search for what works. It is limited in its scope to those things amenable to methodologic materialism. One can believe that those things are all that exists in the observable universe but this is a belief and not an objective and rational description of "THE TRUTH". Science has some truths and that the theory of evolution is our current best testable explanation for the diversity of species is as close to a significant scientific truth as we can get. But theories are and must be tentative to be useful. Spiritual truths are highly personal and subjective but they are not by definition useless in a nonscientific sense and most Christians understand this very well. A statement like "God works in mysterious ways" is a fairly bland statement of religious faith and shouldn't spur a geater firestorm here than the statement "turtles are anapsid reptiles" but it does. But most of all I must respond to Norman Doering who has made some pretty inappropriate statements here but to compare a barely competent hack like J.S. Bach to geniuses like Tommy, Ozzy, Geezer and Bill is just way off base.

shouldn't spur a geater firestorm here than the statement "turtles are anapsid reptiles"

Statements like "God works in mysterious ways" are, at least in the way they're actually applied, totally devoid of meaningful content. They're a denial and a negation of the idea that meaningful statements can be made. They're consistent with any and every possible contingency because they imply nothing, and so can never contradict anything.

They are just as profoundly ignorant, and just as infuriating, as statements like "evolution is only a theory" or "science doesn't know everything". If you use them, you'd better expect to get slammed.

Its Tony not Tommy, sorry. How do turtles create an appearance of the anapsid state so perfectly mimicking the more primitive form of basal reptile? IT's like a placental mammal re-evolving marsupial bones. Has this been studied embryologically? Religious statements are devoid of meaning to those who do not believe but not to those who do. Asking people of faith to defend their beliefs rationally or scientifically is pointless and counterproductive for those wishing to uphold a scientific educational curriculum. Here's another statement of faith: GO BRONCOS!!!!!

Statements like "God works in mysterious ways" are... just as infuriating, as statements like "evolution is only a theory" or "science doesn't know everything".

Here's another statement of faith: GO BRONCOS!!!!!

How do turtles create an appearance of the anapsid state so perfectly mimicking the more primitive form of basal reptile? IT's like a placental mammal re-evolving marsupial bones. Has this been studied embryologically?

My one and only intervention is merely to remind the "pro from dover" that Strong Atheism is a belief; lower-case atheism is not, being the mere absence of a very specific belief: belief in the existence of gods.

References available on request.

... because "God" is not the subject of public policy questions,...

... and "God education" - ...

...I hope we can all agree on this -

I'll think about what Aureola has said, is the lack of a belief a belief as well? it's somewhat like the difference between faith and denial. They're often very similar. What would not qualify as a belief would be agnosticism in the T.H.Huxley sense where one can neither scientifically prove the presence or absence of god(s). That is to me a pretty sound objective statement, and anyway Pat Robertson promised me he'd let the Broncos win if I put in a plug for relgion.

Pat actually said that the intelligent designer would blind the back judge's vision so he would see pass interference when there really wasn't any.

pro from dover:

I'll unashamedly steal someone else's beautiful remark.

"If atheism is a belief then baldness is a hair colour."

I'll think about what Aureola has said, is the lack of a belief a belief as well?

"If atheism is a belief then baldness is a hair colour."

I like Someone Else's other memorable aphorism: "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

— Russel

Mr Rathbun: As you are aware, every person resident in this State owns (or does not own) an automobile. There are no exceptions. Our records show that you do not own a Ford. However we show no specific information as to which exact model of Ford you do not own. Please supply this information together with the Vehicle Identification Number of the non-owned vehicle on the form below so that the appropriate tax may be computed. If our records are incorrect, and you do not own some other model of vehicle, please supply the required information.

Um, in case no one noticed, Pro is on our side. Or do we just intend to provoke yet another pointless war between theists and atheists ... ?

Exactly my thoughts as well. I grew up with enough ideological purists, ready to pounce on every slight variance from their own worldview. Give it a rest, folks.

Personally, I'm not religious, never having reconciled the fact of a divinely-established authoritative religious body having to change its position to conform to the findings of modern science.

But I recognize and respect that some people have reconciled such facts TO THEIR OWN satisfaction. If Dr. Miller and "Pro" are two such people, I say more power to them.

