If you are not (as I referred to here) a believer in Christ with a gift from God that you dream of using for his glory, then I ask, is it because you are not a believer? Why on earth not? There is more than enough reason to be confident in the truth of Christ, and to be assured that he offers you the only life that is true life.
Or are you a Christian with no gift from God? I say no; he has gifted all believers with both natural and spiritual gifts (Romans 12:3-8). Then are you a believer with no dream of using your gift for his glory? Why on earth not? That makes no more sense than not believing in Christ at all!
It need not be a public gift; what counts is what God gave you, what fits in his plan for you. The world needs your service and your contribution: dream of using what God gave you to make the greatest impact you can for his glory.
Hello,
I have no belief in God. With respect to your question, there is zero reason to believe in God, mostly because the concept of God is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it’s an artificial construct.
Secondly, as you assert “there’s more than enough reason to be confident in the truth of Christ, and to be assured that he offers you the only life that is true life.” You appear, by making this statement, to be reinforcing the institutionalized arrogance of religions in general: “MY God is the best God, and all you others out there are wrong.”
Furthermore, the first part of your sentence, “…confident in the truth of Christ…” What truth? A quasi-legitimized discrimination of gays? blacks? hispanics? non-Christians? Women’s rights? Christians are guilty of all of these discriminations going back centuries. How many thousands of pages were written while banging on the bible, trying to legitimize slavery?
A simple extension of your logic (which has no basis set or metric, another fatal flaw) then appears to legitimize the murders committed by David Kopp, Paul Hill, et al.
Think about this for a second: since your convictions against abortion are 100% religiously based, and you and your kind continue to make EVERY effort to make abortions illegal, then how are you NOT trying to make the U.S.A. a theocracy? I’m an atheist, yet I would be forced to abide by your religious beliefs…the First Amendment prohibits that, yet you people march happily on, ignorant of this fact. What, then, makes you any better than Muslims? Look at how well their theocracies have gone over the past centuries
Stephen,
Given the ignorance you display of Christianity in general, but of Tom Gilson and this blog in particular, I have to wonder if you’ve ever read any of Tom’s posts in the past.
LG
Dear Lawrence –
I find it comical that you begin this purported dialog with a personal insult. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, the last 4 being with the Marianist brothers at an all-boys high school.
Further, Tom blogs on several different websites and I’ve read them all, as well as the ones where his writings appear to have been simply copied and pasted.
Third, the fact that you begin with a personal attack and simply ignore the facts I present now provide direct evidence or your ignorance.
Instead of beginning with such anencephalopathic remarks, I suggest you address my assertions, point-by-point, like normal, mature, logical debate.
S
Stephen,
I think a sense of proportion is lacking when you call on Lawrence to answer you “point by point.” I don’t think anyone here is really required to respond to a commenter point by point.
A sense of proportion is also lacking when you say there is “zero reason” to believe in God. You might believe there is inadequate reason to believe in God, but to say there is zero reason actually does send a definite signal of ignorance (or else extreme carelessness in reasoning). Lawrence responded to that signal proportionately: he did not say you were ignorant of Christianity or my blogging; he simply wondered if you were.
I wonder, too, about your sense of proportion in your description of Christianity in your third paragaph. Or maybe it’s your knowledge of history that’s at fault. If you understood the status of women in ancient Greece and Rome, for example, and how radically Christianity improved it; or if you recognized how women were treated in places like China and India before Christianizing influence arrived, or in the Islamic world where Christianizing influences are rejected; or if you knew how universal slavery was throughout the world until it faded away and was finally outlawed in Christian Europe, and how rarely (if ever) slavery has been abolished anywhere apart from Christian influence; or if you knew how the Church struggled against abuses of governmental power in South America; then perhaps you would realize that describing Christianity solely in terms of its abuses in those realms is completely disproportionate.
A sense of proportion would also reveal to you that David Kopp and Paul Hill are not representative of Christianity, nor does extending Christianity’s logic lead to the conclusion you have suggested.
I admit my convictions against abortion are based in my belief in God: if there is no God, then there is nothing wrong with abortion. But then, I would also say that if there is no God, there is nothing objectively wrong with racism or murder. I don’t call that bias as you do, though; I consider it knowledge based on evidences.
Still, a sense of proportion ought to reveal to you that it is not “trying to make the U.S.A a theocracy” if we use the democratic process to promote our values. Presumably you, too, use the democratic process to promote your values. I’m in favor of your democratic rights to do that. Do you oppose mine?
A sense of proportion would have recognized that Lawrence’s use of “I wonder” wasn’t really a “personal attack.” It was a question, and yes, it did call you into question (and I am quite intentionally doing the same in a different way right now) but I wouldn’t call it an attack. Have you seen the real attacks on websites like Pharyngula?
A sense of proportion would have led most persons to refrain from calling someone else anencephalopathic. (A sense of the Starbucks Standard would have, too. I assume since you’ve read my blog so carefully you know what that is, so I won’t bother linking to it. Use the search function, though, if my assumption on that is incorrect.)
With a sense of proportion you would not have had to ask what makes Christianity better than Islam? Try counting the death tolls in the past several months. Or years. Or decades.
