Tony, you said,

And if you’re going to confuse critical analysis with wounded feelings I have to wonder why you bother saying anything at all.

You have provided critical analysis here, yes. For me, though, the tone of this entire exchange was set by your very first words:

As an atheist I find this posting to be pretty offensive.

Following that, there were charges of bigotry (I appreciate your later apology), asking “how would you feel?”, blog-shouting (“BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE?”), a charge of smearing, a mischaracterization (“amped up”) of my definitions of materialism and naturalism, an unsupported accusation of quote-mining, and now in your most current comment, a generally dismissive, sarcastic attitude.

I don’t think you ever acknowledged the distinctions I made (and repeated more than once), in which I said it was atheism, not atheists themselves, that is limited to one interpretation of evidence. Instead you wrote back to tell me no, what I wrote in the first place was what I really meant. No, what I wrote in the first place was restricted to “some, not all,” under the heading of “Committed Naturalists (Atheists).” But you kept insisting on what amounts to a very uncharitable interpretation, ignoring those qualifiers, and dismissing the clarifications I made along the way.

You kept treating me as if I had said it without those original qualifiers, and as if my corrections along the way were insincere and should be disregarded. I’ll be blunt and use the same term you used: that’s pretty offensive.

In future discussions, Tony (and others) if you accuse someone else of some misdeed and they answer you, and then you ignore their answer and yet move on to make0 other accusations, I’m calling a foul on that. I think that, more than any other single thing, is what kept this whole discussion off any productive track. Your not acknowledging my clarifications and corrections, and your moving on instead to charges of quote-mining and more, contributed greatly to my sense that you were nursing your feeling of offense rather than trying to come to a point of meeting with each other.

Continuing: you wrote this to Medicine Man,

Note the fact that the quote you referred to has absolutely nothing to do with the one that I pointed out to Tom.

… I have absolutely no idea which “one” you pointed out to me. You pointed out a lot of them. This is not helpful at all. How are we supposed to figure out what you mean here?

Prove, reveal. They are so similar. That’s why if I reveal the charges against you it’s, substantively, the same as proving them. How foolish argument must be.

Prove, reveal, they are so similar. That’s why if I reveal—using evidence—that my wife made the cake, it’s, substantively, the same thing as proving she did. How foolish it can be not to take words in their context.

The logical error in your rebuttal here, by the way, was this. The original statement was in the form,

Subject S reveals fact F

In Dawkins’s subtitle that translates to:

(a) Evolution S reveals F a universe without design.

In yours, it is this:

(b) I S reveal F the charges against you.

The fact F being revealed in (b) is “the charges against you,” (i.e., the existence and content of the charges). But you switched terms and said it referred to the accuracy or truth of the charges. That’s not the case; F does not encompass the charges’ accuracy or truth, just their content. So your rebuttal is formally invalid.

So attributing quotes to someone, without his actually having said them, is proof. Again, I have to say that this saves me so much time in commenting here.

Dawkins has said that, my friend, many times and in many ways. Or as Medicine Man himself said in that very context, Dawkins says “the kind of things Tom alluded to… ” You can snipe at him for not having an exact page number, but he didn’t claim it was a quote; and you have missed the point anyway, which is that Dawkins has expressed those very opinions on many occasions. Your response on this point was entirely unwarranted.

Tony, you have thoughtful analyses when you bring them forward, and in the course of this discussion I learned at least one valuable lesson. I’m tired of all the character accusations, though.

I’m sure you’ll want me to say something similar to Medicine Man. His 2:27 post yesterday led with

I think the expressions of hurt feelings here are absolutely ridiculous. If you don’t like the conclusions, try paying attention to what has been said and dealing with it rationally. Believe it or not, reality isn’t always complimentary to everyone, all of the time. Spare everyone the “ya done me wrong” baloney unless something wrong has actually been done.

I’ll grant, that wasn’t exactly the kind of language that helps de-escalate a dispute. The rest of Medicine Man’s post was a series of logical analyses, but we can all acknowledge it didn’t start that way.

But it’s all ending this way. I’m pretty disappointed at how this has degenerated, and I’m going to put it to a halt now by closing comments.

