Ophelia Benson - 06 May 2008 08:03 AM

Science is the wrong tool for 1, but why is it the wrong tool for 2? I don’t think it is. Christians aver a lot of things, but some of the things they aver are open to scientific examination of various kinds.

Absolutely agree, Ophelia. If anyone makes a testable claim about the universe (based on a book, a belief, a hypothesis--whatever) it can be tested and to the degree the results are substantial, the matter should be settled. If a Christian fundie says “the earth is 6000 years old”, well, that can certainly be falsified. If a Latter Day Saint claims one of the tribes of Israel came to America, that, too can be falsified.

If PN states that there is an invisible pink dragon that leaves no trace evidence of his existence, then that can’t be falsified—and we’re free to disregard it on other than scientific grounds, namely that we wish for a bit more convincing than PN’s word for it (though I totally believe you, PN!)

Riley - 06 May 2008 07:40 AM

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 07:32 AM

[...]I dislike Dawkins et al. (IMHO) misusing science [...]

You keep claiming that Dawkins misuses science, but not once have you presented an actual example of Dawkin’s work to demonstrate that claim. I’d be satisfied with a passage from his book.

Fair enough. I’ve watched and listened to Dawkins on videos and podcasts, so I’ll need a little time, but that’s a perfectly legit requirement.

jholt (thanks for the compliment on the previous page, by the way!),

I realize that ‘Being outside nature and acting within nature is a long held belief’ - but that doesn’t mean it’s coherent. It seems to me to be completely incoherent. It also seems to me to be mostly a ploy rather than a belief. It’s a ploy to protect the beliefs that believers really want: that the universe is basically moral (as I heard Desmond Tutu say on the radio recently), that humans have purpose and meaning, that God cares about us, that everything is ultimately okay, that things happen for a reason, and so on. Those beliefs are supported by belief in god, and so belief in god is defended when non-believers express doubts or ask troublesome questions, and that’s where the ploy comes in. It seems to me that saying ‘God is outside nature’ is mostly used to repel difficult questions; it’s not a treasured belief like the belief that God cares about us.

Hal, well there you go, we don’t disagree all that much after all.

Ophelia Benson - 06 May 2008 08:20 AM

Hal, well there you go, we don’t disagree all that much after all.

I can feel the love.

And is it just “coincidental” that this harmony began when His Noodliness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, was introduced? Ha! I think not! Proof positive both that the FSN exists and that He spreads peace and love wherever He is acknowledged…

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 08:10 AM

If PN states that there is an invisible pink dragon that leaves no trace evidence of his existence, then that can’t be falsified—and we’re free to disregard it on other than scientific grounds, namely that we wish for a bit more convincing than PN’s word for it (though I totally believe you, PN!)

Well that was satisfying. 

I get to keep my invisible pink dragon!

(Although one doubt has been creeping into my mind: How can something be both pink and invisible?)

Pragmatic Naturalist - 06 May 2008 08:31 AM

Well that was satisfying. 

I get to keep my invisible pink dragon!

(Although one doubt has been creeping into my mind: How can something be both pink and invisible?)

Fight those doubts, PN! That’s just the evil invisible chartreuse dragon who’s trying to darken your mind.

I missed the FSM introduction - but of course she works her magic whether one is aware of her or not, presumably.

About why discussions can spark tension (question asked several comments ago) - in my case at least (and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one) it very often has to do with, to be blunt, dishonesty. I’ve read Hedges’s book, and it does irritate me, and it’s the dishonesty that irritates me most. He makes wild and inaccurate claims about Dawkins and others, and there are no quotations to back them up. Any decent teacher would have ‘Evidence for this?’ multiple times on every page. That does piss me off. But then it would, wouldn’t it - when DJ interviewed me for Point of Inquiry, the subject was truth!

cyris8400 - 05 May 2008 11:49 PM

Oh, and complaining about dogma among Harris and Hitchens supporters and then turning around and calling Andy Thompson a neocon propagandist in what I can only say looked a lot like a political knee-jerk won’t help either.

I did not call Mr. Thompson a neocon propagandist. Mr. Thompson goes around offering himself as an ‘expert’ on the psychology of Islamic suicide bombers. Having listened to an extensive - and extremely creepy - interview with him on a prominent ‘Humanist’ (!) website, I speculated as to whether the CIA or other government agencies might not be involved in targeting the secular humanist community within the U.S for pro-war psychological operations.

The recent story on how the Pentagon was covertly fielding ‘independent military experts’ (retired officers) to promote the criminal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan through mainstream media outets underlines the degree to which the racist ‘war on terror’ has morphed into a psychological warfare campaign directed at the U.S. population itself. 