And finally on this matter of proportionality: a sense of proportion would have led you to recognize the self-reflective irony in your calling Lawrence to “normal, mature, logical debate,” as if you had set some kind of example of that sort for him to follow.
I’m curious where you find my writings to have been copied and pasted. If someone is plagiarizing me, I’d like to know about it. If someone is using my work to good purpose, I’d like to know about that, too.
Your awareness of my blogging posture does seem to lacking when you put these words in my mouth: “MY God is the best God, and all you others out there are wrong.” Have you read the motto at the top of my blog? It’s been there in every version of this blog for five years now. For almost as long it has been explained in a page linked from the top of “At the Core,” which is prominently featured in the sidebar, and might be helpful reading for anyone who is interested in what’s at the core of my beliefs. I’ll let you read it if you’re wondering why I consider your quote a misrepresentation of my position.
I ought also to point this out while I’m at it, Stephen. You wrote to Lawrence,
Actually, “direct evidence or [sic] … ignorance,” exists when one shows one’s actual lack of awareness or understanding of the issue in question. It does not obtain when one chooses not to address an issue. I have not chosen in this thread to mention the German 6th chord (until now, that is), but that is not evidence that I am ignorant of it. I haven’t mentioned the arguments for or against gay rights in this thread, either, but that is not evidence that I’m ignorant of them.
Even to misidentify what constitutes direct evidence of ignorance, as you have certainly done here, is not direct evidence of ignorance on your part. It could be evidence of bias or carelessness in reasoning instead. Or something else; you can feel free to let us know what led you to call it what you did.
Dear Tom –
No, no one here is “required” to address things point-by-point; it’s just common courtesy in debate.
To your second paragraph, give me one shred of empirical evidence that justifies belief in any supreme being; There is none and it’s tautologic to suggest I am somehow ignorant of this purported “fact” you present. Feel free to read the theses by Quentin Smith and Stephen Hawking (yes, THAT Stephen Hawking) that easily disprove the existence of a supreme being. Don’t get me wrong: there’s lots of anthropologic evidence to support the notion of belief systems that has nothing to do with actual existence of a deity. There’s also ample anthropologic evidence to support that belief systems, were most definitely necessary from a survival point of view.
In your third paragraph, you appear to be making the same errors that most Christians make. I’ll never understand the origin of this view – that cherrypicking positive historical examples somehow justifies or sweeps under the carpet the atrocities that went on, in many cases contemporaneously, with the historical positive aspects that religions afforded certain subgroups. It is here that “you”, both as an individual and as a group, lack proportion. It’s disingenuous of you to suggest that “slavery was abolished” because of christian influence, since it was that same Christian influence that actually was the quasi-legitimizing factor in the retention of slaves in the Confederacy. Indeed the KKK continues to use the Christian bible to legitimize discrimination and, in extreme cases, extermination. For the record, are you disagreeing w/ the KKK? Because you clearly agree w/ at least some of their tenets, in principle.
Perhaps I am disproportionate when referring to Kopp and Hill. It’s more for demonstrative reasons, however: religions have no basis set, no metric against which to measure the degree of their believers’ actions. You exemplify this mistake, however, although in a more subversive manner, that Christian Americans continue to make, when you try to defend illegalization of abortion via “democratic” means in your para’s 5, 6: That’s the point of the First Amendment, Tom. It’s irrelevant that you’re attempting to use democratic means. You say that “…if we use the democratic process to promote our values.” Tom, they’re NOT MY VALUES!! Your use of the pronouns “our” and “we” could not be more arrogant. This is completely the point of separation between church and state. I’m in favor of your right to free speech and would defend it to the death. HOWEVER, since you have no inherent metric, you roll right over the First Amendment which guarantees me the freedom FROM religion, which Christian groups constantly ignore. How can you not see, or have the integrity to admit that promotion of a Christian legal agenda not only discriminates against all other religious groups, but undermines the Constitution itself? Have you not read the Federalist papers or noted the bitter arguments by Hamilton, Franklin, Burke, Jefferson, et al. on this very topic?
I’m frankly stunned by your syllogistic failure in your para. 5 – yet another error made by Christians. By your logic, an atheist has no moral compass, so that, since I’m raising my kids devoid of religion, I must be raising serial killers. This theme ties into your para. 9. Have anywhere nearly as many wars throughout human history been prosecuted based on atheism? The two themes that cover over 99% of all wars are religion and ambition. I most definitely discriminate against ALL religions that justify the killing of others, which all religions have been guilty off for thousands of years (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Moor wars, 30-Years War, 100-years war, etc., ad nauseam).
Sure, I violated your Starbuck’s Standard; and I apologize, but it’s because of my anger: historical cherrypicking and your (pl.) chronic attempts to just legitimize the legal agenda by couching it behind the “democratic” process flouts both the spirit and the substance of the Constitution. And sure, my response was less than professional to L, but to defend his quips as more professional is just silly.
Yes, unfortunately I’ve seen your blogs cut/pasted elsewhere on other right-wing websites and it’s in fact how I arrived at this website. The trail was somewhat difficult as you were not cited as the author in 2 of them, yet the prose was obviously yours (taken verbatim from “Hate is not…”).
