Don't Stereotype
by MikeGeneWith the New Atheist movement gaining some traction, and the Ben Stein movie promising to flare up the culture wars aspect of ID, I'd like to remind people of an important point* "“ don't stereotype. I would encourage people to read (or re-read) Steve Petermann's excellent essay, Stereotyping: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. As Steve notes:
So stereotypes can be of great help in navigating and dealing with the world. However, as many have noted there can also be problems with them. They can be both good, bad, and ugly. Since a stereotype is quick and doesn't require any reflection, if it wrongly represents the person or group it can mislead. What follows can be unfounded biases and prejudices. The bad of stereotypes is that since they tend to thwart doing the hard evaluative work they can be wrong with bad consequences. Now this mis-stereotyping can be bad, but there can also be an ugly aspect to stereotyping. The promotion of certain stereotypes can be dishonest. In this case certain people or groups try to pin a stereotype on other people that is not warranted. Since stereotypes are shared beliefs, when one is misapplied on purpose this dishonestly creates a false perception about a group in the public eye.
Since activists such as Dawkins and Harris may lead people to stereotype the entire scientific community as militant atheists wanting to eradicate religion, it is crucial not to be tempted by the bad and the ugly of stereotype. As critical thinkers, we must always remember four things.
1. Fact: almost 40% of scientists are religious.
2. Most scientists are not part of any socio-political movement. In fact, most scientists are too absorbed by their own research to give much thought or energy to any socio-political movement.
3. While people like Dawkins and Harris posture as Ambassadors of Science, it is crucial to remember that these are self-appointments and the scientific community itself did not confer this status upon these evangelists. People like Dawkins and Harris, who are activists that lead a movement, want to cloak their metaphysics and socio-political agenda with the authority of science and that's all it is.
4. Dawkins and Harris represent fringe elements of the scientific community, as this is clearly evidenced by the fact that they have to actively evangelize this community with their apocalyptic, anti-religious messages. Here is just one recent example of outreach.
So again, it is absolutely crucial not to judge an entire group by the words and actions of a few widely known members. And it's not just a question of ethics and principle, but it's also a question of being played. When Harris and Dawkins posture as Defenders of Science to make absurd and inflammatory anti-religious claims, they want you to criticize and ridicule all scientists instead of them and their movement. Part of their evangelism is that they want all scientists to feel like they are being attacked by religion. They want you to help them define the entire scientific community in their image. And if you stereotype, they will have succeeded.
* I really don't think I need to stress this point with our readers, as rarely do I see people here attacking all scientists. Furthermore, most readers seem to make the distinction between atheists and the New Atheists. But hopefully I might have stirred you keep an eye out for such stereotyping among your real life and cyber-friends, so you can correct them when needed.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
The Christian right has never been in the habit of vilifying scientists in general from the pulpit, unlike Dawkins and Harris vilifiying Christians.
I can't ever remember a sermon in the last 15 years that generally vilified science (and that's a good thing). That's not to say it's not out there, but it's not the typical way of doing things. Even D. James Kennedy made a point of citing scientists favorably…..
In contrast, the militant critics have an inherent dislike of religious folk.
I don't think the public is buying it yet that Dawkins and Harris represents science, only the media (unfortunately).
But the whole stem cell, abortion rights issue is tipping the balance a bit. Any more stories of orphan exploitation or experiments on embryos, human chimeras, human cloning, that could create a bit of outrage.
Believing evolutionary biology, not so much by comparison to the things above. Even a little persecution, not so much outrage. Human chimeras and cloning? Now that would be positively explosive.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 26, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Actually the only "science against religion" theme that the Discovery Insitute hosted was by a democrat, journalist, lawyer (who describes herself as a jew, not a Christian).
It was Pamela Winnick in her very good, non-inflammatory, investigative book: A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion. She actually makes appeals to those on the left to take note of what was happening.
She especially covered the Eugenics movement, an issue near and dear to those like Wesley Smith.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 26, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
I think I agree with Sal on this.
Ironically the biggest threat to science and scientific research are groups the new atheists are too cowardly to criticise like animal rights wackos, people who have actually perpetrated acts of violence against scientists and organizations who do animal related research, or else members of the new atheist group themselves.
After all, nobody on the ID side is saying atheists should not be allowed to pursue research they think is interesting, but the hysteria coming the other way is completely over the top.
The real irony IMO is that the "new atheists" with there posture of being "pro-science" and "pro-intellectual" is that in practice they are anti-science if it even hints at possibly challenging their metaphysic in a way even the most out there "creationist" does not come across as in my experience, and are profoundly ignorant of most of the topics they seek to criticise in the wider culture.
