Wright State U., you're doin' it wrong

"Science" by making up causes for the effects.

That ought to convince the skeptics.

Glen Davidson

Richard wrote "If that chapter genuinely wants to plant “…seeds of Truth into the minds of atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and spiritual seekers” it’s off to a bad start with Nelson."

The first thing to always keep in mind is that creationists lie - they always lie. "Seeds of truth" from creationists - whether Young Earth Creationists or intelligent design creationists - just ain't gonna happen.

"Darwinism in crisis" is one of Biola's "vital topics". Judging by citations the obvious crisis would be that evolution is too productive. I suspect that Biola ignores the obvious.

It sounds like this organization is a registered student organization. Is there some assertion that Wright State University has given support to this organization beyond that? That it is more official than the Campus Crusade for Christ, the In His Presence Gospel Choir, or the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship?

I looked up the Wright State University list of student organizations, and Ratio Christi is one of them along with all the above (and many others, including the Students for Organ Donation).

Richard, does the title of your post mean that your argument is that Wright State University should not have allowed this organization to register? To rent rooms and hold events? If so, there are an awful lot of student organizations at an awful lot of colleges in line ahead of Ratio Christi, so you have your work cut out for you.

Why would atheists, agnostics, or anyone at all want anything to do with a bunch of liars?

Hi Richard,

I hope you'll attend the lecture: I've wanted to meet you for years. I'll also be speaking that same week at Ohio State, so if that's closer to your home, maybe we could meet there.

Paul Nelson said: Hi Richard, I hope you'll attend the lecture: I've wanted to meet you for years. I'll also be speaking that same week at Ohio State, so if that's closer to your home, maybe we could meet there.

Paul Nelson said: Hi Richard, I hope you'll attend the lecture: I've wanted to meet you for years. I'll also be speaking that same week at Ohio State, so if that's closer to your home, maybe we could meet there.

Prediction -

Paul Nelson will either not respond to any questions, or give a sleazy infomercial type dodge that he'll deal with it in "the lecture" or some such thing, but magically can't answer the questions here.

Apologetics assumes a respectful, deep and truthful understanding of those you are talking to. So you start with a respectful, deep, and truthful understanding of evolution and ...........

Paul Nelson said: Hi Richard, I hope you'll attend the lecture: I've wanted to meet you for years. I'll also be speaking that same week at Ohio State, so if that's closer to your home, maybe we could meet there.

I think I know the problem here. Every time Paul gets ready to publish, along comes a new data set that he must address. First it was ribosomal DNA, then mitochondrial DNA, then retro transposons, then micro satellites, then evo devo. Now, just when he was no doubt all set to go to press, comparative genomics comes along. I'm sure he was just adding a new chapter to deal with the neanderthal mitochondrial sequence when human, chimp and gorilla complete genome sequences became available. So now he has all that much more data to explain and he must explain it better than the existing theory. No wonder this is taking so long. Any honest person would certainly want to address all of the data and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. And of course you can't trust the scientists who are actually doing the work to explain to you what it means, they are all blinded to the truth, or something.

Joe Felsenstein said:Richard, does the title of your post mean that your argument is that Wright State University should not have allowed this organization to register? To rent rooms and hold events? If so, there are an awful lot of student organizations at an awful lot of colleges in line ahead of Ratio Christi, so you have your work cut out for you.

Paul Nelson said: Hi Richard, I hope you'll attend the lecture: I've wanted to meet you for years. I'll also be speaking that same week at Ohio State, so if that's closer to your home, maybe we could meet there.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Joe Felsenstein said:Richard, does the title of your post mean that your argument is that Wright State University should not have allowed this organization to register? To rent rooms and hold events? If so, there are an awful lot of student organizations at an awful lot of colleges in line ahead of Ratio Christi, so you have your work cut out for you.

Not at all, and I'm a little surprised you would suggest it. The title of the post is meant to convey the message that if Ratio Christi wants to present Wright State students with an honest and accurate representation of “Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionary Concepts” they're going about it wrong.

Paul Nelson is not, IMLTHO, a reliable source of information about "evolutionary concepts."

Joe Felsenstein wrote, "And then there was his promise to explain his concept of 'ontogenetic depth', which also has never happened."

Please see these blog posts:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept045531.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.html

Joe also wrote, "And then there is the issue of why he allows himself to be described in the Ratio Christi conference program as 'of the University of Chicago'."

I couldn't have allowed it, so to speak, simply because I didn't know anything about the description until today. I haven't seen the Ratio Christi conference program you mention. The Dayton Daily News article that Richard Hoppe cited, however, is in error, and I'll see if a correction can be made.

Paul Burnett said:

Paul Nelson said: Hi Richard, I hope you'll attend the lecture: I've wanted to meet you for years. I'll also be speaking that same week at Ohio State, so if that's closer to your home, maybe we could meet there.

So is there anything you can share with us about what you've been up to for the last few years, aside than the Bible Institute Of Los Angeles and the Discovery Institute? Any books or articles published? Any further word on development of a full-fledged theory of biological design?

Paul Nelson said: Please see these blog posts: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept045531.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.html

Paul Nelson said: Joe Felsenstein wrote, "And then there was his promise to explain his concept of 'ontogenetic depth', which also has never happened." Please see these blog posts: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept045531.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.html Joe also wrote, "And then there is the issue of why he allows himself to be described in the Ratio Christi conference program as 'of the University of Chicago'." I couldn't have allowed it, so to speak, simply because I didn't know anything about the description until today. I haven't seen the Ratio Christi conference program you mention. The Dayton Daily News article that Richard Hoppe cited, however, is in error, and I'll see if a correction can be made.