Atheism is sometimes another example of people using different definitions for the same word. When I say "I am an atheist", I mean "I do not believe in gods". However, religious people tend to take it to mean "I do not believe gods are possible". Then they whip out their favorite criticism of anyone who holds a contrary belief, opinion, etc.: "You don't know everything!"

Which is frustrating in and of itself, the idea that to know anything one must know everything. For them, it's easy - they just spackle all the holes with God and call it a day. For people more concerned with accuracy, knowing everything is flat out impossible, and we readily admit it. For this to be taken as a weakness is truly a matter of speaking different languages with the same words.

I grew up with enough ideological purists

Personally, I'm not religious, never having reconciled the fact of a divinely-established authoritative religious body having to change its position to conform to the findings of modern science.

But I recognize and respect that some people have reconciled such facts TO THEIR OWN satisfaction. If Dr. Miller and "Pro" are two such people, I say more power to them.

Atheism is sometimes another example of people using different definitions for the same word. When I say "I am an atheist", I mean "I do not believe in gods". However, religious people tend to take it to mean "I do not believe gods are possible".

Why do you have to absolutely rule out a possibility before taking a stand against it? I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of Santa Claus, but don't you think it would be silly to be agnostic on that?

Why do you have to absolutely rule out a possibility before taking a stand against it? I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of Santa Claus, but don't you think it would be silly to be agnostic on that?

— steve s

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

— Bertrand Russell

Why do you have to absolutely rule out a possibility before taking a stand against it?

I think the meaning of words is being fudged here: I've always been told that an AGNOSTIC (whose literal meaning is "not knowing") is someone who lacks a specific religious belief, doesn't claim to know what to believe, and/or who has simply not made up his/her mind on the subject; and an ATHEIST is someone who has made up his/her mind and believes there is no god. That, at least, is how I've been using these words all my life, and how everyone I've talked to so far understands them.

I've always been told that an AGNOSTIC (whose literal meaning is "not knowing") is someone who lacks a specific religious belief, doesn't claim to know what to believe, and/or who has simply not made up his/her mind on the subject; and an ATHEIST is someone who has made up his/her mind and believes there is no god.

If pressed, I usually call myself an "apatheist" ------- I simply don't CARE if there's a god or not.

— Lenny

I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of Santa Claus, but don't you think it would be silly to be agnostic on that?

— steve s

Aureola,

Regarding your lack of faith...

Perhaps you should worship me. After all my body projects a powerful aura that causes lightbulbs to burn out (or occasionally turn on).

For instance, nearly everytime I go driving with my family, one or more streetlamps will inexplicably burn out as we drive under them.

Just ask my wife, she will confirm these observations.

Alternatively, if someone could violate the laws of thermodynamics on command, I would seriously consider joining their religion.

jim:

thank you very much for your kind offer, but I think I'll pass. See, I burn streetlamps too! How cool is that?

A different angle:

If god really exists why do we need pastors, priests, rabbi's, mullah's etc ?

Atheist from the ancient Greek word a + theos = without gods =not god outside the human mind.

stolen from dictionary.com
"
The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other."

For a giggle google

Logical positivists,
Brianism

Jim you ought to be cannonised, pity your married with children you could take a lesson in charlatanism from Dembski and start a new "cult of the dead dark suckers" a zombie cult of young virgins.....dang hasn't Dembski done that already ?.

AC: "It really does come down to what one means by "god"."
The old elephant and the 6 blind men.
The Buddha was reputed to have said when asked this question by one of his followers "What is god" he replied along these lines "For each person on earth you will get a different answer"

It seems to be (an ancient) part of human nature perhaps a survival mechanism since we are the only animals to actually have the luxury of considering the proposition.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

this thread is hilarity!! i love you guys..... i kept telling myself not to continue reading, but i couldn't... look... away. like a particularly bad freeway incident, perhaps.

(all that follows is opinion...one man's even... to be taken with 1000 lbs. of salt, as always)

i think that everyone has made some relevant and decent points. i tend to become chagrined when i see 'Norman' basically ripping on people for not having all their personal belief ducks in a row -- i myself am an intellectual musician type, and could go whole years without thinking about Gawd, except when the fundies try to shove it down my gullet. and that isn't even the top of my list of 'apparently socially important things that i should care about' that i don't give a rat's ass about....

and then there's 'raging bee', who brings out that all-important 'i too thought the way you used to, then i GREW UP and learned something'... i love that sentiment, all-too-often used by the falsely pious religious freaks in this country to denigrate their foes. please.... if you are not a religious freakazoid, refrain from the 'you'll learn someday, son', pat-pat-pat on the head tone. it is disgusting.

that said, great thread. very entertaining. with all the venom and posturing based on belief, there is still a modicum of tolerance. kudos....