You’ve asked to be spared the baloney, so okay – I’ll respond as you’ve addressed me.

Yes, and the standards that Tom has set don’t include reactionary accusations of bigotry or dishonesty.

I think you need to look up the word reactionary; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I can say with total honesty that I’ve never “let fly” here, above comment included.

That’s amazing; so can I! MedicineMan, we have more in common than I thought.

If you’re going to respond to every challenge to your views with a wounded attitude, I have to wonder why you bother saying anything at all.

And if you’re going to confuse critical analysis with wounded feelings I have to wonder why you bother saying anything at all.

Believe it or not, reality isn’t always complimentary to everyone, all of the time.

Believe it or not, writing things down your thoughts isn’t always complimentary to the writer. (I’ve got to say, I’m warming up to this style!)

Note the use of the phrase, “Not all, but many”. That’s not an expression of bigotry, that’s a limited expression of a supportable fact.

Note the fact that the quote you referred to has absolutely nothing to do with the one that I pointed out to Tom.

Prove…reveal…one way or another, the intent of the subtitle was to indicate that there’s sufficient evidence to make a definite conclusion…unless you think it’s possible to “reveal” that which does not exist.

Prove, reveal. They are so similar. That’s why if I reveal the charges against you it’s, substantively, the same as proving them. How foolish argument must be.

And I don’t think we need this point in order to prove (yes, prove) that Dawkins is philosophically obtuse…When you hear, “science proves there’s no God,” or “science proves God had nothing to do with creation,” or anything of the sort, what they’re really saying is, “my version of science, which assumes there is no God, says there is no God.” … That’s Dawkins, no doubt.

So attributing quotes to someone, without his actually having said them, is proof. Again, I have to say that this saves me so much time in commenting here.

I think you suggested, though, that he was kicking off an insult-o-fest.

Where did I accuse Medicine Man of insulting me? I honestly thought he was telling me to lighten up after apologizing to you (Tom). And my reference to an insult-o-fest was to the last time Tom asked us all to lighten up on the heat in the rhetoric, not to this posting and comments.

Whatever. For the record, I don’t think my feelings have been hurt. And I’m not looking for you to support my ideas. Valid criticism is what I’m here for.

Yes, and the standards that Tom has set don’t include reactionary accusations of bigotry or dishonesty. I would say that characterizing my response to your own statements as an “insult-fest” is more of the same. I can say with total honesty that I’ve never “let fly” here, above comment included. If you’re going to respond to every challenge to your views with a wounded attitude, I have to wonder why you bother saying anything at all.

I’m challenging the basis and approach of your responses to Tom’s assertions. My prior comment’s not a lengthy dissertation, so if you don’t feel the need to defend your statements, I’m not going to hound you.

Tom, et al

I might not be able to get back to this for a bit…it’s taken me a good half-hour to get this posted. I don’t know if the problem is on my side or not, but the TK site is mind-bogglingly slow and crash-prone right now. Hope to be back in it soon…

Still, remember what I wrote above? I wasn’t exactly getting all angry at you, even before you explained your intentions more clearly:

It wouldn’t bother me a lot, because I know the statement is incorrect. I’d be a trifle bemused by the fact that the person who wrote it had missed everything I’ve already written in this post, and in the ensuing discussion, that explains what’s wrong with a statement like that. But that’s no big emotional deal, it’s just a head-scratcher, a bit of puzzle to me, as to why someone would do that.

There are indeed a lot of feelings being thrown in here by the atheist side. What’s up with that? We’re talking ideas, and we’re getting all these hurt feelings thrown back at us. Question: are the ideas true or supportable? If so, then that’s reality speaking, and I’m afraid it’s going to be up to you to face whatever effect reality may have on your feelings. If not, then just let us know how you disagree.

With all due respect you don’t set the standard for discourse here, Tom does. And he’s recently, for good reason, asked us all to refrain from turning this into an insult-o-fest. So well I sometimes share your urge to let fly I think I’m going to try and stay reined in.

There’s a lot in your last comment — too much for one reply. Is there anything in there you’d prefer someone like me to focus on?