The second link seems like nothing more than an elaborate argument from incredulity. Nowhere that I could see is "ontogenetic depth" defined or measured. Nowhere is the real biological evidence addressed. Dealing with the ever expanding evidence for evolution would be a real job. I would look forward to seeing the monograph that adequately addressed that evidence. Ignoring all of the evidence shouldn't take all that long. What's the hold up?

harold said: Prediction - Paul Nelson will either not respond to any questions, or give a sleazy infomercial type dodge that he'll deal with it in "the lecture" or some such thing, but magically can't answer the questions here.

Nowhere that I could see is “ontogenetic depth” defined or measured.

harold said:

Nowhere that I could see is “ontogenetic depth” defined or measured.

Which is amusing, since innumerable aspects of development from single celled zygote to multicellular metazoan (the only model Nelson deals with) has all kinds of features that could be quantified.

Despite the debates and the discussions, the evidence for the existence of God is there. He put it there. And He's holding everyone accountable to the evidence He has given. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

And we know the bible is true because the bible SAYS it's true! And this isn't circular, it's a fact because if it weren't a fact, it wouldn't be true!

David Tiffany said: Despite the debates and the discussions, the evidence for the existence of God is there. He put it there. And He's holding everyone accountable to the evidence He has given. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

David Tiffany said: Despite the debates and the discussions, the evidence for the existence of God is there. He put it there. And He's holding everyone accountable to the evidence He has given. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

David Tiffany said: Despite the debates and the discussions, the evidence for the existence of God is there. He put it there. And He's holding everyone accountable to the evidence He has given. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

David Tiffany said: Despite the debates and the discussions, the evidence for the existence of God is there. He put it there. And He's holding everyone accountable to the evidence He has given. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

Phhht,
You make a valid point that we cannot measure God/ gods by any means that we have on this Earth, other than personal claims and experiences. Hence why we can say that God is not of this Earth/ World, because he cannot be measured by our tools. If you are only looking for scientific proof of God's existence it cannot be done, unless you account the Bible as being a historical document. However I would also like to say that we cannot verify the concept of the "idea" or "dreams," yet we still know they exist without a valid scientific measurement. Does that make them non existent? By no means.

Respectfully,
-eX-

eXArchangel said: Phhht, You make a valid point that we cannot measure God/ gods by any means that we have on this Earth, other than personal claims and experiences. Hence why we can say that God is not of this Earth/ World, because he cannot be measured by our tools. If you are only looking for scientific proof of God's existence it cannot be done, unless you account the Bible as being a historical document. However I would also like to say that we cannot verify the concept of the "idea" or "dreams," yet we still know they exist without a valid scientific measurement. Does that make them non existent? By no means. Respectfully, -eX-

eXArchangel said: [...] However I would also like to say that we cannot verify the concept of the "idea" or "dreams," yet we still know they exist without a valid scientific measurement[...]

phhht said: You say gods exist, they just can't be detected by any means whatsoever! They exist, they just can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. How does that differ from nonexistence?

Paul Burnett said:

phhht said: You say gods exist, they just can't be detected by any means whatsoever! They exist, they just can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. How does that differ from nonexistence?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Paul Burnett said:

phhht said: You say gods exist, they just can't be detected by any means whatsoever! They exist, they just can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. How does that differ from nonexistence?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

The existence of dreams can be demonstrated. REM and neurological scans reveal dream activity. For Pete's sake, watch a sleeping dog for a while, and you'll see evidence of dreams.

God is not so demonstrated.

Phhht has a tendency to overstate his position. He says that God or gods do not exist as if that were certain, but when pressed he admits that he could be wrong. His position, and mine, is that human beings like him and me, not informed by revelation, have no evidence for God. If we have no evidence, we must withhold belief, or else somehow force ourselves to believe without reason, without evidence, by faith alone.

But that is impossible, for us. One cannot force belief by act of will, or at least phhht and I cannot, any more than we could will ourselves to levitate. And further, we strongly deny the worth of such an exercise, even if we could perform it.

Having accepted a scientific position, that propositions are falsifiable, and must be tested against evidence or not accepted, it becomes less and less possible to believe by faith, which is essentially the acceptance of a proposition without evidence. The habit of demanding evidence becomes stronger. Why?

Simply from classical conditioning. That behaviour produces a reward. Science works. It actually works. It is fruitful, and although all its fruits are not good, nevertheless I don't want to do without it, and neither would anyone with the slightest regard for reality. Isn't it by their fruits that you shall know them?

Then I apply that test - fruitfulness - to faith. What do I find?

I don't know of phhht's academic background. Mine is history. I am uncomfortably aware of the many occasions in history when humans in the mass were completely convinced by faith of the reality of propositions that were not objectively evidential, and of the hideous consequences. Therefore I distrust faith. I can point to objective evidence to justify my distrust of it.

I trust objective evidence. I don't trust faith. I have reason for that, and that reason is proof against assertion and faith-statements backed up by threats. And those are all that link consists of.

eXArchangel said: Phhht, You make a valid point that we cannot measure God/ gods by any means that we have on this Earth, other than personal claims and experiences. Hence why we can say that God is not of this Earth/ World, because he cannot be measured by our tools. If you are only looking for scientific proof of God's existence it cannot be done, unless you account the Bible as being a historical document. However I would also like to say that we cannot verify the concept of the "idea" or "dreams," yet we still know they exist without a valid scientific measurement. Does that make them non existent? By no means. Respectfully, -eX-

harold said: Prediction - Paul Nelson will either not respond to any questions, or give a sleazy infomercial type dodge that he'll deal with it in "the lecture" or some such thing, but magically can't answer the questions here.

Dave Luckett said: Phhht has a tendency to overstate his position. He says that God or gods do not exist as if that were certain, but when pressed he admits that he could be wrong.