Why a "pro-science" and "pro-intellectual" group would pick representatives that are aggressively opposed to research they disagree with (Should we rename them Neo-Lysenkoists ?) and who at best look like ill-manner buffons when they try to speak on non-science topics, is a mystery to me.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 26, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 1:22 am
salvador said:
So what? The Christian right certainly vilifies atheists as a class.
Comment by mtraven — August 27, 2007 @ 1:22 am
August 27th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Not really. Certainly I have never encountered influential vocal members of the "Christian Right" who suggest that bringing children up with an atheist world view is an act of child abuse, nor have I seen them suggesting that atheists belong in quaint parts of a zoo, or declared their opponents brain damaged.
What sort of vilification are you referring too ? Saying atheists are immoral ? Frankly in my experience atheists don't understand the actual question being asked.
Calling them stupid and ignorant ? Have you read The God Delusion that so many lavish praise upon ? Maybe if "atheists as a class" want to avoid such labels they should distance themselves from such rank idiocy.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 27, 2007 @ 1:44 am
August 27th, 2007 at 2:02 am
That's because it would be absurd of them to cough up counter claims based on medieval beliefs and would make them a laughingstock. It would further fuel the New Atheist movement. In fact, they should do it
In terms of stereotyping. I think stereotypes are pretty good in general - calling the Intelligent Design/Creationist camp delusional buffoons cuts straight to the point and using euphemisms to lessen the impact of the blow would beat the purpose
Religion will rest on it's laurels eventually as a remnant of an unfruitful era in human history.
Comment by dimasok — August 27, 2007 @ 2:02 am
August 27th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Given the "Age of materialism" appears to be drawing to a close and the shrill idiocy that its main proponents spew out, I would suggest that your "hope" for the future is misplaced.
But don't let me convince you that your ideas are essentially delusional and utterly at odds with reality. As if that could be done anyway to a true believer like yourself.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 27, 2007 @ 2:41 am
August 27th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Didn't Harris recently write a scathing letter to Nature for not towing the atheist line? I can't help but view that as a blunder on the New Atheist's part.
Comment by nullasalus — August 27, 2007 @ 5:45 am
August 27th, 2007 at 8:11 am
So much for MikeGene's attempt at damage control.
It was a noble attempt.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 27, 2007 @ 8:11 am
August 27th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I agree TP.
Comment by dantedanti — August 27, 2007 @ 9:14 am
August 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am
So what? The point was whether the Christian right vilifies science as an industry on the whole, not atheists.
I don't expect the Christian right to vilify science because many of their parishioners are scientists or relatives of scientists, or work in a technology industry (engineers) and this translates into $$$ and power for the church. I don't expect them to vilify science institutionally for those reasons alone. I know it sounds cynical, but when push comes to shove…..there is a bottom line.
Winnick's book was the closest to any sort of "vilification" but really the title was merely provocative. It was more a survey of the corruption within the industry than viewing science as inherently immoral. When I met her I got the impression she is very much at heart pro-science in the highest sense. So any sort of perceived criticism of science is merely a figure of speech, not a pronouncement that science is an immoral profession (like say being a prostitute).
In contrast, Dawkins and Harris view religion as immoral, as "child abuse". I can never see the church viewing science as "child abuse".
Now with respect to athiests, I would have to agree it is unfortunate the Christian right would vilify atheists as especially more sinful than any other fallen human being, which according to Christian theology, all have fallen short.
I happen to like many atheists if you haven't noticed. I find their skepticism refreshing. The Christian right would not be where it is today if it did have a steady flow of highly intellectual ex-atheists.
However, Sam Harris gives atheists a bad name, so does Shallini. Bertrand Russell and any of they athiests before the got converted (CS Lewis, Lee Stroebel, Patrick Glynn, Antony Flew) …much better.
The "New Atheism" of today is shallow and not well thought out like Flew and Russell. It wreaks of prejudice and bigotry, and really hurts the reputation of the more thoughtful variety who are generally far more quiet about their personal beliefs.
And in a sense, as Dawkins said, Christians are atheists with respect to belief in Mithras or Thor or other gods. That was the one good point he made. In that sense I suppose I'm an "atheist" too.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 27, 2007 @ 11:01 am
August 27th, 2007 at 11:10 am
TP:
Well, the critics we generally get around here largely follow a predictable pattern. Of course that can't be extrapolated to all scientists in general, as 40% of them aren't atheists. On the NAS level in biology atheism seems to be an unspoken prerequisite, but none of the vocal 'New Atheists' are NAS level scientists.
Also, most working scientists don't bother with these debates and most of our critics aren't working scientists. So my observation is that there is less stereotyping from the ID-to-NDS side than the other way around.
