Just 2 words and an URL: Pangea Day http://pangeaday.org/

Ophelia Benson - 10 May 2008 11:42 AM

Hal,

What I’ve said, consistently, is that a being outside the universe is outside the realm of science.

Yes, but what we (those of us who’ve been disputing you) have consistently pointed out is that that is not the God that Dawkins is talking about. He makes that quite clear. So what you’ve said consistently has been consistently beside the point.

You’ve also said that you haven’t read The God Delusion - so it’s perhaps not surprising that your consistent claim is true but beside the point. But it would be nice if after 16 pages, you could manage to register the fact.

We’re not talking about a god outside the universe that has no effect inside the universe. We’re talking about the usual god of the usual theists: the one that loves us and watches over us and answers prayers and has opinions about homosexuality and abortion. That god. The Christian god. The god of the Nicene creed. The god of the Catechism. The god of the Koran. That god.

Dang, Ophelia: I acknowledged that I hadn’t read The God Delusion, but that I had heard Dawkins on numerous pod and videocasts. I ordered the book; it will be here on Monday.

But let me make a prediction: I’m going to find exactly what I think I will (having heard Dawkins extensively) and I’ll quote him and then be told, “Yes, but you’re taking him out of context.”

I’m making that prediction based on a theory garnered from the evidence of talking with you, Riley, and Seth. That theory is this: Certain “strong” atheists have an absolute need that a god not exist—every bit as much as certain “strong” Christians have a need he/she/it does. To that end, they will not concede so much as a single point and will enlist every weapon--legitimate or not--to ensure that even the possibility of a god cannot be taken seriously. They will marginalize, demonize, or ignore anyone who differs in their view.

They will use false analogies, ad hominem arguments, condescension: all is fair game when the stakes are so high. So far, I think I have a fair amount of evidence in support of this theory. Let’s see if quoting the man himself will change all this. Being the good skeptic I am, I doubt it…

I understand that Dawkins is talking about the god of monotheists such as Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Early on I stated that at least some Christians maintain that God is both outside the universe and able to act upon it. You objected that such a thing is impossible. That, of course, is something we can’t determine.

There are limits to human knowledge gained through science. That is, I hope, indisputable. Again, I refer to he uncertainty principle that shows us that even about things in our own world, we cannot have full knowledge. How much more so is that true if there is some other realm than the natural world?

Now, just before you flame me, I am not stating such a realm exists or such a god exists. If my theory is right, though, the possibility of such a thing is so deeply repugnant that it cannot be tolerated. So, in the immortal words of The Human Torch, “flame on!”

jholt - 10 May 2008 11:37 AM

Sheesh. First, it does misrepresent the argument (and here I do not wish to speak for Hal - so I will be careful - then state my thoughts). Simply replacing God with Astrology is meaningless. It gives the appearance the analogy fits with the argument. Second, the argument is about what science can tell us.

Assertion: Astrology and Theology are equivalently supported, extremely similar claims.

Question: If we replace Theological ideas (religion or God) with Astrological ideas in these sentences, do we still agree with them?

That is not a strawman argument. It does not misrepresent the case that Hal makes. For one thing, Hal makes NO claims about the reach of science vis-a-vis god that do not apply to astrology equally well. For another, those are real quotes and substantive ones, that (if the substitution were reversed) represent Hal’s argument well. Third, a strawman argument does not involve explicitly revealing the creation of the strawman, as in this case.

You could argue that the analogy is false, but that is a DIFFERENT logical fallacy.

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 01:43 PM

jholt - 10 May 2008 11:37 AM

Sheesh. First, it does misrepresent the argument (and here I do not wish to speak for Hal - so I will be careful - then state my thoughts). Simply replacing God with Astrology is meaningless. It gives the appearance the analogy fits with the argument. Second, the argument is about what science can tell us.

Assertion: Astrology and Theology are equivalently supported, extremely similar claims.

Question: If we replace Theological ideas (religion or God) with Astrological ideas in these sentences, do we still agree with them?

That is not a strawman argument. It does not misrepresent the case that Hal makes. For one thing, Hal makes NO claims about the reach of science vis-a-vis god that do not apply to astrology equally well. For another, those are real quotes and substantive ones, that (if the substitution were reversed) represent Hal’s argument well. Third, a strawman argument does not involve explicitly revealing the creation of the strawman, as in this case.

You could argue that the analogy is false, but that is a DIFFERENT logical fallacy.

The distinction is a God outside of space and time and what science can tell us about such a God. I think your full answer was added in my post. The only reason to draw the analogy is an attempt to show Hal’s argument as absurd, but the analogy still does not refute the argument (or pertain to it). It is a straw-man . Again, why the analogy fails and is a straw-man is shown in my post. If you would like to debate what I have said in my post, fine. You asserting I’ve now committed a logical fallacy tells me that you may be up to disputing what I’ve said, instead of trying to hold onto analogies that are meaningless to the argument.