Disagree away. I have already given the reasons why I am prepared to allow the existence of God a slightly different standard of acceptance than the existence of unicorns, yet still state that I accept the existence of neither.

phhht said:

Paul Burnett said:

phhht said: You say gods exist, they just can't be detected by any means whatsoever! They exist, they just can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. How does that differ from nonexistence?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Refute me then. Show me the evidence for the existence of gods.

eric said:

Dave Luckett said: Phhht has a tendency to overstate his position. He says that God or gods do not exist as if that were certain, but when pressed he admits that he could be wrong.

And I think you have a tendency towards theistic exceptionalism. If phhht were to use the exact same 'strong' phrasing and statements to describe his position on Santa, unicorns, bigfoot, or flying cars, you would not object - even though its the exact same position with the exact same level of proof. What you want is for everyone to voice the comprehensive philosophical caveats about the limits of human certainty (which are always there) when they make statements about God. But you don't require those same caveats be made explicit when folk make statements about other unevidenced entities. When someone says 'unicorns don't exist, show me evidence otherwise' you are fine with the caveats being implicit in that statement. This is special treatment. NB: I'm only disagreeing with you on this point. I agree with most of the rest of your post.

dalehusband said:

phhht said:

Paul Burnett said:

phhht said: You say gods exist, they just can't be detected by any means whatsoever! They exist, they just can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. How does that differ from nonexistence?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Refute me then. Show me the evidence for the existence of gods.

You know already there is none, so why keep beating that dead and totally decayed horse? God as a Creator by definition cannot be a part of his physical creation, thus anything used to detect physical objects of any kind can never detect God. You waste your time by demanding evidence for gods when evidence is not and will never be an issue in religion. I get the impression that you were raised an atheist, have never been religious, or even know any religious people and how they operate at all. What planet did you come from?

dalehusband said: God as a Creator by definition cannot be a part of his physical creation, thus anything used to detect physical objects of any kind can never detect God.

harold said: All societies give certain religious observations a special pass.

eric said:

dalehusband said: God as a Creator by definition cannot be a part of his physical creation, thus anything used to detect physical objects of any kind can never detect God.

Our children have half of each parents' genes. Our books contain the authors' name in them - some include a brief bio and even an email address - and many of our products include information on the manufacturer. Its not necessarily true that a creation must contain information on the creator, but we know its possible because we humans do it! So this seems to me to be a trait some theologian thought up in order to explain the fact that God is not directly apparent in his creation. Its post-hoc special pleading: God is not evident because, uh...because his nature is such that he couldn't possibly have left an email address in his book! Yeah, that's the ticket!

harold asked: If not, how do you deal with the inconsistency that the Bible is non-literal enough to indicate that these passages are symbolic, but too literal for the theory of evolution?

Author Profile Page dalehusband replied to a comment from phhht | June 19, 2012 7:51 AM | Reply You know already there is none, so why keep beating that dead and totally decayed horse? God as a Creator by definition cannot be a part of his physical creation, thus anything used to detect physical objects of any kind can never detect God. You waste your time by demanding evidence for gods when evidence is not and will never be an issue in religion

In reference to Dave's apparent indication of a difference between belief in god and belief in bigfoot, Santa Claus etc., I would say that there is a rather large difference in the potential for study. Definite and testable claims are made or implied about the other things.

Santa Claus "lives at the north pole." This is testable by satellite imaging, flyovers, etc.

Bigfoot is an animal that is completely natural. This means that we should be able to recognize its ecological effects on its environment.

By contrast, God is only given properties that make claims that either cannot be tested, or are so neutral as to be meaningless one way or the other.

A bit closer to the OP topic, it seems to me that the very existance of apologetics refutes, rather than confirms, the factual truth of the bible. A simple example: You say "the sky is blue," and no one scrambles to figure out how to make your statement true. It simply matches reality. You say that the sun was standing still in the sky or moving bacwards, however, and people who want it to be true must attempt to figure out how it can be force-fit to reality. Thus, apologetics is born.

Put simply: No disagreement with reality, no apologetics.

Carl Drews said:

harold asked: If not, how do you deal with the inconsistency that the Bible is non-literal enough to indicate that these passages are symbolic, but too literal for the theory of evolution?

The second part of this question puzzles me. The first part notes that portions of the Bible are non-literal. Is the second part asking for some Bible verse, which when interpreted literally, is inconsistent with the theory of evolution? Please clarify - thanks!

Carl Drews said:

harold asked: If not, how do you deal with the inconsistency that the Bible is non-literal enough to indicate that these passages are symbolic, but too literal for the theory of evolution?

The second part of this question puzzles me. The first part notes that portions of the Bible are non-literal. Is the second part asking for some Bible verse, which when interpreted literally, is inconsistent with the theory of evolution? Please clarify - thanks!

harold said: There may (or may not) be a tiny number of evolution deniers who are not part of the US right wing social/political/"religious" movement, but they can just answer the question by saying that their evolution denial is not Biblical in nature.

harold said: Further clarification - The questions are for ID/creationists.

j. biggs said:

eric said:

dalehusband said: God as a Creator by definition cannot be a part of his physical creation, thus anything used to detect physical objects of any kind can never detect God.

Our children have half of each parents' genes. Our books contain the authors' name in them - some include a brief bio and even an email address - and many of our products include information on the manufacturer. Its not necessarily true that a creation must contain information on the creator, but we know its possible because we humans do it! So this seems to me to be a trait some theologian thought up in order to explain the fact that God is not directly apparent in his creation. Its post-hoc special pleading: God is not evident because, uh...because his nature is such that he couldn't possibly have left an email address in his book! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Not to mention that saying that God can not be part of "his" own creation is a contradiction to the idea that God is omnipotent. An omnipotent God could make itslef part of its own creation by definition. Also most Christians who take the Bible literally can cite many passages where God spoke to people like Moses, appeared in corporeal form (Job) and affected the physical world with floods and smiting. So when Christian theologians and apologists use this idea it is all the more ridiculous. Perhaps a better deist defintion of God would be to say that God chooses not bo participate or be observable to "his" physical creation. But as Phhht and you(Eric) have pointed out, I see no good reason to believe in such a deity.

j. biggs said:

harold said: There may (or may not) be a tiny number of evolution deniers who are not part of the US right wing social/political/"religious" movement, but they can just answer the question by saying that their evolution denial is not Biblical in nature.