Comment by Joy — August 27, 2007 @ 11:10 am
August 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Really? And what will it be replaced with your highness? Religion? Replacing the lost of hope with false hope? Way to go, you've secured your place in heaven:mrgreen: Now get a clue.
Remember how Nazism was looked down upon with all it's killings and what not? That's the status religion will enjoy in the next centuries, it's ancient and it's an insult to the progress we've made since we first walked the earth. I'm not really sure what you mean by "Age of Materialism", but i'm not a pure materialist to begin with, so whatever beef you have with it, solve it in private
That's a misconception. 40% might believe in some higher power as a habit left from their religious upbringing, but that doesn't interfere with their scientific efforts, so who cares really what medieval bullshit they've been taught when they were little?
Prejudice and bigotry exist due to religion in the first place, so if New Atheism has any faults, they're entirely attributable to this ancient phenomenon. Dawkins wouldn't go on this anti-religious rampage if religion was kept to a minimum as a lesson in history and as a personal opinion. Since religion poisons everything, might as well poison it back till it evaporates.
Pat Condell once said that he knows where evil is as soon as he sees religion, so that's how he acts - opposite of whatever religion is advising lmao
Here, check his videos out:
http://www.imminst.org/forum/i...
Comment by dimasok — August 27, 2007 @ 11:24 am
August 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
"Not really. Certainly I have never encountered influential vocal members of the "Christian Right" who suggest that bringing children up with an atheist world view is an act of child abuse, nor have I seen them suggesting that atheists belong in quaint parts of a zoo, or declared their opponents brain damaged. "
No, they just say they're going to dwell in eternal agony or be obliterated. Much better.
It's not really fair to criticize athiests for feebly trying to match eternity in Hell with hell on Earth. Yes, Dawkins, in making these comments, basically is moving to the level of Nazi ideology, but theirs is a dominant faith under imminent threat, and all such faiths start to get crazy as the end nears.
As for stereotypes, by and large, they're true for a substantial portion of the stereotyped group. Like any statistical measure, they are of very limited use for evaluating individuals. I think it quite likely that the majority of us IDiots are Christian Creationists. However, here at Telic Thoughts, many aren't, and I'm not.
Now, both a Darwinist and an IDiot may think that group X has a large number of stupider-than-average people in it. An IDiot would be forced to wonder if there is some purpose to their lower-than-average intelligences, while the Darwinist could very logically see it as a weak section of the gene pool, probably best removed, for the fitness of the species. Eugenics may have been disavowed by the majority of Darwinists, but it is still the logical Darwinian conclusion for a human species that has had many of its natural pressures relaxed.
http://outrageoracle.blogspot....
Comment by Charles Foljambe — August 27, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Now, if the real worry isn't about the immenent vilificaiton of science, but rather the imminent vilification of atheists, that's a whole nother story, and a deeper topic.
However, I've seen some evidence of harmful intent. The terrorist attacks on evolutionary biology labs was distressing. The perpetrators are criminals and should be locked up.
These fringe elements are worrisome.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 27, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Is this guy for real?
The things s/he says at times are so idiotic that it's hard to discern jest from stupidity.
Comment by Doug — August 27, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Doug wrote:
It depends on how soundly his boilerplate commentary is destroyed.
If you do little to no damage, he'll claim to be dead serious.
If you blow it out of the water, he'll claim he was joking.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 27, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I thought I'd share a couple of my own recent posts on related subjects. On the one hand, here is a link to a review I wrote of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion: http://exploringourmatrix.blog...
On the other hand, there are certainly as many Christians and other religious believers who find there to be theological problems with the design argument as there are proponents: http://exploringourmatrix.blog...
Comment by ReligionProf — August 27, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Is this a case in point?
Comment by Randy — August 27, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Charles F:
Really? So why is it that the new atheists are the ones who exemplify threatiness with their "religion is child abuse" memes?
Comment by Randy — August 27, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm saying that athiesm/materialism/Darwinism is a religion.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — August 27, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Charles F:
Sorry, I must have read it wrong.
Comment by Randy — August 27, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Actually that is quite different. One is potentially a statement of fact, the other is just shrill rhetoric. If an atheist really is going to go to hell for their rejection of God is it unreasonable to say that ? The person may be mistaken in the belief but that is not the same as saying "religion == child abuse" by any stretch.
To say that a person would take pleasure in the prospect of atheists going to hell would be on on par, but just making note of the fact is not.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 27, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Actually in post-christian europe the secularism there is shortly to be replaced by Islam. The "secularist" worldview is doomed you would have to be willfully delusional to miss this. Seriously.