Your last para. is simply hypocritical. While I did use phrasing that was sophomoric, the tone is nevertheless perfectly accurate. How else can I reconcile your resolute positions on trying to force other Americans, via LEGAL means, no less, to abide by your religious convictions were it not for the attitude that Christianity is the only true religion?
Feel free – I URGE you – to practice whatever religion you want (the Constitution guarantees it). Raise your kids that way, build your churches, burn your science books, have your prayer groups, go on retreats, write your blogs. But the moment you try to force me to legally abide by baseless and horrifically oppressive convictions of this now-useless anthropologic vestige, you’ll get a prompt response, because you’re taking away my freedoms and supplanting them with what I consider subhuman behavior – that of freely ceding your capacity for reason.
As to your quick follow-up point, Tom – we both know that the word “ignorance” has several connotations – three of which it appears are used in these exchanges, so, while I get your point, I’m not so hard and fast to hold one to a single usage.
Stephen, you asked:
You are asking for proof (“justifies belief”) but are using the term “evidence.” That’s sloppy argumentation. I see I’m going to need to define terms here. Evidence is that which, if true, increases the probability of a conclusion (justified belief in God, in this case). It is not necessary for evidence to fully justify a conclusion—it doesn’t have to amount to proof—in order to be counted as evidence.
Rather than offering you a “shred of evidence” in favor of a supreme being, I point you to my blog’s topic area on evidence. I think you’ll find at least a shred there; some non-zero level of evidence in favor of Christianity.
Apparently you lack knowledge of the relevant history. I’m sorry about that. I suggest Rodney Stark as an ameliorative.
I’ll respond to just one key part of your angry next paragraph:
Apparently you are imposing a religious test on legislation. That’s inherently biased, prejudiced, and by the way also unconstitutional.
Oh, heavens, no, I didn’t even come close to saying that. I didn’t say, “If there is no belief in God, then there are no moral values or behavior.” I said, “if there is no God, then there is nothing objectively wrong with racism or murder.” I’m not talking about the behavioral effects of believing there is no God; I’m talking about the ontological status of morality if there is no actually existing God. There’s quite a difference, and it’s frankly stunning how often atheists misinterpret it.
Before I answer this, let me ask you this: Is atheism a belief? (Most atheists I’ve interacted with here say it isn’t.) My further answer will depend on how you respond.
Thank you for admitting you’ve violated the standard. Please be aware that I enforce it when people continue to violate it. I continue to hold that L.’s response was more professional, and I think I have provided adequate reasons for my opinion.
I don’t think you followed the link I recommended there. You would have responded completely differently if you had understood what I wrote there. You see, I do believe Christianity is the only true religion, but I would never write, “MY God is the best God,” for some nuanced yet extremely important reasons you’ll find at that link.
Proportion, my friend, proportion. I’m sorry for your anger. It’s misinformed and out of proportion to the facts.
With respect to what you said on my follow-up:
You accuse Christians of leaving reason behind, but you defend both equivocation and insult as a means of debate. I don’t get how you can support that.
Hi, Tom –
I probably should have told you this, but I’m almost done with my PhD in something called chemical physics. I read your “topic area on evidence” – What a bummer…it’s clear you have no scientific training.
In a nutshell, science doesn’t care about scale – like at all…so your premises that it just happens “in the small” and that it’s “particulars upon particulars…” is simply false. As a matter of fact, while we work in the realm of the small (me, personally, I use the Planck scale), the phenomenologies are, nevertheless, manifested quite large – both physically as well as universally. I cite 2 examples: 1) in using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, I’m exploiting a very weak aspect of most atomic nuclei (about 77% of the periodic table), yet I can get an entire sample to behave in like manner – on the order of grams. If I had a big enough magnet, I could get kilograms. Thankfully, I do – it’s called an MRI and so I’m 100kg and the gorgeous images you see are a direct result of your protons being perturbed and the quantum mechanical results of these perturbations are being recorded. As far as the “really large” the Three Laws are identical whether you’re using them here on Earth or observing them in a gaseous nebula 30 lightyears away…this is precisely the reason why life on this planet is most likely NOT unique, since we can “see” the spectral signature of sugars (trioses) literally thousands of lightyears away.
I lack knowledge of relevant history? I cite specific barbaric events directly resulting from religious conviction throughout history. I’m merely pointing out that religion is responsible for both beautiful and horrific actions on the part of people throughout history and that it’s irritating that Christians constantly cherrypick, which you’re clearly guilty of here, as well.
I most definitely impose religious testing legislation and no, it’s most definitely NOT unconstitutional. I notice that you fail to acknowledge the consequences if Americans like me do NOT hold the religious right to that metric: violation of the First Amendment. Violation of the separation of church and state and yes, theocracy. What difference is there between the “Defense of Marriage Act” and the Latteran Compact? none.
As you say: “if there is no God, then there is nothing objectively wrong with racism or murder.” Yes, this is syllogistic error – type I. Your major premise is false, as I just pointed out. Why do you appear to require that some deity is imparting morality on humans? There is no need for a deity in the first place,
There is no “ontological status” of morality, because it’s not a physical object. If you care to include it, it’s a very loose means of skirting it through the door, which leaves your open to clear epistemologic failure, as evident here.