There appears to be a few non-religious social/political conservatives that deny evolution for non-biblical reasons. I've been arguing with one for days now on another blog. It really saddens me that there are people out there who deny scientific realities because that is what their political affilation demands. Why anyone who isn't religious or part of the neoconservative right wing would deny evolution is beyond me, but you are probably correct in thinking there are a few of them out there.

dalehusband said:

j. biggs said:

eric said:

dalehusband said: God as a Creator by definition cannot be a part of his physical creation, thus anything used to detect physical objects of any kind can never detect God.

Our children have half of each parents' genes. Our books contain the authors' name in them - some include a brief bio and even an email address - and many of our products include information on the manufacturer. Its not necessarily true that a creation must contain information on the creator, but we know its possible because we humans do it! So this seems to me to be a trait some theologian thought up in order to explain the fact that God is not directly apparent in his creation. Its post-hoc special pleading: God is not evident because, uh...because his nature is such that he couldn't possibly have left an email address in his book! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Not to mention that saying that God can not be part of "his" own creation is a contradiction to the idea that God is omnipotent. An omnipotent God could make itslef part of its own creation by definition. Also most Christians who take the Bible literally can cite many passages where God spoke to people like Moses, appeared in corporeal form (Job) and affected the physical world with floods and smiting. So when Christian theologians and apologists use this idea it is all the more ridiculous. Perhaps a better deist defintion of God would be to say that God chooses not bo participate or be observable to "his" physical creation. But as Phhht and you(Eric) have pointed out, I see no good reason to believe in such a deity.

I did not say that God is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. I do say that God would be no more a part of his own creation than a human artist would be part of his painting. And maybe God did put his signature in creation, but we do not recognize it as such. There are many possibilities to consider.

Harold said: I do feel confident that overt or covert identification with Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party tribalism accounts for well over 99% of evolution denial...

j. biggs said: If you have personal feelings on God they don't threaten me therefore I see no reason to try change your beliefs. Even if I were somehow threatened, I don't believe that attempting to change your beliefs could be succesful. As long as people in general take the approach you take towards religion I don't consider them a threat. I only consider religious beliefs a threat when the people who espouse them attempt to replace knowledge with dogma and superstition.

I see NO evidence that there is a Batman and therefore I have NO belief in Batman (non-batmanism), but as the same time, I see no point in asserting, "There is no Batman," (abatmanism). There is a difference (or at least there was until the No Batman movement started their campaign to redefine what abatmanism is), and anyone who does not understand that needs a course in Logic 101. As a strict empricist, I can only deny the existence of something if it can be empirically disproven (it is impossible for something to exist, not merely that it has never been found). People who assert there is no Batman because clear evidence for him has never been found are using philosophical assumptions, just as dogmatic batmanism assert there is a Batman because his existence has never been disproven. I think BOTH sides are taking the wrong approach.

phhht said:

I see NO evidence that there is a Batman and therefore I have NO belief in Batman (non-batmanism), but as the same time, I see no point in asserting, "There is no Batman," (abatmanism). There is a difference (or at least there was until the No Batman movement started their campaign to redefine what abatmanism is), and anyone who does not understand that needs a course in Logic 101. As a strict empricist, I can only deny the existence of something if it can be empirically disproven (it is impossible for something to exist, not merely that it has never been found). People who assert there is no Batman because clear evidence for him has never been found are using philosophical assumptions, just as dogmatic batmanism assert there is a Batman because his existence has never been disproven. I think BOTH sides are taking the wrong approach.

The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

dalehusband said: I see NO evidence that there is a God and therefore I have NO belief in God (non-theism), but as the same time, I see no point in asserting, "There is no God," (atheism).

There is a difference (or at least there was until the New Atheist movement started their campaign to redefine what atheism is), and anyone who does not understand that needs a course in Logic 101. As a strict empricist, I can only deny the existence of something if it can be empirically disproven (it is impossible for something to exist, not merely that it has never been found).

People who assert there is no God because clear evidence for Him has never been found are using philosophical assumptions, just as dogmatic theists assert there is a God because His existence has never been disproven. I think BOTH sides are taking the wrong approach.

I can only mildly interject that I think that a belief in God is slightly different from a belief in unicorns et al only because I think the latter is trivial, and because the former has some explaining power.

If there were a Creator God, it explains the Universe in causative terms. Nothing else that I know of does so from any more evidence. Nevertheless, I still don't accept the proposition. I don't know the cause of the Universe, and nobody does. "I don't know" isn't satisfactory, but it's a true statement of the position, and will have to suffice for me - but it is also not for me to deny or doubt the rationality of those who accept a Creator. They have chosen an explanation. I have not. Their choice is not evidential, but still they may make it without any form of disapproval on my part, provided always that they return the favour.

Dave Luckett said: I can only mildly interject that I think that a belief in God is slightly different from a belief in unicorns et al only because I think the latter is trivial, and because the former has some explaining power. If there were a Creator God, it explains the Universe in causative terms. Nothing else that I know of does so from any more evidence. Nevertheless, I still don't accept the proposition. I don't know the cause of the Universe, and nobody does. "I don't know" isn't satisfactory, but it's a true statement of the position, and will have to suffice for me - but it is also not for me to deny or doubt the rationality of those who accept a Creator. They have chosen an explanation. I have not. Their choice is not evidential, but still they may make it without any form of disapproval on my part, provided always that they return the favour.

dalehusband said: I do say that God would be no more a part of his own creation than a human artist would be part of his painting.