The great darkening that began with the "englightenment" is drawing to a close, its children have been largely bad fruit who have wrought much destruction in the world.
If you really think religion is going away then you are mistaken, and your secular utopia you dream of is never going to arise. Last century we saw such utopias attempted, they have all collapsed or for the more moderate governments they are in danger of being overrun by Islam.
But don't worry, I don't really expect you to know enough about the state of the world to see the obvious writing on the wall.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 27, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
You seriously think Islam is going to take over? I doubt it. Someone will come eventually and drop a few atomic bombs there so they would shut up already.
Comment by dimasok — August 27, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Hi ReligionProf,
In your blog you asked the question "What does God do?" but you don't seem to answer it. Isn't that the preimmenent question in this scientific age. Do you have a suggestion?
Behe's anwer seems to characterize God as the uberfrontloader, exquisitely fine tuning things (even mutations) in the beginning so that God's purpose will be served. This obviously has enormous theological consequences and problems. Something like Calvin's predestination concept. While it may be naturalism friendly, letting "nature" take its course once things get started but with a detailed underlying plan, if extrapolated far enough it seems to be no better than the chance and necessity paradigm. What I have found is that Westerners are so steeped in the dualistic ontology of the past that it is impossible for most to see things (and God) in a more holistic and organic manner.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 27, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
dimasok wrote:
You assume that Islam is restricted to the Middle East for some reason. That assumption is incorrect. There are approximately 50 million Muslims in all of Europe; 20 million of those in the European Union nations.
10% of France is Muslim.
A bomb hitting Mecca or Medina would mean "infidel" blood would soak the streets of every major city in Europe. If the current European sympathies are any indication of how Europe would react, then the Islamic dream of an intercontinental Caliphate would soon become reality.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 27, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Angryoldfatman: I wouldn't bother. On this thread at least Dimasok is venting emotions rather than contributing to the discussion. He can't possibly believe he's going to persuade anybody to believe anything.
Inasmuch as 'secularism' means the privatisation of spirituality rather than the negation of it I don't think secularism is all bad or completely doomed: it seems to me at least that far more people have lost faith in religious institutions (I believe that by 'religion' people usually mean 'corporate religion') than in a divine presence in the universe. And in some ways people are right to be skeptical: any institution is corruptible and religious institutions are no exception; moreover, since our spirituality touches on the deepest and most fragile parts of us corruption in this area can be especially painful.
On the other hand, the idea of an 'unspiritual' humanity is almost inconceivable. That the raw data of the universe - the brute events and objects - seem to be part of a bigger, unseen, picture, has been a fancy of human beings since time beyond mind. Science has taught us how to fly, but it has not cured us of our flights of fancy.
(p.s. Chesterton, eat your heart out. :smile:)
Comment by BenK — August 27, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
BenK
I suspect you are both off the mark. I think Dimasok works for the DI and his mission is to discredit ID critics.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 12:03 am
You guys make no sense, no sense whatsoever. So far I've heard the rather unrealistic assertion that Islam will take over the world and that a universe divested of a God permeating every aspect of our lives is somehow "inconceivable".
I'm not venting emotions. I'm trying to reason with you here, whilst all I get in return are hopes and dreams that the universe is more than it seems.
Look, I'm not saying that hope & spirituality (whatever that means) should be taken away from people, but I am saying that this insane proliferation of the main 3 abrahamic religions has to stop!
If you want to be ruled by a fantasy, be my guest. I find it absurd and utterly futile.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 12:03 am
August 28th, 2007 at 12:06 am
There of course is a limit to frontloading from a Christian perspective. Prophecy holds a key to the Christian interpretation of the OT scriptures; however, the Christian system of belief depends on a free choice; that of Jesus' deciding to be our redeemer by willfully taking on the cross. It wasn't frontloaded into history. The everpresent paradox of free will vs. determinism should come to mind here.
Comment by Randy — August 28, 2007 @ 12:06 am
August 28th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Hi Dimasok,
I think you are expressing your own personal hope here. If you are truly outraged by the proliferation of the main 3 abrahamic religions, you might want to consider at some point a strategy of co-existence (talk to TP), as they will simply not be stamped out with coercive actions or education. For example:
Comment by MikeGene — August 28, 2007 @ 12:14 am
August 28th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Well, resistance IS futile.
Seriously though, this whole blog is of a subject that should irk you to the limit then. Imagine this: rational people actually supporting belief in a supreme being who is sovereign over all of creation. Hmm.
You dont' believe that the universe is more than it seems? How does the universe seem to you?