No, atheism is an absence of belief in a deity – as the etymology of the word imparts…
I would never lift a hand to another, unless i had to defend my family – religious extremists, regardless of denomination, think nothing of it. For me, religion and god are poison, yet as an atheist, my attitudes are far far less violent than those with religious conviction.
Of course you would never write “my God is the best God” – you’re too polished and erudite for that. But we both know that’s irrelevant, since your writings and, I assume, your actions are imbued with the spirit of the sentence. Great that you admit the so-called “arrogance of belief”.
I present historical data, I present facts and I continue to notice that you do not acknowledge the myriad, gross, historical atrocities for which religion is DIRECTLY responsible……….Yes, my anger is evident, but the arguments are not disproportionate and quite well-informed on the facts. The reason why they are well-proportioned is quite simple: you(pl.) propose to change the very nature of American society by your ulterior legal agenda. This is why my responses are entirely proportionate. you again clearly do not realize the scope or magnitude of what you Christians are proposing.
If I have insulted you indirectly, I apologize, but I see no direct insult in my responses here. But I’m sure not defending equivocation, nor do I ever employ it – I thought that I was quite UNequivocal in my responses, as I see no room at all for compromising my right to live in a secular society.
First, Stephen, I don’t see much in your comment to show that you understood what I wrote about particulars, or that you read anything else further down that page on evidences.
You said atheism is absence of belief. Now, let’s apply that definition to your prior question:
This can be re-written,
Wars are not prosecuted based on beliefs that people do not have. They are based on beliefs and/or desires that people do have. So where does that lead us, then?
Stalin positively believed in a godless universe. So did Mao. I think Pol Pot probably did too. Not only that, but based on their Marxist ideology, they actively proselytized that belief, and prosecuted wars to advance that belief (and the entire mindset wrapped up together with it). Russia dominated dozens of countries to advance that atheistic ideology.
If I say they were fighting for atheism, the typical response (which I rather expect from you) would be that they were not fighting for atheism, because atheism is not a belief. So I yield the point to you, based on your definition, which I will grant you provisionally, for purposes of keeping things simple (even though I think it’s a form of special pleading). Let’s suppose there have been no wars prosecuted in support of atheism.
There were, however, tens of millions killed during the twentieth century in support of belief in a godless universe.
Data? Where, please? All you’ve presented are vague allusions to what you take to be historical information, without specifics, without context, and without measurement. Would you call that kind of thing data in the lab?
And what have I failed to acknowledge? I acknowledged that Christianity has committed errors. But I presented historical perspective, urging you to view things proportionately. You originally presented these atrocities as being descriptive of what Christianity actually is in its essence. I pointed out that in order to be descriptive, it needs to be balanced with respect to the entire historical picture. I’m the one who is resisting the cherry-picking.
By the way, if the question is whether religion is responsible for atrocities, well, I freely acknowledge that religion has been horrible in many cases and many places. Really, really, really bad. Islam is horrifyingly prejudicial against women. So was Hinduism until Christianity came. Hinduism is also incredibly racist and classist. Islam is often violent. Many tribal religions have committed horrible atrocities, including child sacrifice.
I’m not defending religion, and I don’t care to defend it. I am defending Christianity, which has a different track record entirely. I don’t think you’re fully aware of its track record. I can’t recount it all here. I do recommend Rodney Stark to you, once again.
You’re kidding, right?
Do you recognize that in saying morality is not a physical object, you are assigning an ontological status to it?
Do you recognize that to say that x has no ontological status is to presume some ontological status for x? That the statement is therefore self-defeating?
The closest I can think of to a non-self-defeating version of your statement would be, “Morality does not exist because it’s not a physical object.” Of course in that case numbers do not exist, propositions do not exist, justice does not exist, love does not exist. I do not say that you believe any of that. I say this just to point out to you that even a non-self-defeating approximation of “morality has no ontological status…” is unreasonable.
You have said that Christianity is unreasoning, and yet you make a mistake like this? How ironic.
I think this what you’re saying:
A. Tom, you are attempting to do bad things with your ulterior legal agenda.
B. I am resisting you with arguments.
C. My arguments are well-proportioned because they are directed against your ulterior legal agenda.
Again I find it ironic that you accuse Christianity of abandoning reason. Even if (A) were true, there’s absolutely nothing there that would make (C) follow from it. Not even within laughable distance. Your complaints about Christianity’s historical track record are proportionate just if you take the historic facts into account proportionately. The use for which you employ an argument does not determine the validity of the argument. You know that, don’t you??
As to being well-informed, all I can say is that there are none so deaf as those who say they are listening when they are not.
sigh…
…another Aristophanes award winner… of the Bill Maher pedigree.
Stephen:
I have a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from MIT; Lawrence Gage has a Ph.D. in physics from Columbia, Heddle also has a Ph.D. in physics. Your “almost done with a Ph.D. in chemical physics” is irrelevant chump change — especially in light of your ignorance of areas to which the modern empirical sciences do not apply.
Don’t worry: you’re in the same league as DL and olegt (Ph.D.’s physics) who also can’t get beyond their scientism and ignorance and straw men. Quentin Smith? Arch-scientismist of the Quinean variety? Hawkins who tried to disprove the existence of God using, cough, mathematics? Do you have any clue about which you speak?