Just Bob, excellent point. As a singer and lyricist, every time I perform a song that I've written I am a necessary and integral part of that creation - the same applies to the rest of the band.

Ditto every time a recorded song is played - we as people obviously exist outside of the recorded 1s and 0s, but the recording is of us, four people, creating that song. Without us, no song. We are integral to our art.

As another little point on creators and creations: was it not the case that God, in the Old Testament at least (and in the New, as an avatar), did in fact exist (at times) within his own creation? Did he not wander the Garden and did he not wrestle Job? Did he not speak audibly to various people and ask of them certain actions? Did he not interact with "our realm" directly on numerous occasions, causing floods and rains of fire and plagues and pillars of salt and various other ills (with occasional rainbows)? What stopped God doing interacting with the world in an obvious, physical way? What made God retreat to untouchable, untestable transdimensionality? Whence the "immaterial, numinous, feel-it-in-my-heart" God of modern theology? What happened to the interventionist who was once so fond of macro-invasions of time and space? Did we get too close - did Montgolfier/the Wright Brothers/Gagarin/Armstrong startle him? Did our ceaseless inquisition of his creation cause God to retreat to tinkering about with bacterial flagella, leaving ambiguous "signatures" in our cells and stirring up quantum foam?

Did our ceaseless inquisition of his creation cause God to retreat to tinkering about with bacterial flagella, leaving ambiguous “signatures” in our cells and stirring up quantum foam?

mandrellian said: Atheism is the lack of belief in gods...

phhht said: I see NO evidence that there is a Batman and therefore I have NO belief in Batman (non-batmanism), but as the same time, I see no point in asserting, "There is no Batman," (abatmanism). There is a difference (or at least there was until the No Batman movement started their campaign to redefine what abatmanism is), and anyone who does not understand that needs a course in Logic 101. As a strict empricist, I can only deny the existence of something if it can be empirically disproven (it is impossible for something to exist, not merely that it has never been found). People who assert there is no Batman because clear evidence for him has never been found are using philosophical assumptions, just as dogmatic batmanism assert there is a Batman because his existence has never been disproven. I think BOTH sides are taking the wrong approach.

Paul Burnett said:

mandrellian said: Atheism is the lack of belief in gods...

All children are born atheists - they have a "lack of belief in gods" - and demons. But after years of psychological child abuse and mental torture, they come to believe the lies their authority figures have told them - they become religious.

mandrellian said:

dalehusband said: I see NO evidence that there is a God and therefore I have NO belief in God (non-theism), but as the same time, I see no point in asserting, "There is no God," (atheism).

phhht might assert that, but phhht doesn't speak for all atheists. Some will agree with phhht's stance and others won't. Personally, I won't say with certainty that "there are no gods", but it's only because of my desire to in principle honour empiricism and leave open the tiniest possibility that I might be proven wrong. In all everyday practical honesty though, that's a miniscule semantic difference and I'm as happy to say "there are no gods" as I am to say "there are no ring-wraiths". Both being shorthand for "there is no evidence that convinces me of their existence, therefore I do not believe they exist." Atheism is no more than the lack of a belief in gods. You, a professed non-theist, having no belief in God/s, are also an atheist, despite how much you obviously recoil at the description. It should be pointed out that it's possible to be a non-theist and not be an atheist (pantheist, deist, etc) so to call yourself just a "non-theist" is an incomplete description.

There is a difference (or at least there was until the New Atheist movement started their campaign to redefine what atheism is), and anyone who does not understand that needs a course in Logic 101. As a strict empricist, I can only deny the existence of something if it can be empirically disproven (it is impossible for something to exist, not merely that it has never been found).

Ah, lovely, a bit of NA-bashing with standard-issue unsupported accusations of "redefining atheism." Someone so dedicated to empiricism might wish to provide some evidence that any of the NAs individually, or those lumped into the group, have professed any desire or undertaken any action to actually redefine the word.

Some of the NA's have introduced a new aspect to being publicly non-religious - that is, the activist behaviour of publicly criticising and resisting such evils as creationist subterfuge and religiously-inspired oppression and violence, but they haven't - nor is it clear that they they have sought to - actually redefine the term "atheism". In fact, the only redefinition of "atheism" I've seen is yours above, to wit: "the assertion that there is no God."

Now, empirical disproof is a high bar. Do you apply this standard to what most people would consider obvious fictions, like talking donkeys or blue cat-people from space? Or just the cultural baggage known as "God"?

People who assert there is no God because clear evidence for Him has never been found are using philosophical assumptions, just as dogmatic theists assert there is a God because His existence has never been disproven. I think BOTH sides are taking the wrong approach.

Again with the assertion regarding the assertions of others (based on, what, phhht's posts and a clear misreading of the NA's?). Most atheists do no make assertions of the same kind that come from theists. Even Dawkins himself, I suppose what you'd call an NA "leader" of some variety, doesn't make that assertion, famously calling himself a "6 out of 7" on a scale of belief to non-belief. Dawkins, as but one example, has not attempted to redefine atheism, rather to more accurately define his own position. But again, what Dawkins or any other atheist does or says is neither prescriptive nor representative. You can be atheist and make the assertion that "there are no gods"; you can also be atheist and not make that assertion. You can be, like me, an agnostic atheist, in that you don't know of gods (or even know if they can be known) but I also see no reason to believe in them. To repeat, the only criteria a person needs to satisfy to meet the definition "atheist" is to not accept claims for the existence of gods. What they then say about their non-belief is up to them and entirely unrelated to the base definition. You could, I suppose, paste some dictionary definition that does appear to support your "they assert gods do not exist" claim, however in reality that definition would only cover, obviously, those atheists that actually make that assertion. To define all atheists as making that assertion would be incorrect. Atheists do not necessarily "deny the existence of god" or otherwise act as if they have ironclad proof of non-existence. Obviously some do, but not all. To repeat: what one atheist does, or even many atheists do, does not necessarily reflect on atheism as a position. To make the claim that all atheists think that way and all atheists make such an assertion is to bear an unfortunate resemblance to the kinds of fundamentalist trolls that PT routinely sends to the Wall.