Hal Helms - 10 May 2008 01:04 PM

I’m making that prediction based on a theory garnered from the evidence of talking with you, Riley, and Seth. That theory is this: Certain “strong” atheists have an absolute need that a god not exist—every bit as much as certain “strong” Christians have a need he/she/it does. To that end, they will not concede so much as a single point and will enlist every weapon--legitimate or not--to ensure that even the possibility of a god cannot be taken seriously. They will marginalize, demonize, or ignore anyone who differs in their view.

Hal, you don’t have any evidence that a strong atheist will do anything like this. This discussion has been quite courteous and straightforward, and you have no call whatsoever to accuse me, Riley, or Ophelia of demonizing or marginalizing you.

Further, we have conceded the point that we cannot prove absolutely that a descendent god cannot possibly exist. We have conceded the point that science cannot demonstrate that a wholly transcendent god does not exist. We simply have not conceded the point that you wish us to concede, which is that science has nothing to say about the possibility that there is a descendent god, as described by some claimant.

It is strange to me that you think it is intolerant of me, or anyone else, not to take the possibility of a god seriously, or agree that such a possibility should be taken seriously. Generally speaking, if someone makes a claim, it is only taken seriously if it is a reasonable claim. If I make the claim that a politician is a liar, people might accept that as well supported. But if I make the claim that that same politician is lying about being human, and is actually a demon from the 13th level of hell, I might have some explaining to do. People will want me to substantiate my claim before I am taken seriously.

I think that you would agree with me: the claim “John Kerry is an alien pretending to be human”, while it does explain John Kerry’s behavior, does not need to be taken seriously without some additional evidence or a reasoned argument. In other words, the burden is on me to provide some reason for you to take my statement seriously.

I feel the same way about god claims. I would like for someone to provide some sort of reason for me to take their claim seriously. Something beyond the range of “because I said so”.

As I’ve mentioned several times, a wholly transcendant god, as a claim, cannot be taken seriously simply because it is a meaningless claim. A fully transcendent being would not interact with or affect events on the earth, so the claim would have no evidence or purpose regardless of its truth.

A descendent being would leave evidence. I have insisted, as have others, that things which can be observed to occur are in the purview of science. They can be examined. The mere fact that some observable phenomena, say, a person hearing voices or Hurrican Katrina, can be attributed to god does not automatically remove it from consideration by science. So if the thing, the phenomena, whatever, is examined, and a non-god explanation is found… why should we take god seriously as an explanation? What reason do you have for us to take the god hypothesis seriously?

As far as I can tell, there isn’t one. There is no reason at all for me to accept your friends word that god touched him and loves him. I believe he experienced that, but that in and of itself is no reason at all to think that a telepathic being communicated with him. And that’s all the evidence that he brings, just that he experienced it inside his head.

So why should anyone take this claim seriously? Why should anyone take the possibility of god seriously?

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 02:04 PM

Hal, you don’t have any evidence that a strong atheist will do anything like this. This discussion has been quite courteous and straightforward, and you have no call whatsoever to accuse me, Riley, or Ophelia of demonizing or marginalizing you.

I have to ask, who do you think Ophelia was aiming the “pseudo-skeptic” claim at?

jholt - 10 May 2008 01:56 PM

The distinction is a God outside of space and time and what science can tell us about such a God. I think your full answer was added in my post. The only reason to draw the analogy is an attempt to show Hal’s argument as absurd, but the analogy still does not refute the argument (or pertain to it). It is a straw-man . Again, why the analogy fails and is a straw-man is shown in my post. If you would like to debate what I have said in my post, fine. You asserting I’ve now committed a logical fallacy tells me that you may be up to disputing what I’ve said, instead of trying to hold onto analogies that are meaningless to the argument.

No, I asserted that if Riley committed a logical fallacy, it is a different one than a strawman.

Hal does not actually argue for a god that is entirely outside of space and time. If he did, we’d be done, as everyone agrees that such a god cannot be addressed by science. Hal is making the arguement that science cannot discuss a god who effects things inside of space and time, one that has real effects. And in doing so, he allows the analogy to be drawn to astrology, which also employs powers outside of the natural world to effect things inside the natural world.

As I pointed out, a strawman argument has a specific meaning, and an argument of the form:

a is equivalent to b.
if we substitute a for b in proposition p, is proposition p still reasonable?

Is NOT a strawman. It could be an error of equivalence, a false analogy, or something, but it is NOT a strawman argument.