And, the next time you want to disparage the Catholic faith with your so-called “experience,” this Thomist (yes, I also have a degree in philosophy) cannot take up the offer because I was told it is unfair to enter into intellectual battles with the unarmed. That’s not an insult; that’s a fact. What a bummer: it’s clear you have no philosophical training.
Atheism killed far more people in the 20th century than all religious wars combined throughout the ages. Deal with it… and peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
Hmm…
I think a near-Ph.D. in any physical science is an impressive accomplishment. I think, though, that it is sad for one to reach that stage without knowing more about where science is relevant and where it is not. And to achieve it without acquiring a solid grip on the tools of logic is really grievous.
Holopupenko:
You’ve precisely proven my point in your first paragraph, but you appear to have missed that fact, though I don’t know why. I am guessing that it’s your anger, as I, too, am angry. So much for the efficacy of your namedropping MIT, Columbia, etc. – nicely superficial of you.
As for you mentioning Lawrence Gage, you again prove my point. It’s then clearly irrelevant what school graduated you – it’s the TRAINING that matters. You two are scientists. You two should know better: religion should be relegated to the social aspects of society and NOT the legal ones. You are forced to agree with me that religions have no basis sets that commute, despite the fact that they should (they’re all purportedly referring to one God). As for Hawking/Smith, you learned in your first year of grad school that \hat{T} – \hat{K} = 0 – there’s no God energy, is there? that’s not just math – you SHOULD remember this formula, as it’s the heart of physics. What are the SI units of God, then?
Tom opened the door, and I went right in, knowing that the page was logically vacuous. You should read his link to his “science” page before you speak. You should obviously call him on the fact that he not only dismisses my perfectly valid scientific points, since you are a scientist, but that his ignorance of science and the Scientific Method is all too obvious. The fact that he doesn’t even address it tells me he likely doesn’t even understand my point though, again, I thought it was explicit.
I can easily ‘get beyond the scientism’ as you put it – you again fail to see the bigger argument, so I’ll spell it out for you: In secular societies, legislators use metrics (labor statistics, economic data, census data, etc.). However extrapolated and somewhat flimsy they sometimes may be, they’re nevertheless used to justify passing laws that govern the way we behave, pay taxes, allocate funds, budgeting, etc. You are FORCED to agree with me that, the moment societies allow religion in as a factor, despite the fact that self-consistent religious metrics are completely non-existent, you have theocracy. I again ask how well theocracies in history have performed? There’s nothing in religion against which one can compare or measure – no basis sets – how does one maintain orientation? How does one maintain perspective? As Tom continues to ironically mention – how does one maintain proportion? It’s impossible. However feeble the attempts our largely useless politicians may make at legislation, they at least use quasi-measurable quantities.
As for your para. 3 in your response – have you noticed that Tom has said nothing about how arrogant and rude you are? So, as a Catholic, you would have supported the Lateran Compact? You would have supported Pope Sixtus V in his execution of fellow scientist Fra Giordano Bruno during the Roman Inquisition? How about Galileo (a fellow physicist), who died under the same brutality? You stand by Ratzinger and his buffering of all the pedophile cases that have come to light in the last 50 years, alone? Since you do not appear to have read my previous responses, I am critical of ALL religions, precisely because
In para. 4 of your response, you make the freshman error of numbers vs. percentages. How could you make such a mistake? You have a sample size of one. Since you appear to not have read my previous responses, I cite CENTURIES’ worth of wars where ALL RELIGIONS are guilty. Besides, religion has never needed war to slaughter and execute.
You have failed at every retortive attempt, since you did not give thoughtful, respectful consideration to my points as I have to yours. You were rude and arrogant (which I have obviously used against you), yet I nevertheless respectfully responded to you. Peddle your nonsense elsewhere? That’s consistent with your ignorance of the First Amendment.
Aah, man, I’m like, feeling all left out here. I wrote you a long comment at 7:27 last night, and again at 7:53 this morning, and you didn’t respond to a word of it. Which is especially a shame, considering the way you criticized the quality of Holopupenko’s training. I mean, in my comments I identifed the following flaws in your argument:
1) Calling vague allusions “data”
2) Failing to put that so-called data in proper context for purposes of evaluting its significance
3) Accusing me of a failure to acknowledge your “data,” when in fact I had done so, to a level of detail equal to that which you presented
4) Conflating Christianity with religion in general
5) Multiple, serious logical failures with respect to “morality has no ontological status”
6) A gross non sequitur with respect to the proportionality of your arguments
Earlier I had also pointed out:
7) Your wildly inaccurate statement that there is “zero evidence” for a deity
8 ) Your inaccurate use of the term “direct evidence of ignorance”
9) Your sloppy argumentation with respect to “proof” and “evidence”
10) Your inaccurate interpretation of my statements regarding God and morality
Does that speak well of the quality of your own training? Really?
Let me quote a certain comment written by a certain commenter at 2:15 pm yesterday:
and at 5:26 pm yesterday, by the same commenter:
I’m not saying that’s actually a standard I would hold any commenter to; but when a commenter states that as his own expectation, one expects that commenter to adhere to it.