Honestly, this "nasty New Atheist" trope and this "atheism = asserting there are no gods" cliche are so ever-present and so tiresomely overdone that it seems abundantly clear that the religious demonisation of atheists has been so successful that it's permeated even the ranks of the non-religious themselves.

You might've noticed my impatience and occasional snark. Frankly I think it's justified. Ever since Harris and Dawkins published their initial works on non-belief and were followed up by numerous successful books by atheists, believer and fellow non-believer alike have been lining up to tell them all how they're doing it wrong, how they're alienating "softcore" atheists and moderate believers, how they're "not helping", how they're being "militant", as if any of those writers are agreed with 100% by all atheists, or as if any "new" atheist (honestly, people have been criticising and debunking theism since theism's inception) wishes to redefine what it means to be an atheist, or speaks for ALL atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, usually due to a lack of one or a combination of empirical, logical or rational support or simple prior plausibility. It carries with it no requirement or prescription for any particular opinion or stance or strength of conviction. It is NOT the assertion that gods DO NOT exist, despite what even some atheists might themselves assert. To portray it otherwise is dishonest or ignorant.

I think the ghosts of both Carl Sagan and Thomas Huxley (if ghosts exists, which I do not assume) would be laughing at such ignorant people like mandrellian for not even knowing the recorded history of both atheism and agnosticism as concepts prior to the 1990s, especially since Huxley himself coined the term agnostic and defined it as being clearly different from atheism (the phrase "atheist agnostic" would not have been recognized by him). They asserted that they disbeleived in any sort of god and they ALSO denied that they were atheists and I am a follower of them, not Richard Dawkins. Recent attempts by New Atheists to claim Sagan as one of their own is misrepresentation of what he really stood for. He was a skeptic of religions, not an anti-religious bigot.

http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/misdefining-terms-for-purposes-of-propaganda/

Paul Burnett said:

Harold said: I do feel confident that overt or covert identification with Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party tribalism accounts for well over 99% of evolution denial...

I know there's lots of overlap, but I do feel confident that identification with Protestant fundamentalist evangelicalism accounts for well over 99% of evolution denial - I think it's more religious than political. The fundagelicals hold scientific illiteracy to be a sacrament, and willful ignorance to be a symbol of their faith.

j. biggs said: There appears to be a few non-religious social/political conservatives that deny evolution for non-biblical reasons. I've been arguing with one for days now on another blog. It really saddens me that there are people out there who deny scientific realities because that is what their political affilation demands. Why anyone who isn't religious or part of the neoconservative right wing would deny evolution is beyond me, but you are probably correct in thinking there are a few of them out there.

dalehusband said: I did not say that God is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. I do say that God would be no more a part of his own creation than a human artist would be part of his painting. And maybe God did put his signature in creation, but we do not recognize it as such. There are many possibilities to consider.

dalehusband said: Until less than two years ago, based on all the dictionaries and other literature I ever read, I understood atheism to be defined as I do and was completely unaware of the broader definition of "atheism" held by the New Atheists, until it was told to me by someone here.

I have to say Dale that I really don't understand your hostility towards people with whom you have such a subtle disagreement. I am pretty much in line with what you call non-theism (which most theists would call atheism BTW) but I don't see the NA movement as bigoted in general. Most NA just don't mind pointing out to theists that no evidence for gods has ever been found, hence there is no good reason to believe in them. Sure there are exceptions, but in general the NA movement doesn't appear to be (atleast IMO) as nasty as you make it out to be. You are free to disagree but I am not a "hard-core" atheist that asserts, "there are no gods" and never the less consider myself part of the NA movement. Atheists should have the right to speak on their own behalf just as theists do. And if a little snark is used in the process, well that doesn't make us bigots.

dalehusband said:

mandrellian said: Now, empirical disproof is a high bar. Do you apply this standard to what most people would consider obvious fictions, like talking donkeys or blue cat-people from space? Or just the cultural baggage known as "God"?

If something fictional is acknowledged by its creator as such, there is no question of its existence. You fail with this argument.

[Dale, I think] People who assert there is no God because clear evidence for Him has never been found are using philosophical assumptions, just as dogmatic theists assert there is a God because His existence has never been disproven. I think BOTH sides are taking the wrong approach.

[mandrellian, I think] Again with the assertion regarding the assertions of others (based on, what, phhht's posts and a clear misreading of the NA's?). Most atheists do no make assertions of the same kind that come from theists. Even Dawkins himself, I suppose what you'd call an NA "leader" of some variety, doesn't make that assertion, famously calling himself a "6 out of 7" on a scale of belief to non-belief. Dawkins, as but one example, has not attempted to redefine atheism, rather to more accurately define his own position.

God is not Batman.

Arguments about the meaning of the word 'atheist' get old. Like most interesting words its meaning is dependent upon what the user of that term intended it to mean. It is incumbent upon the user to define it for us.

As for me, as if it mattered, of course God exists - I created Her.