Comment by Randy — August 28, 2007 @ 12:15 am
August 28th, 2007 at 12:34 am
thescifischow: "Actually that is quite different. One is potentially a statement of fact, the other is just shrill rhetoric. "
Granted the motives may be more noble, but the effect on a heathen listener must be appauling: 'If you don't believe propositions A, B and C then you will suffer unimaginable torment for all eternity!' It's hard to imagine a more coercive doctrine; 'If you believe A, B, and C and teach your children to do the same then you are a child abuser' pales in comparison.
Comment by BenK — August 28, 2007 @ 12:34 am
August 28th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Well, kudos for posting on a board where you disagree with the majority. It's certainly more comfortable posting in a place where you know your ideas will be favorably received and reading posts that confirm what you already think. It's commendable that you post to and read people you disagree with.
On the other hand, if you actually want to persuade people of anything then in my opinion you're going about it very badly. Your rhetoric is offensive. You've just told everyone who finds Behe convincing that they are 'buffoons', compared religious people to Nazis, and described religion as poision. This will achieve three things:
Tickle people who already hate religion.
Make non-religious people who don't hate religion uncomfortable because you sound like a fanatic.
Demonstrate to religious people that you don't understand them at all, and hence have nothing worth saying to them.
In no case will you persuade anybody of anything.
Comment by BenK — August 28, 2007 @ 12:51 am
August 28th, 2007 at 1:16 am
I coexist and continue coexisting peacefully with all my friends who are followers of their respective beliefs, and that of course is achieved because our intellectual grappling never comes down the pike.
Yeah, it's difficult to imagine. I will consent though that you guys are different than most hard-nosed religious people and can at least attempt to back up your claims somewhat, as opposed to say anyone in the Republican party of U.S who "accept or find Jesus" to win the elections
Do I believe that the universe is more than it seems? Hmm… i will tell you that on rational grounds, it can be proven that science and philosophy are utter bullshit, but it wont give credentials to religion also, which is why, in all truthfulness, as an extreme skeptic, I would say that indeed everything including my beliefs are bullshit.
Still though, the universe seems to me to be a mechanic entity, devoid of any sort of God, meaning, afterlife, etc where we are merely a speck of dust that emerges out of darkness and rescinds back… that's what science is telling me and that's what the universe seems to me. I do give concessions though that consciousness might be a fundamental feature of the universe and that eventually, with the application of technology, we will all live forever…
If I was to accept any sort of God, the jury would still be out on whether that necessarily implies any sort of afterlife or meaning, and surely I would never consider seriously any religious text describing anything otherwordly. If there is a God, then he is forever (perhaps) unknowable and religion-free.
It does seem to me sometimes that there must be something more to the universe, but I don't let this temptation convince me that there is indeed more, since you know, feelings are a pretty lousy metric for cosmic truths… I surely have trouble accepting that there was a time when I didn't exist or that there will come a time when I will exist no more… but if that's how it is, who am I to be up in arms about it?
You're right. Points taken. I will therefore only comment where my comments would do the least amount of damage and where a discussion could be held.
Perhaps I was venting my emotions, but after witnessing the misappropriation of religion over the history of the human race (please don't mention the same with atheism since in the cases of these terrible dictators, their motivation had nothing to do with God or postmortem existence), I did develop a particularly nasty attitude to anyone who is arguing in favor of it, not merely on metaphysical grounds, but on socio-political/moral grounds as well.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 1:16 am
August 28th, 2007 at 2:03 am
A utopia that has no place for theistic think, I would imagine. Look, technology is all fine and dandy, but don't you think it rather delusional to insist that technology will bring us any closer to immortality than it already has, which is nil? Think about it; humans have dabbled with technology at one level or another for thousands of years, and nobody has really found a way to make a human being live beyond 120 years at most. I don't think it's about to happen any time soon.
Comment by Randy — August 28, 2007 @ 2:03 am
August 28th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Actually quite a few people already think that Europe is lost to Islam. What they couldn't do by force of arms against Christendom in a millennium of trying has been accomplished by overwhelming post-enlightenment Europe.
Unless something is done Europe will soon be a majority muslim land because the muslim birth rate is something like 6 or 7 in some places and the non-muslim birthrate is significantly below replacement rates.
That is just a simple demographic reality.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 28, 2007 @ 2:08 am
August 28th, 2007 at 2:23 am
But don't you see that this is precisely the point? One can look at abuses of religious authority in history and argue that belief in God can act as a catalyst for tyranny, but one can also look at the far greater abuses of policital authority in atheistic states and make a case at least as strong that the belief in God acts as a brake on tyranny. Neither case is watertight and defenders of both 'religious' and 'non-religious' ideologies will argue that tyrants who claim membership are abberations who are non-representative.