I think the expressions of hurt feelings here are absolutely ridiculous. If you don’t like the conclusions, try paying attention to what has been said and dealing with it rationally. Believe it or not, reality isn’t always complimentary to everyone, all of the time. Spare everyone the “ya done me wrong” baloney unless something wrong has actually been done.

Look at what was actually said:

TG: “Still, I guarantee you that many evolutionary scientists choose to believe in evolution at least partly because it takes God out of the equation forever. Not all, but many. In their case it is a spiritual as well as a scientific issue.”

Note the use of the phrase, “Not all, but many”. That’s not an expression of bigotry, that’s a limited expression of a supportable fact. Likewise, this is simply a logical necessity:

TG: “Atheists must be evolutionists: If you are committed to atheism, then you are committed to evolution…”

That’s not really subject to debate. Why?

TG: “…because there isn’t any other idea on the table that could even begin to explain where we all came from.”

That is why “no evidence that could ever be brought before you could ever make the slightest difference,” if (IF) you are “committed” to atheism. There is no other explanation consistent with atheism, and so those who are committed to atheism above all else have no choice but to defend evolution and naturalism, no matter what evidence is given to them.

“Materialism” and “Naturalism” are what they are, and they certainly do make absolute statements about the existence of the supernatural. If you can explain how a “materialist” can believe in the non-material, or a “naturalist” can believe in the supernatural, please do. Otherwise, spare us the misplaced moral outrage. Next, you’ll be telling us that “atheism” doesn’t necessarily preclude belief in God.

I don’t think the one-word difference in the book sub-title has any substantive impact on the point at hand. Prove…reveal…one way or another, the intent of the subtitle was to indicate that there’s sufficient evidence to make a definite conclusion…unless you think it’s possible to “reveal” that which does not exist.

And I don’t think we need this point in order to prove (yes, prove) that Dawkins is philosophically obtuse. He’s an excellent rhetorician, but philosophically, he’s about as sharp as a ballpoint pen. Dawkins is exactly the kind of blowhard you hear saying the kind of things Tom alluded to:

When you hear, “science proves there’s no God,” or “science proves God had nothing to do with creation,” or anything of the sort, what they’re really saying is, “my version of science, which assumes there is no God, says there is no God.”

That’s Dawkins, no doubt.

“Quote-mining” implies dishonestly selecting certain sentences to say something the speaker did not intend. Tom’s not doing that, either. Lewontin isn’t being mis-represented in that excerpt. In fact, that’s an assertion that’s been made, in one form or another, by quite a few atheists. For instance:

“Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”

That was Edwin Hubble reacting to his own observations of redshift. This is exactly what Tom is talking about, applied to astronomy. Hubble didn’t like the theological implications of what he saw, and so he chose to rationalize them for no other reason than his commitment to atheism. The idea that Earth might appear to be a “favored” position was a “horror” to him.

So, Tony, your charges of “taking liberties” are just plain silly. Lewontin’s position isn’t uncommon – and I think the ample material available from Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Hubble, Sagan, etc. etc. make that fairly clear.

Tom was in no way implying that atheists are by definition more closed-minded than Christians. He was making a logical, rational statement about the compatibilities of certain worldviews with certain theories of origin. The puzzling hostility to certain ideas about origins is explicable by this fact: they may not be compatible with a person’s preferred worldview.

Jared,

Your comment about “well supported” ideas seems to assume that there is no philosophical prejudice possible on the part of the atheist. By definition, a person who thinks that the evidence points towards a supernatural origin isn’t an atheist. Those who are committed to atheism must be committed to naturalism. If you feel that’s “pigeon-holing”, then you must feel the same about the statement that triangles must have three sides.

Tom made it clear that the mindset leading to outright rejection of unpleasant evidence is that of the “committed” atheist. If you’re truly willing to let evidence lead where it will, even if that means towards a supernatural God, then you’re obviously not the subject of that assessment.

Your remark about “magic”, though, says you probably are. That’s exactly what I get time and again from the “committed” atheist. To such a person, anything that seems to contradict naturalism is simply beyond belief, and cannot be taken seriously. If evidence itself isn’t “good enough reason”, then nothing will be.