I'm going to take a nap now.

eric said:

j. biggs said: There appears to be a few non-religious social/political conservatives that deny evolution for non-biblical reasons. I've been arguing with one for days now on another blog. It really saddens me that there are people out there who deny scientific realities because that is what their political affilation demands. Why anyone who isn't religious or part of the neoconservative right wing would deny evolution is beyond me, but you are probably correct in thinking there are a few of them out there.

I think there was an historical supreme court justice who said something like "religion corrupts politics, and politics demeans religion." I'd say your friend is an example of the former: in order to gather votes, the conservative party has had to take on a religious platform that is unrelated or orthogonal to its other values. It makes no ideological sense for the GOP to reject evolution; this is just an outcome of realpolitik between a religious sect and a political party.

God as a Creator by definition cannot be a part of his physical creation, thus anything used to detect physical objects of any kind can never detect God.

Paul Burnett said:

mandrellian said: Atheism is the lack of belief in gods...

All children are born atheists - they have a "lack of belief in gods" - and demons. But after years of psychological child abuse and mental torture, they come to believe the lies their authority figures have told them - they become religious.

Rolf said:

God as a Creator by definition cannot be a part of his physical creation, thus anything used to detect physical objects of any kind can never detect God.

I may be wrong but the way I understand physics, if we could detect God with our instruments he would also be within reach of our tools to be manipulated. I think that puts him solidly outside of our universe and unable to interact with mattter in the universe. There are only two alternatives, it works both ways or not at all.

Typical strawman faithiest bullshit from you, Dale, throwing around the usual canards about "atheist dogma" and "bigotry". A great deal of vitriol and insult and very little worth expending very muuch more of my energy on - no more than a FL diatribe or a set of semi-coherent baseless assertions from IBIG or Byers. No doubt you'll take my apathy as a victory. Well, do enjoy your reign as Thread-King.

As for Sagan (or any other science communicator for that matter), I don't care what he personally believed about gods as that was secondary to his vigorous championing of science. But if he didn't believe in gods - if he lacked belief in them or had never held it - he met the definition of atheist. Even if he didn't call himself one.

As I said, the only one redefining atheism in this thread is you, with your obvious comprehension problem: somehow conflating simple, passive, non-prescriptive non-belief with active, vicious anti-belief. It's as egregious a fallacy as much as any uttered by a mouth-breathing Wall-bound creationist troglodyte, but if you can't wear that jumper, you shouldn't have knitted the fucking thing.

eric said:

dalehusband said:

mandrellian said: Now, empirical disproof is a high bar. Do you apply this standard to what most people would consider obvious fictions, like talking donkeys or blue cat-people from space? Or just the cultural baggage known as "God"?

If something fictional is acknowledged by its creator as such, there is no question of its existence. You fail with this argument.

Surely you are joking! The fact that the author believes a character to be fictional proves nothing. The real entity could be working through them via revelation. They could have had an encounter with said entity that they cannot consciously remember, but which comes out in their writing. They could even have made a lucky guess. For a guy who is so stringent about not concluding non-existence without empirical evidence in the God case, you seem pretty blase about what you'll take as evidence in the case of Batman. There's pretty decent historical proof that parts of the bible are fictional (such as a mass emigration of Jewish slaves from Egypt). If big chunks of Exodus have the same fictional status as a Batman comic, I don't see how you can arrive at a different conlusion about the main character. Either the fictional nature of the story is sufficient evidence (to reject belief) in both cases, or it isn't. But you can't say its sufficient in one and not the other.

[Dale, I think] People who assert there is no God because clear evidence for Him has never been found are using philosophical assumptions, just as dogmatic theists assert there is a God because His existence has never been disproven. I think BOTH sides are taking the wrong approach.

[mandrellian, I think] Again with the assertion regarding the assertions of others (based on, what, phhht's posts and a clear misreading of the NA's?). Most atheists do no make assertions of the same kind that come from theists. Even Dawkins himself, I suppose what you'd call an NA "leader" of some variety, doesn't make that assertion, famously calling himself a "6 out of 7" on a scale of belief to non-belief. Dawkins, as but one example, has not attempted to redefine atheism, rather to more accurately define his own position.

And phhht has said exactly the same thing (as Dawkins). There are very few atheists who would characterize themselves the way that Dale seems to be characterizing new atheists (as a 7 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale). This is, in some ways, an argument about language use and description. When we are a 6.5 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale about some entity - be it God or unicorns or Tony the Tiger - should we explicitly mention the limits of our own certainty when discussing that critter? Should we always say, out loud or in writing, "my tentative conclusion based on the data I have available to date is that x doesn't exist" for a 6.5? Or is "x doesn't exist" sufficient, with the caveats implied? My own take is that theists are generally special pleading. For God-at-6.5, they want the caveats mentioned explicitly every time we talk about Him. For other entities, they think its fine not to mention the caveats; saying "unicorns don't exist" is sufficent and everyone understands that all the various caveats about the limits of our empirical certainty are implied. This is wrong. If you're willing and able to understand what is meant by "unicorns don't exist," then it's just obtuse and blockheaded to pretend typical atheists are making a stronger philosophical claim when they say "God doesn't exist."

RWard said: Arguments about the meaning of the word 'atheist' get old. Like most interesting words its meaning is dependent upon what the user of that term intended it to mean. It is incumbent upon the user to define it for us. As for me, as if it mattered, of course God exists - I created Her. I'm going to take a nap now.

Plenty of places for a god to hide.

Rolf said:

Plenty of places for a god to hide.

No matter how far away he'd hide, we would always be able to grab him by the tentacles.

mandrellian said:

RWard said: Arguments about the meaning of the word 'atheist' get old. Like most interesting words its meaning is dependent upon what the user of that term intended it to mean. It is incumbent upon the user to define it for us. As for me, as if it mattered, of course God exists - I created Her. I'm going to take a nap now.