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

— Thomas Jefferson

Posted by AC on January 17, 2006 06:49 PM (e) ... I'd like to think that if TJ were alive today, he would have a few extra things to say when he saw religion actually picking pockets (tax-exempt status for churches, "faith-based initiatives") and breaking legs (abortion clinic bombings, religiously-motivated assaults, etc.).

I find it disturbing that so many smart people think that they can define what other people think without asking them. It is not a good sign.

I'd like to think that if TJ were alive today, he would have a few extra things to say when he saw religion actually picking pockets (tax-exempt status for churches, "faith-based initiatives") and breaking legs (abortion clinic bombings, religiously-motivated assaults, etc.).

k.e.,
Re "since we are the only animals to actually have the luxury of considering the proposition."
So far as we know, anyway. Without a common language with any other species it's kind of hard to be certain of that.

Re " The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other."
Now that's ironic. Zeus should'a zapped somebody.

steve s,
Re "I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of Santa Claus, "
Perhaps not 100.000000% absolutely, but close enough, since with the the traditional description of that entity, it would have produced observable effects that would have been reported by now.

Henry

I find the whole need to pigeonhole everyone's beliefs by labelling them, kinda silly. Which is why I pointed out that, in my view, I don't really fit ANY of the pigeonholes.

Lixivium:

Too bad Ken Miller couldn't be on the Daily Show instead. Stephen Colbert is horrible at interviews; he needs to learn to shut up and let the guest talk.

Ummmm, I think you're missing the point....

While it may actually be the case that "The Daily Show"/"The Colbert Report" is the best news you can find on television, that doesn't mean that it's supposed to be that way....

Cheers,

I know it's just the fundies, but Jefferson's statement doesn't take them into account. I generally appreciate his wisdom, so I wonder what he would say about the case where the proverbial neighbor is an actual fundie who picks pockets and breaks legs for his beliefs.

As I said, I am an atheist, which means that I don't grant my assent to any belief in gods. That's all this label means, really, and I always make a point of not allowing any additional baggage to be loaded onto it - precisely in order to avoid its usage as a club against me.

I know it's just the fundies, but Jefferson's statement doesn't take them into account. I generally appreciate his wisdom, so I wonder what he would say about the case where the proverbial neighbor is an actual fundie who picks pockets and breaks legs for his beliefs.

Atheistic China kills prisoners to use their body parts for more "prominent" people who need them. Perhaps you have heard of Stalin; he was an "atheist" too. Your right, w/o religion the world would be a better place, as these two atheistic examples attest to.

"...and the also-ran Word of the Year, 'intelligent design'"

Er, they realise that "Intelligent Design" is *two* words, right?

BTW, I do think Prof. Miller is brilliant - at last a great scientist and devout Catholic Christian guy who shows people that there is nothing contradictory whatsoever with scientific truth and the truth of the Gospel.

In fact, Science and Religion are different subjects, which touch only occasionally in philosophy and some empirical academic research (i.e. the science behind archaeology that studies periods of history around the Scriptures, the science of koine Greek exegesis, etc.) That people get the two confused through a simplistically-flawed literalist reading of Genesis just annoys me so much!

Pax tecum,

The Cavalier

Oh, and Aureola Nominee, and Raging Bee:

"I've always been told that an AGNOSTIC (whose literal meaning is "not knowing") is someone who lacks a specific religious belief, doesn't claim to know what to believe, and/or who has simply not made up his/her mind on the subject; and an ATHEIST is someone who has made up his/her mind and believes there is no god."

"And there's the rub: the fact that you've been told these things does not make them true. I am an atheist and I do not "believe there is no god". I simply do not believe any god-claim I've ever encountered. Is it just me? No, as is plainly apparent by reading what several other fellows have written in this very thread. There are also plenty of atheist thinkers who have defined atheism as the lack of a god-belief.

I have no problem with people calling themselves agnostics. Actually, if one goes by the self-definition of agnosticism that agnostics often give, I am ALSO an agnostic.