The point is not that atheists commit tyranny 'in the name of atheism' but that religious people do moderate and resist tyranny in the name of their gods.
I'm surprised that you think 'irrational' beliefs unusual. If the universe is absurd, it would be the ultimate in delicious irony for some random human to have a commitment to reason. Sort of like spitting at the sun.
Comment by BenK — August 28, 2007 @ 2:23 am
August 28th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Why ?
Would you rather know you have cancer and need treatment or live in bliss and die from something that was treatable ?
There can be no good news without the bad news first.
If I was to say to you that you can have all expenses paid triple bypass, unless you knew you needed one, it isn't of much use to you.
Is it abusive to tell you that you need a triple bypass ?
If not then it is not abusive to let somebody know they are endanger of going to hell if they reject Christ and he is who he claimed to be.
If anything, not telling them is abusive if it is true.
The whole "religion == childabuse" idiocy serves nothing but the purpose of abuse (and a display of ignorance but that is secondary).
Comment by thesciphishow — August 28, 2007 @ 2:40 am
August 28th, 2007 at 2:52 am
dimasok wrote:
In this post, I quote extensively from an essay by physicist Stephen Barr about why the universe is so big.
Here's a taste:
And then there's this:
In other words, the scope for variation in the magnitude of dark energy (also known as the cosmological constant) while preserving the possibility of human life is mind-bogglingly small.
It strikes me that this is why positing a multiverse is the only rational option a scientist can take to avoid the inference that the universe was intelligently designed—especially if the design has to be intelligent enough to make life like ours possible. This is also the sort of scientific evidence that persuaded noted British philosopher Antony Flew recently to abandon atheism.
Susskind, the guy quoted in the article, is one of the leading proponents of the multiverse. Essentially, the number of universes in the multiverse has to be practically infinite in order for it to be the case that the dark energy level in our universe has the magnitude it has by sheer chance.
Ironically, the multiverse essentially is an infinite and invisible thing posited to explain why we are here, and the explanation it gives is 'sheer chance'. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be simpler or more obviously true than positing one transcendent creative and ethical mind, but maybe that's just me.
Oh, and this multiverse type of explanation would only explain why things are the way they are physically in our universe. We'd still be left with the mind-body problem, morality, religious experience, and all that jazz…..such as the aesthetics of jazz. Why does any of this stuff arise from physical matter at all?
Again, positing one transcendent creative and ethical mind seems a lot simpler and economical to me, explaining not only the astonishing fine-tuning of our physical universe, but also the existence of rational minds, moral value, aesthetic value, and religious experience. What's even more odd about the multiverse hypothesis is that if an infinite number of universes did exist, not one of them would exist for a mind-dependent reason. They'd just all be there for no reason at all. That notion seems utterly nutty to me, I must say.
At the very least, I think this dark energy calculation is the kind of empirical discovery that makes the theistic hypothesis not unreasonable. I would add that there's a good case to be made that even positing a multiverse would not be sufficient to solve the fine-tuning problem. See this fascinating article for more on that.
Plus there's the fact that distance is relative to speed. In Earth's frame of reference, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2 million light-years away. But in a frame of reference travelling at very close to the speed of light, the distance can shrink to an arbitrarily small magnitude.
As a footnote, the human body is about 'midway' in size between an atomic nucleus and the observable universe. So we shouldn't be too down about how small we are. We are much bigger than quarks, neutrinos, and electrons.
Comment by stunney — August 28, 2007 @ 2:52 am
August 28th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Without science, do you think any of us would live past their 20s? Not really. The pace of science will accelerate eventually when we stumble upon a revolution that would extend our lives first to 1000 years and then to infinity. Look, I cannot give you any proof at this moment, not anything that could serve as conclusive evidence. I can only refer you to the book "The Singularity is Near' by Ray Kurzweil which has enough examples to convince anyone that we will eventually reach this milestone, although the timetables might be a bit off.
What would you prefer to deal with the human condition if not science? There is no thing else! You either wish for heaven because that's what someone wrote in your particular book or you invest all your money and all your energy in order to truly tackle the problem and remedy it.
Europe maybe. Is that where it'll stop or it will march on everywhere else? I don't have anything against these people as they are, but I do oppose vehemently to their theocratic ways that go against everything I find beautiful in humans (at least Jews don't care what you believe in and even Christians are more lenient with the dress-code and the restrictions).