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 02:10 PM

jholt - 10 May 2008 01:56 PM

The distinction is a God outside of space and time and what science can tell us about such a God. I think your full answer was added in my post. The only reason to draw the analogy is an attempt to show Hal’s argument as absurd, but the analogy still does not refute the argument (or pertain to it). It is a straw-man . Again, why the analogy fails and is a straw-man is shown in my post. If you would like to debate what I have said in my post, fine. You asserting I’ve now committed a logical fallacy tells me that you may be up to disputing what I’ve said, instead of trying to hold onto analogies that are meaningless to the argument.

No, I asserted that if Riley committed a logical fallacy, it is a different one than a strawman.

Hal does not actually argue for a god that is entirely outside of space and time. If he did, we’d be done, as everyone agrees that such a god cannot be addressed by science. Hal is making the arguement that science cannot discuss a god who effects things inside of space and time, one that has real effects. And in doing so, he allows the analogy to be drawn to astrology, which also employs powers outside of the natural world to effect things inside the natural world.

As I pointed out, a strawman argument has a specific meaning, and an argument of the form:

a is equivalent to b.
if we substitute a for b in proposition p, is proposition p still reasonable?

Is NOT a strawman. It could be an error of equivalence, a false analogy, or something, but it is NOT a strawman argument.

The distinction is with a God outside of space and time and what science can tell us about such a God. The answer is absolutely nothing. In my post I explore it a little more and state my position.

I’d be curious to know if Hal thinks that claims of ‘proofs of God’ , such as you can’t be moral without God or since the Bible somehow shows the earth is 6,000, evidence to say otherwise is off the table of discussion. The arguments against such claims is solid, but we can not go from there to saying it’s highly improbable God does not exist scientifically. We would not want God injected into a scientific equation (which is attempted in many areas, in many ways) and we would not want science to answer for something it simply can’t.

jholt - 10 May 2008 02:08 PM

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 02:04 PM

Hal, you don’t have any evidence that a strong atheist will do anything like this. This discussion has been quite courteous and straightforward, and you have no call whatsoever to accuse me, Riley, or Ophelia of demonizing or marginalizing you.

I have to ask, who do you think Ophelia was aiming the “pseudo-skeptic” claim at?

I had to go back 10 pages to find it. Ophelia described an argument and then said that that game (the one she said Hal was playing) was one much loved by psuedo-skeptics. She did not say that Hal was a psuedo-skeptic. I would agree that is dangerously close to playing the Hitler card, but the argument itself is the one being used by Hal and it is a lousy one, and it is one that is constantly in use by people who want to maintain this “non-overlapping magisteria” nonsense as applies to a supposedly transcendent deity who none-the-less is interactive.

jholt - 10 May 2008 02:25 PM

The distinction is with a God outside of space and time and what science can tell us about such a God. The answer is absolutely nothing.

That point has also been conceded by myself, Ophelia, and Riley. This has so far not been enough for Hal. He wants us to also grant the possibility of a god who communicates telepathically with people, which would NOT be such a God. And it is his argument about THAT sort of god that Riley compared to arguments for Astrology.

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 02:28 PM

I would agree that is dangerously close to playing the Hitler card, but the argument itself is the one being used by Hal and it is a lousy one, and it is one that is constantly in use by people who want to maintain this “non-overlapping magisteria” nonsense as applies to a supposedly transcendent deity who none-the-less is interactive.

Someone less enlightened than moi might view your designation of NOMA as “nonsense” as dismissive and marginalizing.

jholt - 10 May 2008 02:25 PM

I’d be curious to know if Hal thinks that claims of ‘proofs of God’ , such as you can’t be moral without God or since the Bible somehow shows the earth is 6,000, evidence to say otherwise is off the table of discussion. The arguments against such claims is solid, but we can not go from there to saying it’s highly improbable God does not exist scientifically. We would not want God injected into a scientific equation (which is attempted in many areas, in many ways) and we would not want science to answer for something it simply can’t.

I think such claims can be easily refuted on the grounds of both philosophy and science. But I agree with you that while such claims can be refuted, the question of a god cannot be. But I’m retreading ground here. For now, I’m sticking with my hypothesis about new atheists.

Hal Helms - 10 May 2008 03:13 PM

I think such claims can be easily refuted on the grounds of both philosophy and science. But I agree with you that while such claims can be refuted, the question of a god cannot be. But I’m retreading ground here. For now, I’m sticking with my hypothesis about new atheists.

Again, you are sticking to that hypothesis in the face of the evidence. Disagreeing with you or calling your argument nonsense is not demonization or marginalization. Have you considered the possibility that you are presenting a nonsensical argument?

So far, you haven’t conceded a single point yourself. Everyone here has agreed that a wholly transcendant god is beyond the reach of science. EVERYONE. You are the only person who is insisting that anyone doesn’t agree on that, and you’ve projecting that position on “new atheists”. That’s a strawman, in case anyone is curious.

You have yet to present a single reason why anyone should take seriously this “question of a god.” You have not shown why we should take a transcedent god seriously (since by definition, this has no effect on the observable universe) and you have not shown why we should accept, in any measure, the concept of a telepathic, non-material god.