Promoting fear and specifically anti-Islamic hysteria throughout the population (particularly among the intelligentsia) has been key to the War Party’s strategy since well before 9/11. They pursued exactly the same techniques in their earlier incarnations/forbears in groups like the “Committee on the Present Danger” during the anti-Soviet cold-war, though I believe that various ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation has given government agencies much greater powers to help ‘shape political opinion’ and public perceptions domestically. Another problem that I have with Hedges is that he largely ignores the larger political question of who benefits from broadcasting the cartoonish, childlike depictions of ‘the enemy’ he so accurately describes.

I suppose if some secularists are going to serve, like Harris and Hitchens, as domestic mouthpieces for the War Party, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be paid for it. But the rest of us should also be aware that some of our ‘information’ could be reaching us through tainted channels.

Riley - 05 May 2008 03:24 PM

Hal Helms - 05 May 2008 01:45 PM

it seems reckless to say that science provides positive evidence that “God” does not exist.

It’s not reckless if you are actually being scientific.

If someone makes the claim that “God” sent a flood upon the earth and you can use science to show that there was no flood, then that is positive proof that “God” (as defined) does not exist. It’s not certain proof (science doesn’t provide 100% certainty about anything), but it is scientific evidence. And you’re right, one could argue that “God” makes things to happen, tells messengers to record their occurrance, but then decides to make it impossible for anyone else to verify for themselves that such an occurance did in fact happen. Sure. That’s possible. But that doesn’t mean that science has nothing to say about the likelihood of that alternate scenario. That’s exactly how science works ... by assigning probabilities and error-bars.

You seem to be arguing that science should be silent about such matters, and that seems to me very narrow minded.

I agree with Riley.

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 08:10 AM

If PN states that there is an invisible pink dragon that leaves no trace evidence of his existence, then that can’t be falsified—and we’re free to disregard it on other than scientific grounds, namely that we wish for a bit more convincing than PN’s word for it (though I totally believe you, PN!)

But we are also free to dismiss it on skeptical grounds using the tools of science, viz, things exist to exactly the extent that they interact with other things. the pink dragon does not interact, therefore, it does not exist.

The argument must then be made that existence can occur in some sort of transcendental state, and that, to borrow a phrase, is a tough nut to crack.

seth manapio - 06 May 2008 09:11 AM

The argument must then be made that existence can occur in some sort of transcendental state, and that, to borrow a phrase, is a tough nut to crack.

Yes, exactly, Seth. I think the term used for such a transcendental dimension is “spiritual”. Another of those non-testable things.

seth manapio - 06 May 2008 09:11 AM

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 08:10 AM

If PN states that there is an invisible pink dragon that leaves no trace evidence of his existence, then that can’t be falsified—and we’re free to disregard it on other than scientific grounds, namely that we wish for a bit more convincing than PN’s word for it (though I totally believe you, PN!)

But we are also free to dismiss it on skeptical grounds using the tools of science, viz, things exist to exactly the extent that they interact with other things. the pink dragon does not interact, therefore, it does not exist.

The argument must then be made that existence can occur in some sort of transcendental state, and that, to borrow a phrase, is a tough nut to crack.

Right, but as skeptics we do a diservice to the community to act like its a 50/50 chance.

The same argument can be made for homeopathy. Maybe homeopathy is real in some transcendent realm, and we just cant see it with science.

So does that mean we let homeopaths claim to be as effective as scientific medicine?

Likewise, if religious claims are unlikely it is in the consumer protection tradition of skepticism to say so.

Ophelia Benson - 06 May 2008 08:41 AM

I missed the FSM introduction - but of course she works her magic whether one is aware of her or not, presumably.

An Absolute Truth that should be held by all people in all places at all times.

About why discussions can spark tension (question asked several comments ago) - in my case at least (and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one) it very often has to do with, to be blunt, dishonesty. I’ve read Hedges’s book, and it does irritate me, and it’s the dishonesty that irritates me most. He makes wild and inaccurate claims about Dawkins and others, and there are no quotations to back them up. Any decent teacher would have ‘Evidence for this?’ multiple times on every page. That does piss me off. But then it would, wouldn’t it - when DJ interviewed me for Point of Inquiry, the subject was truth!

That’s just what bugs me about Dawkins! I feel like saying, “C’mon: you don’t need to resort to such stuff.”

Ophelia, I had no idea you were a celebrity! I’ll have to start dropping your name in casual conversation..."As OPHELIA BENSON and I were discussing the other day...”

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 09:15 AM

seth manapio - 06 May 2008 09:11 AM

The argument must then be made that existence can occur in some sort of transcendental state, and that, to borrow a phrase, is a tough nut to crack.

Yes, exactly, Seth. I think the term used for such a transcendental dimension is “spiritual”. Another of those non-testable things.

You mean, things that don’t exist in any meaningful sense of the term “exist”? What is this dimension? If it has no point of contact with this one, in what sense can you claim it exists?