I'm in complete agreement with you - it's tiresome. The only reason I decided to respond at all is because even though I'm similarly sick of such semantic bollockery, sometimes I see something posted that's so completely, insultingly inaccurate that I can't leave it sitting there. And when it comes from someone who isn't a six-day six-toed creationist redneck, it's even worse than if it did. It's this continued bleating from theist and non-theist and atheist alike about atheists making similarly dogmatic pronouncements about god as fundamentalist believers; the false accusations of anti-religious bigotry and of hive-mindedness; the pearl-clutching shrieks when challenged or when precious feelings are hurt; the squeaking about "militancy" or "stridency" when all we do is post blogs or write books or give talks; these claims of poor, put-upon believers or poor put-upon non-atheists: all of that histrionic, childish rubbish is untrue, unnecessary and just serves to give succour to fundamentalists. I don't hate religion or religious people or even people that give them a free pass on their bollocks - but, for crying the heck out loud, I refuse to compromise or coddle them, especially when their beliefs are producing verifiable, irrefutable negative results in the world. Same goes for their hysterical bloody allies.

I don’t hate religion or religious people or even people that give them a free pass on their bollocks - but, for crying the heck out loud, I refuse to compromise or coddle them, especially when their beliefs are producing verifiable, irrefutable negative results in the world. Same goes for their hysterical bloody allies.

harold said:

mandrellian said:

RWard said: Arguments about the meaning of the word 'atheist' get old. Like most interesting words its meaning is dependent upon what the user of that term intended it to mean. It is incumbent upon the user to define it for us. As for me, as if it mattered, of course God exists - I created Her. I'm going to take a nap now.

I'm in complete agreement with you - it's tiresome. The only reason I decided to respond at all is because even though I'm similarly sick of such semantic bollockery, sometimes I see something posted that's so completely, insultingly inaccurate that I can't leave it sitting there. And when it comes from someone who isn't a six-day six-toed creationist redneck, it's even worse than if it did. It's this continued bleating from theist and non-theist and atheist alike about atheists making similarly dogmatic pronouncements about god as fundamentalist believers; the false accusations of anti-religious bigotry and of hive-mindedness; the pearl-clutching shrieks when challenged or when precious feelings are hurt; the squeaking about "militancy" or "stridency" when all we do is post blogs or write books or give talks; these claims of poor, put-upon believers or poor put-upon non-atheists: all of that histrionic, childish rubbish is untrue, unnecessary and just serves to give succour to fundamentalists. I don't hate religion or religious people or even people that give them a free pass on their bollocks - but, for crying the heck out loud, I refuse to compromise or coddle them, especially when their beliefs are producing verifiable, irrefutable negative results in the world. Same goes for their hysterical bloody allies.

You are exhibiting some pearl-clutching shrieks yourself, in my opinion. When I was a child, and I get the strange feeling that you may not be younger that me (I could be wrong), the Soviet Union was still in power, many of those who are now evolution-denying neocons were self-proclaimed Marxist or Maoist radicals, and atheism was often used to mean outright denial of the possibility of god. The term is now used by some who use it in exactly the same way the term "agnostic" used to be used. Well, words change in meaning sometimes, especially words that refer to abstract concepts. However, an enraged claim that a particular word has not evolved in meaning, when it has, serves no purpose. As a person who is an atheist by current standards, I resist the term, precisely because the bigotry and hive-mind behavior that is invisible to you. In fact you exemplify it.

I don’t hate religion or religious people or even people that give them a free pass on their bollocks - but, for crying the heck out loud, I refuse to compromise or coddle them, especially when their beliefs are producing verifiable, irrefutable negative results in the world. Same goes for their hysterical bloody allies.

As was pointed out here - actually in rebuttal of a creationist - nobody has "religion". Some people have "a religion". They do NOT all have the same religion. The person who is being coddled is YOU. We all dislike religious authoritarians, so outrageous over generalizations about "religion" and "religious people" get a pass. And if they ever don't, you'll charge in and "rationally" rage about coddling and accommodation, and use the threat of verbal hostility (including plenty of "humorous" violent language) to shut everyone else down. Apologies for the lateness of the reply - I had planned to ignore this nonsense and lost track of this thread.

harold said: When I was a child, and I get the strange feeling that you may not be younger that me (I could be wrong), the Soviet Union was still in power, many of those who are now evolution-denying neocons were self-proclaimed Marxist or Maoist radicals, and atheism was often used to mean outright denial of the possibility of god. The term is now used by some who use it in exactly the same way the term "agnostic" used to be used. Well, words change in meaning sometimes, especially words that refer to abstract concepts. However, an enraged claim that a particular word has not evolved in meaning, when it has, serves no purpose.

SWT said:

harold said: When I was a child, and I get the strange feeling that you may not be younger that me (I could be wrong), the Soviet Union was still in power, many of those who are now evolution-denying neocons were self-proclaimed Marxist or Maoist radicals, and atheism was often used to mean outright denial of the possibility of god. The term is now used by some who use it in exactly the same way the term "agnostic" used to be used. Well, words change in meaning sometimes, especially words that refer to abstract concepts. However, an enraged claim that a particular word has not evolved in meaning, when it has, serves no purpose.

My experience was similar; I still have to recalibrate a bit when I read the discussions here so that I understand some posts as I think their authors intended. [As a point of chronological reference, Eisenhower was president when I was born.]

Henry J said:

Rolf said:

Plenty of places for a god to hide.

No matter how far away he'd hide, we would always be able to grab him by the tentacles.

But if you do that, you'd just get sprayed with ink.

But of course - visible ink would leave evidence! :)

harold said: I was born in 1963, so the communist-radicals-who-would-later-become-fudamentalist-neocons trend was at its peak when I was about ten or eleven.