Let me continue now. Could you kindly explain with some level of precision (you are a scientist, after all) what the following means?
It seems to me the Venn diagrams for social aspects and legal aspects must overlap.
Could you kindly also explain how one can functionally operate a legal system with no religious implications whatsoever?
You say,
Religions — and also secularism and atheism — all offer claims and predictions that can be tested against one another.
I didn’t address it, Stephen, (except for pointing out briefly that you had misunderstood my arguments) because you didn’t give me anything to address. You stated some uncontroversial facts about how scientific reasoning works from small-scale to large-scale within the natural world, as if that refuted my argument relating to particulars. That’s not what my argument was about, though. It was about the way knowledge in general works, and that if one takes the stance that all knowledge is acquired through aggregating particulars, then one runs the serious risk of missing important knowledge.
I have in the past called Holopupenko for being overly caustic. But I don’t think his comments to you in his paragraph three are out of proportion. See points (1) through (10) above as a partial list of reasons why I agree with him. You are not evidencing any skill in philosophical reasoning, Stephen.
Metrics must be interpreted with respect to questions of value: what constitutes a good society? For example, what is marriage for? Is it more for the personal fulfillment of the partners, or is it more for the sake of the next generation? (Both factors are important to marriage, I believe, but the question I’m raising is how the two are balanced.) There is no metric that can answer that. The answer comes from deeply held worldviews, whether secular or religious.
I think you’re saying that in every case the secular answer should be preferred over the religious. That could work if there was such a thing as “the secular answer.” But there are many secular answers to every question. In fact, you have said that atheism is not a belief, so atheism cannot present us with any answers.
You ask how well theocracies have performed in history? They have done poorly; I don’t think the institutional church should have the power of the state. But for Christians to participate in the democratic process is not that.
On the other hand, how well has it worked for societies to build their legal process on religious principles? Well, that was, historically speaking, the basis for the Magna Carta, for one thing. Not too bad. Certainly better, than, say, the secular governments of Soviet Russia, Mao’s China, or any of the eastern European communistic systems.
Hi, Tom –
Scientific methodologies are relevant here, because they are a strict metric by which to demonstrate how religions are absent of any metric. Solid grip on logic? Your “particulars” webpage cannot stand up to even the most cursory of logical dissection. The attitude that you take, standing on some metaphoric high-horse, merely tells me that you can’t admit defeat – at least I have ceded you points. You, however, continue to ignore the fact the Christianity is just as guilty as all the other religions in terms of slaughter and repression throughout the ages.
Stark is a self-avowed right-wing Christian! What would be the point of reading his stuff, since what I’ve read so far is just as colored and skewed as your cherrypicked items you present? Do you not acknowledge the insidiousness of the Lateran Compact? Was the Roman Inquisition innocuous? How about the Spanish Inquisition?
As for your A->B->C above, you demonstrate that you have no deductive faculties, since neither A nor B nor C are syllogistically related, nor did I ever present them in that fashion. I’ve listened to every point you’ve made, but you have not reciprocated, so your last statement is just the same self-righteousness you continue to use, but it’s not furthering your cause.
Like I said previously, I addressed BOTH your “particulars” and “topic area on evidence” – maybe I’m not being clear enough??? Maybe you should read it more carefully? Humans generally look at the small, scientifically, because the equipment we can reasonably afford to make is good at the small. But again, you didn’t carefully read my response. The two scientists MUST agree that science simply doesn’t “care” about scale. Whatever happens at the small is always manifested in the big: I’m perturbing your protons, spin-1/2, either at the microscopic level (I’m actually doing 19-fluorine and 7-lithium as I write this) or at the macroscopic level with an MRI…how much bigger do you want than the whole universe? We see gorgeous snapshots of the Strong Force in action from the Hubble, yet we can also see it on a microscopic level, too (if we’re careful, mind you!).
Here’s one website for death tolls throughout the centuries: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatv.htm#African
As for your response to ontology of morality, your statement is false, because you’ve mixed up physical v. metaphysical.
Continuing my previous count:
11) Category Error. Metrics are not the only means of testing a proposition.
12) Unsupported blustering.
13) Special pleading. I have ceded you points also.
14) Historical error. Not a logical error in this case, but certainly an error.
15) Genetic fallacy.
16) See (13). I have acknowledged errors within Christian history. These would certainly be among them.
17) Over-stated conclusion; tendentious exaggeration.
18) Misunderstanding of “syllogism.” I didn’t call it a syllogism, and it isn’t one, technically speaking, because A isn’t a major premise and B isn’t a minor premise. I guess the fact that I wrote it in three labeled parts fooled you.
(19) But the fact is that my A-B-C was a indeed re-write of your argument in clearer form. For you to say that you didn’t write it as a syllogism does not obviate the fact that your statement contained a non sequitur. You had said that your approach was proportionate because of the purpose for which you were employing it. Your conclusion (the argument was well-proportioned) does not follow from the premise (you were employing the argument for a purpose you considered proportionately important).
Here’s how a related modus ponens syllogism might look:
a) If an argument is used for a proportionately important reason, that argument is well-proportioned.
b) My argument is being used for a proportionately important reason.
c) Therefore my argument is well-proportioned.