I find it disturbing that so many smart people think that they can define what other people think without asking them. It is not a good sign."

Can I just point out something that you both might find helpful:

There is an academic difference beween 'Positive' and 'Negative' Atheists, and 'Positive' and 'Negative' Agnostics.

Negative Atheism is the assertion that "I don't believe there is a God personally, but I don't deny there might be one." This, I perceive, though I am of course perfectly willing to be corrected, is Aureola Nominee's position.

Positive Atheism (by which Raging Bee seems to chracterise all 'Atheism') is the assertion that "Not only do I not believe in a God, but there can't possibly be a God at all anyway!"

Negative Agnosticism is the assertion that "I don't personally know if there is a God, but I don't deny that one might be able to know."

Positive Agnosticism is the assertion that "Not only do I not know if there is a God, I deny that anyone will ever be able to know at all!"

Hope that helps, pax tecum,

The Cavalier

Oh, and Aureola Nominee, and Raging Bee:

"I've always been told that an AGNOSTIC (whose literal meaning is "not knowing") is someone who lacks a specific religious belief, doesn't claim to know what to believe, and/or who has simply not made up his/her mind on the subject; and an ATHEIST is someone who has made up his/her mind and believes there is no god."

"And there's the rub: the fact that you've been told these things does not make them true. I am an atheist and I do not "believe there is no god". I simply do not believe any god-claim I've ever encountered. Is it just me? No, as is plainly apparent by reading what several other fellows have written in this very thread. There are also plenty of atheist thinkers who have defined atheism as the lack of a god-belief.

I have no problem with people calling themselves agnostics. Actually, if one goes by the self-definition of agnosticism that agnostics often give, I am ALSO an agnostic.

I find it disturbing that so many smart people think that they can define what other people think without asking them. It is not a good sign."

Can I just point out something that you both might find helpful:

There is an academic difference beween 'Positive' and 'Negative' Atheists, and 'Positive' and 'Negative' Agnostics.

Negative Atheism is the assertion that "I don't believe there is a God personally, but I don't deny there might be one." This, I perceive, though I am of course perfectly willing to be corrected, is Aureola Nominee's position.

Positive Atheism (by which Raging Bee seems to chracterise all 'Atheism') is the assertion that "Not only do I not believe in a God, but there can't possibly be a God at all anyway!"

Negative Agnosticism is the assertion that "I don't personally know if there is a God, but I don't deny that one might be able to know."

Positive Agnosticism is the assertion that "Not only do I not know if there is a God, I deny that anyone will ever be able to know at all!"

Hope that helps, pax tecum,

The Cavalier

Oh, and Aureola Nominee, and Raging Bee:

"I've always been told that an AGNOSTIC (whose literal meaning is "not knowing") is someone who lacks a specific religious belief, doesn't claim to know what to believe, and/or who has simply not made up his/her mind on the subject; and an ATHEIST is someone who has made up his/her mind and believes there is no god."

"And there's the rub: the fact that you've been told these things does not make them true. I am an atheist and I do not "believe there is no god". I simply do not believe any god-claim I've ever encountered. Is it just me? No, as is plainly apparent by reading what several other fellows have written in this very thread. There are also plenty of atheist thinkers who have defined atheism as the lack of a god-belief.

I have no problem with people calling themselves agnostics. Actually, if one goes by the self-definition of agnosticism that agnostics often give, I am ALSO an agnostic.

I find it disturbing that so many smart people think that they can define what other people think without asking them. It is not a good sign."

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

Can I just point out something that you both might find helpful:

There is an academic difference beween 'Positive' and 'Negative' Atheists, and 'Positive' and 'Negative' Agnostics.

Negative Atheism is the assertion that "I don't believe there is a God personally, but I don't deny there might be one." This, I perceive, though I am of course perfectly willing to be corrected, is Aureola Nominee's position.

Positive Atheism (by which Raging Bee seems to chracterise all 'Atheism') is the assertion that "Not only do I not believe in a God, but there can't possibly be a God at all anyway!"

Negative Agnosticism is the assertion that "I don't personally know if there is a God, but I don't deny that one might be able to know."

Positive Agnosticism is the assertion that "Not only do I not know if there is a God, I deny that anyone will ever be able to know at all!"

Hope that helps! Pax tecum,

The Cavalier

Er, that shouldn't have happened three times, but never mind.