Don’t take the bigoted thing so hard — I think I made a mistake in not seeing how my characterization of your statement would accost you personally. I meant for you to see that your statement could be characterized as bigoted, not that you yourself are therefore a bigot. That word probably has too many other ugly connotations for it to be fairly used in polite discourse, and I now regret having pulled it from off the shelf.

I believe quite sincerely that in the narrow terms in which I was speaking, there is a difference between theism’s and atheism’s ability to consider the possibility of alternate interpretations of evidence regarding origins.

Apparently in your mind that translates to being “obstinately (prejudicially) sure of your superiority and the inferiority of another.” In my mind it is a reasoned conclusion from the premises of each position.

If we cannot follow premises to their conclusions without being charged with flaws in our character, then how are we going to proceed? How are we going to be able to discuss what it actually means to be a theist or an atheist? I think this approach can be very damaging to discourse.

I’m sorry that you cannot see that I am learning through the process. (Is that a bigoted response on your part?)

You say I “amped up” the definitions of materialism and naturalism. No, I did not. I gave accurate definitions.

I was quoting the subtitle of Dawkins’s book from memory. Apparently I got it wrong. Another error for which I must apologize. But taken in view of Dawkins’s body of writings, he most certainly does consider “a universe without design” to have been proven to a confidence far better than 99%.

I linked to Lewontin’s article. You can read it for yourself. Don’t call it a quote-mine, please, unless you can show how the section I quoted from distorts his overall flow of thought.

But your point seems to be that Lewontin isn’t unusual, and that atheists in general are close-minded in comparison to Christians.

The heading of that paragraph was “Committed Naturalists (Atheists).” The attitude I was speaking of is not unusual among committed naturalists. Not all atheists (or even naturalists) fit that description, but those who do, do. And naturalism itself, or atheism itself, is necessarily closed-minded to any but one interpretation of the evidence. There I stand until someone shows me otherwise, by some method other than accusing me of a character flaw for being the kind of person who would notice that this is a valid conclusion to draw from naturalism’s premises.

But your point seems to be that Lewontin isn’t unusual, and that atheists in general are close-minded in comparison to Christians.

My take on this is that Tom is saying the Christian worldview allows explanations that the atheistic worldview doesn’t allow by definition, and so the atheistic worldview (not the person) is closed to these possibilites. There is nothing within atheism qua atheism that is open to Christian explanations. Doing so means atheism is agnostism.

The atheist (the person), however, is free to be open to Christian explanations. This too sounds like agnosticism but that’s another discussion for another day. Hair splitting? Maybe.

Tom: Am I close? What did I win?

My definition for bigotry is along the lines of “to be obstinately (prejudicially) sure of your superiority and the inferiority of another.” (Do you really need me to justify how your original statement could read as bigotry?)

I appreciate your apology – thank you . However, this appeared to be a well-thought out post; you had gone to the trouble of highlighting texts in sections, mentioned that you were teaching this as part of a course, were using a book as reference, etc. So I was less likely to excuse your conclusions as something that you hadn’t thought through more clearly – this post read, at least to me, like a finished draft of something like the Gilson Doctrine.

But it’s hard for me to take this seriously, even with your corrections, because you are taking so many liberties with the subject material. Here are some examples:

- Your definitions of materialism and naturalism are “amped up” to be prohibitive philosophical views that make absolute statements about the existence of the supernatural. These read as straw dog definitions.
- You incorrectly state that the subtitle of The Blind Watchmaker is “Why the Evidence of Evolution PROVES a Universe Without Design.” It is not – the actual subtitle is “Why the Evidence of Evolution REVEALS a Universe Without Design.” This is not a trivial error; it sets up the rest of your paragraph so that you can one-up Dawkins with the fact that God’s existence cannot be disproven. It would be a convenient way to write off Dawkins as philosophically obtuse, if only it were true.
- You use an enigmatic Lewontin quote (which I agree is kind of spooky) to imply that scientists are capable of issuing decrees or that scientists are capable of matching in lockstep to a dogma. The history of scientific achievement is one of competition and one-upmanship, not of conformity and blind adherence. Lewontin’s quote is a ramble, and reads like a quote mine.

You wrote:

Lewontin quite clearly said he would never go there; he is absolutely committed to his materialistic atheism. But not every atheist is a Lewontin. We’re agreed on that, okay?