If one were to approach it that way, then my beef would be with the obviously false major premise.
20) Inaccurate statement. I have responded to just about every single point you have raised.
21) Finally something I agree with. If you have addressed these, you certainly haven’t been clear enough. Your response to “particulars” missed the point of the post (and so has your current repetition of that response), and you haven’t responded to anything else in my topic area on evidence.
22) Conflation of religion and Christianity; failure to include death tolls of atheistic regimes
23) Do you have even the slightest clue what “ontology” means???
You’re up to 23 now. Care to keep going?
I think I’m going to come in ahead of your answer to my final question with this, Stephen. You’re welcome to respond, but here’s where I’m going to go from here. I don’t expect you to agree with me, and there’s nothing at all logically or evidentially persuasive in what you’ve presented to me, so I don’t expect your next post to be any more likely to change my mind, either. So we’re at an impasse with each other, and all that leaves is the judgment of other readers. I’m inclined to let readers judge my responses based on what I’ve written so far. I don’t think I need to add to it, unless you come in with considerably more substance next time.
Feel free (if you wish) to say that I’m backing out of the discussion, or even retreating. At this point, I know there’s no way I could positively influence your opinion on my positions, so there’s no point in trying; and I’m willing to take my chances with others’ opinions.
Tom:
1) Calling vague allusions “data”
false. I’ve cited specific names of many wars and Inquisitions – go look up the historical estimates and tally the dead bodies. I gave you one website – I’m sure there are hundreds of sources.
2) Failing to put that so-called data in proper context for purposes of evaluting its significance
“hundreds of millions of dead people over the centuries” – that’s proper context.
3) Accusing me of a failure to acknowledge your “data,” when in fact I had done so, to a level of detail equal to that which you presented.
you didn’t – I was quite specific about the scientific issues I mentioned. Your webpage to which you pointed me is filled with specious threads which are put to rest with some simple scientific tools.
4) Conflating Christianity with religion in general
False, I’ve made several statements consistent with my profound disappointment with ALL religions. I’ve repeatedly made statements to the effect that they’re all equally poisonous.
5) Multiple, serious logical failures with respect to “morality has no ontological status”
False, as I noted above.
6) A gross non sequitur with respect to the proportionality of your arguments
I’ve given examples of religiously based persecution over a period of centuries. I also thought I made no equivocation whatsoever about how seriously I take your (pl.) attempts at removing the secular nature of this country.
Earlier I had also pointed out:
7) Your wildly inaccurate statement that there is “zero evidence” for a deity
This is just silly – you have zero evidence for a deity and you don’t have the integrity to admit that there is none. Give me something I can measure that there’s a deity (what are the SI units of God???). Absent of that, Christianity makes the same error as all the others “my religion is the best and everybody else is wrong”.. Prove it, Tom. I’ve given you ample examples of the historical horrors of which every religion is guilty. They’re all equally poisonous. People have justified the murder of countess millions over the centuries in the name of religion – where was “God’s hand” stopping them? And don’t give me some kindergarten rhetoric about “freewill”: you need to give me a reason that is INDEPENDENT of some specific religious dogma. We both know you can’t, because as you, yourself, pointed out (of course, conveniently omitting the slaughter on the part of the Christians), religions have exhibited horrible atrocities in the past as well as in the present and, I’m quite confident, for decades to come.
8 ) Your inaccurate use of the term “direct evidence of ignorance”
False. I’ve given explicit examples (see above).
9) Your sloppy argumentation with respect to “proof” and “evidence”
Your failure to present any evidence of a deity is, again, the crux of my initial writing. Trying to call my threads sloppy is just lazy. Where is it, Tom? Prove it. I can prove the photoelectric effect through experiment; the spin of an electron through experiment; the Weak Force through experiment. Don’t thousands of years of religiously-driven slaughter POINT you to the fact that all religions are false? Mathematically, this is called the convergence of a limit. The two scientists are FORCED to admit that this is precisely the pattern.
10) Your inaccurate interpretation of my statements regarding God and morality
Please, correct me, then. Morality is NOT bestowed upon us by some deity. Period. There is no deity. Like I said, before, Tom: am I raising my 3 kids as murderers? rapists? Why don’t you see the raging non-sequitur you’re committing here? Let’s assume for a moment that there is a God (and that he’s christian……..), how could It have done such a bad job of creating humans? There are 494 currently known species that exhibit homosexual behavior (humans included)…did he screw all of them up too? Do you see how your “morality” argument fails miserably here?
The two scientists are FORCED to admit that the entire universe can be described by 3 units of measure (length, mass, and time) and Three Laws of Thermodynamics. There are no God derivatives in any Lagrangians, no God Hamiltonians. It’s so thoroughly disappointing that they are wasting even a femtosecond of their time on religion and NOT on scientific/mathematical discovery. If the entire planet Earth was destroyed in a single cataclysmic celestial event, the universe wouldn’t even notice. Why is this concept so repugnant to humans? We really aren’t that special – and there’s nothing wrong with that. Why are humans so afraid of their own deaths? Haven’t you noticed that all religions are anthropocentric and they’ve killed scientists who have questioned this, only to be vindicated every time thereafter? Haven’t you noticed that the “morality” imparted by religions are artificial, variable and time-dependent?