All people resist tyranny in the name of their Gods? Look at the state of Islam today or any other religious country under the opression of theocratic dictatorship - is this what you refer to when you say that? Stalin was an atheist (contrary to some rumors) and yet he committed all these atrocities - do you mean to say that if he'd be religious, the fear of eternal punishment or his debt to God would somehow stop him from doing so? What about the Inquisition who thought they were doing the right thing for their God and yet, their ways ended up resembling Stalins or being even crueler! When people say they get their morals from religion, they should think twice, because if there are morals to be taken from anywhere, it's the philosophical way of life of the Buddhists and not the Abrahamic religions.
It's just a play of words what you're doing now. I think it's immoral that we drag the universe into existence (for us anyway) with our birth and then drag it back upon our demise… the eternal problem of other minds or solipsism, whilst incredibly ego-centric and self-deluding is a rather formidable philosophical problem since it's irrefutable.
My other gripe with religion is that even if one refutes materialism, replacing the mechanistic creation of the universe by some sort of quantum tunneling with a God that choreographed the rules of this quantum tunneling shifts the problem to another domain - where did God come from and who engineered his rules?
You really think that believing in a God is less absurd than not believing in one? I find myself in a pickle upon the examination of either the first or the second options.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 2:52 am
August 28th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Scientists find that the multiverse explanation is actually simpler than an explanation provided by a single universe (read Dawkins & Trademark with elucidative details about this). Fine, let's suppose that the multiverse theory explains why the physical universe is the way it is and why it was chosen among an infinity of "redundant" ones.
How did you get from that to a "transcendent, creative & ethical mind" Rational thinking, morals, mind-body problem and all that jazz (religious experience notwithstanding since I don't consider them any more real than my "religious experience" of the universe that astonishes me on entirely materialistic grounds)? Just because you find it to be "aesthetically displeasing" for all of that to arise out of physical matter, doesn't mean it couldn't have!
Postulating a transcendent mind and then adorning it with entirely human characteristics is an unwarranted assumption. As I said, I can accept that perhaps, if consciousness studies fail to attribute consciousness to brain mechanisms (hard-problems of consciousness), then maybe some scientists would accept some sort of panpsychism - but again, that transcendent echo of the Big Bang era has no particular reason to favor your characteristics. It's condescending to assume otherwise based on your personal preference. Everything you've talked about evolved naturally after humans learned to deal with their environment and managed to learn to survive in a hostile environment of other people whilst attempting to balance their self-preservation instincts with their goals and motivations for the future (basically, they knew what was good for them. Kinda like in Russel's (I hope I didn't mess up the philosopher) "social contract"). Where you see a divine, transcendent God, I see a cleverly manifest, almost certainly undesigned universe with little ants scurrying around with every facet of their lives controlled and originated by evolutionary means in the distant past (the rest the culture helped shape).
Again, the universe might be fundamentally unknowable (Paul Davis wrote about that), to any mind, and I find no particular grounds why whatever we think matters to the universe any more than whatever an ant or cat might think if they could reason abstractly.
I've said it in other threads and I will reiterate - we should stop approaching the universe with a demand for it to be the way we "feel" like it should be cause any other option seems irrational to us! I feel like your version should ideally be the correct one, we should have an overseeing God, afterlife, cosmic justice, etc (just subtract any religious context other than these three), but what if we don't? Can you handle that without bawling how unfair it is or how utterly incomprehensible it is to you? What if it's indeed what science says it is, perhaps with some elements forever left in the dark, are you willing to sacrifice wishful thinking for the real picture of the universe then?
At the end of the day, I don't think that the question "why is there something rather than nothing" makes sense in the first place - nothing does not and could not exist. There was always something, this universe or a handful of other universes. Nothing is a blatantly ignorant misunderstanding on our part. So, whether the universe was created by your transcendent mind or by entirely unintelligent processes is entirely irrelevant to the basic contention that nothing is not a concept and something always existed, whether with God's grace or not, and I tend to think his grace wasn't required.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 3:06 am
August 28th, 2007 at 3:39 am
It is abusive, because Christ is an urban-legend, just like Santa Claus, Mohammad, the pantheon of Greek and Norse Gods, etc.
Saying to someone he will burn in hell if he doesn't abide by ridiculous rules someone coughed up to control the masses and therefore influence his decision to waste perhaps his only life on trivial matters based on primitive thinking is the biggest psychological trauma a parent can inflict on the child. In fact, I hope children sue their parents for the damages. You won't see me teaching my kids that unless they use condom and cover their faces, supernatural monsters would come from another dimension and recruit them to their army, sucking their blood for all eternity and leaving them lying breathless chained to the bed for the amusement of all, right? Then you or anyone else should not do it based on your particular brand of overactive, pretty darn evil by the way, imagination!