I agree with this. (Although I think that Lewontin would say that his commitment to materialism is a governing philosophy of how he conducts science, and that his atheism flows from his understanding of the world.) But your point seems to be that Lewontin isn’t unusual, and that atheists in general are close-minded in comparison to Christians.

If that’s not the conclusion I should take away from the posting and your comments, then I apologize and will, on your request, re-read everything.

That barrier, to us, is essentially asking us to believe in magic when no good reason has been given to us to do so.

Not magic, not a trick. We’re essentially asking you to believe in something outside the natural order of things, with the minimal facts surrounding the resurrection event being one good reason to do that.

You wrote,

Again, we have a strict logical necessity to choose the strongest theory, which just so happens to be Darwin.

That’s not a “strict logical necessity.” Persons do not have strict logical necessities to do anything, including to make the choices they make. Strict logical necessities have to do with strictly necessary conclusions to logical arguments, which is what I was talking about.

It bothers you that, in your words, I am “attempting to pigeonhole atheists as close-minded.” But as I said, this is a learning process. It is atheism that is closed-minded, specifically on the matter of origins.

I agree with what you have said just now: atheists do not have to follow atheism where it leads. You can evaluate evidence independently of your worldview. It’s psychologically difficult for any person to do that kind of thing, but it’s certainly not impossible.

Lewontin quite clearly said he would never go there; he is absolutely committed to his materialistic atheism. But not every atheist is a Lewontin. We’re agreed on that, okay?

I can definitely see where Tony’s complaints are coming from, because it does appear you are attempting to pigeonhole atheists as close-minded. Speaking for myself and many fellow atheists – yes, Tom, we can consider a non-Darwinian answer. We can even consider a supernatural answer, as I have personally, and I/we are open to the possibility that everything we’ve believed about the fundamental nature of reality has been wrong all along. We simply haven’t seen enough evidence to support that.

Again, we have a strict logical necessity to choose the strongest theory, which just so happens to be Darwin. And I think the psychological barriers you speak of are real, but I also think they are justifiably erected. That barrier, to us, is essentially asking us to believe in magic when no good reason has been given to us to do so.

By the way, you made it very easy on me by limiting the hypothetical to conclusive evidence. I had a breakfast meeting at 6:00 so I took advantage of the easy way out that offered me, when I answered at 5:47.

The really interesting question is, “how would I respond if there were strongly suggestive (not conclusive) evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead?” I would have to say this: the evidence that he did rise from the dead is strong, provided that one does not approach the question with anti-supernatural presuppositions. I would have to compare one evidence against another.

Obviously I have a position on the subject already. I wouldn’t be coming at the question from a cold, uninvolved, objective standpoint. I would need to be convinced that this new evidence was powerful enough to overturn my beliefs. That’s just being realistic.

The closer a belief or opinion is to the core of one’s whole view of life, the more it takes to overturn it. For me to give up my belief in Jesus Christ would be a big deal.

So now let’s take this question back to the issue at hand, which is origins. (It’s very easy to lose track of the issue at hand, isn’t it?) For me to accept common descent, gradualism, an old universe, and other related conclusions would not require me to alter the core of my belief system. My worldview of theism does not lock me into one opinion on origins or natural history at all.

Atheism, however, is committed to the broad Darwinian version of life’s development. A person who is as strongly committed to atheism as I am to Christianity could look at evidences and weigh them, but could not even consider a non-Darwinian answer without at the same time considering, “If I entertain this possibility, I’m also opening up myself to the possibility that everything I’ve believed about the fundamental nature of reality has been wrong all along.”

There is in atheism a strict logical necessity to choose the broad Darwinian answer, at least until someone proposes an alternative naturalistic possibility, which hasn’t happened yet.

For atheists, that strict logical necessity translates into this: to entertain alternatives to Darwinism is to entertain alternatives to one’s core worldview. I’ve seen people do this with real honesty, and I’ve seen them actually change their opinions. I’m not saying it can’t be done, or that any particular reader here is incapable of looking at the evidence for what it is. I am saying that for a committed atheist to do that would require him to surmount much greater psychological barriers than would be required of a theist.