But you HAVE insisted that we take this position seriously. Again: why should we? Because people think its true? That isn’t evidence that it is true. Do you have any reason, any reason at all, why we should give any serious consideration to this “god question.” Why can’t the existence of a god simply be dismissed? What gives this claim substance?

You accuse me of having an absolute need to have god NOT exist. This is not true. If there were the slightest, barest, most tenuous evidence to suggest that some god claim was a valid one, I would want to know about it. If there was a moderately reasonable argument that supported the possibility of an afterlife, I would be greatly relieved. If there was some indication, however minor, that there was a vast intelligence that operated in the universe and changed things, I would want to know how to contact it.

There is no such evidence, there is no such argument. There exists no indication that a vast super-intelligence is anywhere. There is no reason to care about non-interacting, extradimensional beings, and no evidence that extra-dimensional beings are interacting.

I don’t have a need for this to be true. What I have is the humility to let the universe tell me what’s real, instead of trying to make it conform to my ideas of what should be real, what I want to be real.

I’m making that prediction based on a theory garnered from the evidence of talking with you, Riley, and Seth. That theory is this: Certain “strong” atheists have an absolute need that a god not exist—every bit as much as certain “strong” Christians have a need he/she/it does. To that end, they will not concede so much as a single point and will enlist every weapon--legitimate or not--to ensure that even the possibility of a god cannot be taken seriously. They will marginalize, demonize, or ignore anyone who differs in their view.

They will use false analogies, ad hominem arguments, condescension: all is fair game when the stakes are so high. So far, I think I have a fair amount of evidence in support of this theory. Let’s see if quoting the man himself will change all this. Being the good skeptic I am, I doubt it…

Boy, Hal - that takes some gall. As seth points out, we have conceded points - or not so much conceded as agreed without breaking a sweat. We agree with you that science can’t say anything about the transcendent god. We just don’t agree that that inability extends to the other god, the everyday god, the god of the various creeds. And as seth also points out, you haven’t conceded a damn thing - you just ignore arguments and jump over questions and keep on repeating your formula.

Don’t do a Hedges here. How has anyone marginalized you? How has anyone demonized you? And as for ignoring you - ! You call this ignoring?

What false analogies? What ad hominem arguments? What condescension? (And what high stakes? The stakes could hardly be lower. Your refusal to answer serious questions is not going to make god exist.)

Being the good skeptic you are? You think it’s being a good skeptic to think you know what Dawkins says in the book despite having been told by people who’ve actually read it that you have it wrong? If that’s skepticism, what would credulity be?

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 02:28 PM

I would agree that is dangerously close to playing the Hitler card, but the argument itself is the one being used by Hal and it is a lousy one, and it is one that is constantly in use by people who want to maintain this “non-overlapping magisteria” nonsense as applies to a supposedly transcendent deity who none-the-less is interactive.

I wouldn’t say Stephen J. Gould’s idea is perfect, far from it. I have also seen it said that Gould, if alive today, would not hold to his idea. Stephen Died in 2002 and nothing up to that point (and certainly nothing he said leading up to NOMA) would suggest to me that he would have a change of heart if alive today. I think to make the claim he would is without evidence or reason (I know the full extent to Sam Harris’ and Dawkins’ argument in this regard). I also understand the argument that says religionist will not hold to this idea, as it is illustrated by Dawkins in his if evidence of Jesus’ miracles would surface through scientific discovery the religionist would not say “oh, no that doesn’t count, it’s not in our Magisterium.” I personally think that’s a cop-out argument and Gould never said it would be easy, if you think about it, one must apply fortitude and resilience to even see it make progress. But, with many of these types of debates we end up back at questions of ‘respecting beliefs’, Gould is saying a respectful discourse, not non-argument.  It can’t be helped that what Gould proposed is usually picked apart for any juicy bit that appears to show religion in any kind of favorable light, or a line or two. I’ve seen this done with the question of morals, which is striking since in the proposal he offers his “cold bath” theory.

~ “As a moral position (and therefore not as a deduction from my knowledge of nature’s factuality), I prefer the “cold bath” theory that nature can be truly “cruel” and “indifferent"—in the utterly inappropriate terms of our ethical discourse—because nature was not constructed as our eventual abode, didn’t know we were coming (we are, after all, interlopers of the latest geological microsecond), and doesn’t give a damn about us (speaking metaphorically). I regard such a position as liberating, not depressing, because we then become free to conduct moral discourse—and nothing could be more important—in our own terms, spared from the delusion that we might read moral truth passively from nature’s factuality."~

What I don’t accept is the idea is simply nonsense. The loud mouths and violent wacko that can be found on the side of unreason don’t dictate to me when and how I will confront them.