There’s gorgeous, simply breathtaking beauty in the richness that is this universe. It’s because of our own simple primitive nature that we are still so ignorant that we don’t understand it all. That religion persists so robustly is testament to our own puny brains, and primitive, savage nature.
Please see above.
We began at an impasse, Tom. I request this from you: stop pushing a religiously driven legal agenda to force Americans to abide by your baseless religious convictions. I’ll do exactly what the Constitution spells out – defend your right to believe whatever you want to believe.
Oh, gosh – I just saw that you’re an Intelligent Design person – ugh! Dude, you’re in complete denial of the Three Laws. Please don’t call Intelligent Design science – it sure as hell isn’t empirical – I’ve asked you for empirical evidence like 20 times and you can’t do it! C’mon – you’re NOT a scientist – you’re so bad at faking it with ID.
Please – just stay out of the Constitution…I’ve never ever wanted to infringe on religious freedoms, yet you want to infringe on my right to be religion-free – how fair is that? Texas is already past the critical point of infection with Christian extremists like yourself – why not just move to Texas, then get them to secede?
Make me this promise – that you’ll stop trying to force women to abide by arbitrary religious belief. That you’ll leave at least one of the 494 species that exhibit homosexual behavior alone. I’ll promise to keep abiding by the Constitution as written.
Again, please see above.
so you don’t have the integrity to make that promise to me, Tom? This is the integrity about which I have spoken. So disappointing…
S
I missed something in your last comment. Yes, I will most gladly promise not to try to force women (homosexuals, too) to abide by arbitrary religious belief. I don’t have any regard for arbitrary religious belief myself.
oh, brother –
Tom – Christianity IS arbitrary religious belief. Unbelievable that you tried to pull that. Please don’t feign such naivete – that’s so irritating. Please promise that you will stop pushing a Christian legal agenda that discriminates against women by pushing anti-abortion legislation. Please promise that you will not support the Christian agends to legalize discrimination against homosexuals.
One more time, please see above. We’re at an impasse. I don’t buy your dogma, and if I were to pretend to do so, it would violate my integrity. You don’t buy my beliefs. We’re done with this conversation, Stephen.
You have no integrity, Tom. I caught you in the silly semantic trick and when I called you on it, you called the Constitution dogma.
You’re a very very intelligent individual, Tom. Your understanding of the Scientific Method is non-existent, but, barring the silly semantic tricks you pulled, you’re an outstanding debater.
I’m profoundly disappointed, though not surprised, that you can’t make that promise to me.
It’s been an excellent exercise for me and I thoroughly thank you for the opportunity to have communicated with you.
Sincerely,
Stephen
I’m content to let readers draw their own conclusions regarding integrity, silly tricks, non-existent understanding, and whether my use of “dogma” applied to the Constitution or to something else.
Should we ever debate again, though, I do hope you’ll refrain from character accusations like “you have no integrity.” That’s an extremely strong statement, not the kind of thing that fits the Starbucks Standard. I’ll be quicker to apply it in the future, having had this experience with you this time.
Hi, Tom –
I doubt we will debate again. You won’t make me that promise, which means you don’t have the integrity I was looking for.
Besides, there appears to be only one type of reader, here.
I cordially complimented you on your skills, sincerely thanked you for the engagement and you said nothing reciprocal in return – in fact, your response is pretty snarky. You appear to be violating your own Starbuck’s Standard, which I find odd. It’s ironic that I appear to be more “Christian” than you, or at least more of a gentleman w/r/t this exchange.
We will not debate again. Not here, anyway.
Now we can get on with the business at hand — forcing America to adopt our arbitrary religious beliefs.
Another day another dollar.
Being a biased reader I won’t bother sharing my take on this typical exchange.
Keep up the good work, Tom.
SteveK-
It’s so unfortunate that it appears that’s precisely what the Christian right is doing – fervently.
It should be illustrative that Tom has now blocked me from posting – so much for Freedom of Speech…
Stephen
Tom adds — I’ve decided to release this last post from Stephen for public view. Again, I’m content to let readers draw their own conclusions, though I would want to draw their attention to Stephen’s repeated charge that I have “no integrity,” including once after I had given him my usual fair notice regarding the discussion policies. Private citizens have the right to limit speech, especially speech of this sort, in their own living rooms and on their own blogs, too. — Tom, 10:35 am March 17
Poor stephen
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/researcher-condemns-conformity-among-his-peers/
An interesting concept
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090817-dark-energy-alternative.html
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/PNAS-AnswersToQuestions8-09.pdf
Wow, I’m gone for a couple of days and look at what I missed! I don’t know about anyone else, but about halfway through I started thinking stephen was just joking around.
He is… unfortunately the joke is on him.
Oh, and by the way: some free speech (unfettered if from atheists) is more equal than other free speech (to be banned if from Christians).
Stephen has inspired me to spread my biased religious beliefs about morality, God, abortion, marriage, etc. on other blogs in order to counter the biased non-religious beliefs of atheistic naturalists. Please join me if you can.