According to my criteria (which is worth much more than any religious scripture ever could), all the animals we humans slaughtered are enough of a justification for us all to burn in hell for all eternity for the terrible crimes we've committed (that includes unwittingly stepping on an ant-colony and killing all those ants).
The kind of religion that limits an individuals life here on earth and constrains it on preposterous grounds is the kind of religion that should be poisoned away from society.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 3:39 am
August 28th, 2007 at 3:43 am
dimasok, you claimed that "we are merely a speck of dust that emerges out of darkness and rescinds back"¦ that's what science is telling me"
But that is simply false. Science is telling us that the universe is anthropically fine tuned to an astonishing degree.
Now, we can explain this by the multiverse hypothesis. But a multiverse essentially is an infinite and invisible thing posited to explain why we are here, and the explanation it gives is 'sheer chance'. Theists rightfully enjoy the delicious sight of atheists having to postulate this infinite invisible thing, the multiverse, to explain away the scientific data.
You defend belief in this infinite invisible thing called the multiverse while scoffing at theists for believing in an infinite invisible thing. This makes you appear inconsistent.
I've noticed this about you before.
Comment by stunney — August 28, 2007 @ 3:43 am
August 28th, 2007 at 3:48 am
I don't think you're listening.
I don't scoff at your idea of a transcendent consciousness that *could* have created all of these multiverses, since multiverses are indeed a speculative idea, not accepted by all scientists.
I scoff at the fact that you go beyond merely attempting to equate multiverses with transcendent mind (making the former pale in comparison) and append to that human characteristics which in no way, shape or form require this extravagant presupposition in the first place!
You want to replace transcendent mind over multiverse? Be my guest, as far as i'm concerned, they're both equally unobservable and equally meaningless to discuss, but please don't dress it up with whatever fancy idea you have of how things ought to evolve "not of physical matter" and then, and I'm sure you didn't get to that yet, add to that various religious mumbo-jumbo, knowing fully well that the two late additions have nothing to do with your original premise at all!
Transcendent multiverse creating consciousness, or unintelligently created multiverses - religion should be kept out of it and comparisons to us also.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 3:48 am
August 28th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Yes, quite so. Stalin's tyranny would have been much, much more difficult to achieve under Islam, if not impossible. The Muslim, you see, is being constantly reminded that there is an authority far above the state. The Islamic world seems to me more prone to fractiousness than it is submissiveness; I would expect to see in it as many coups as dictatorships. Keep in mind the origin of the word 'assassin'.
The idea that the political leader is mandated to rule by God is one pathway to tyranny. The idea that the political leader is, for all intents and purposes, God, leads to a much more pervasive, (albeit more self-destructive) tyranny.
You've lost me here. If the universe is absurd, nothing follows. Every apparent choice would be at once an arrational act of will (i.e. there are no grounds on which to choose) and an expression of the absurdity of the universe itself (i.e. the effect of irrational causes). To choose to believe this or that because you attached an arbitrary label like 'religious' or 'scientific' or even 'whapslapadoosie' would be as absurd as to believe anything for any reason.
Which is to say, in absence of something 'higher' than me (like God or the Tao or whatever) I'll do whatever I jolly well please, and that includes believing whatever makes me feel good. Why shouldn't I?
I'm beginning to suspect that the role of aesthetic judgments in reasoning has been underrated. I can't see how anyone who incorporates the idea of an infinitude of unobservable universes into their account of the universe can then turn around and call God an 'unwarranted assumption.' The argument over which idea, God or the infinite unobservable multiverse is a 'simpler' or 'more parsimonious' explanation makes no sense to me; how can I quantify the simplicity of God or of a multiverse as an explanation? It's like arguing whether the sky is as blue as a jackhammer is loud.
For me personally, life looks like a plot; the sense that this is all for something is quite strong. The possibility that all this is just happenstance, nothing more than a curious coincidence, is on par with the possibility that no one else but me is actually conscious, or that the information I get from my five senses is totally false.
Comment by BenK — August 28, 2007 @ 3:52 am
August 28th, 2007 at 3:56 am
See my last answer to Stunney.
I'm not saying you shouldn't and if you read carefully, I kinda hinted at that since the very beginning.
So what have we established here? That Islam is evil? Quite so. I suspect Christianity would have a field-day if it enjoyed the kind of power Islam has today, as it would enforce all of it's ludicrous stipulations on poor humans. Still though, at least no one but the Islamists blow themselves up or fly airplanes into commercial buildings to reach Heaven and I should say thanks for that.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 3:56 am
August 28th, 2007 at 4:17 am
dimasok wrote:
Izattafact? How wise of me.
Very wise indeed.
Comment by stunney — August 28, 2007 @ 4:17 am
August 28th, 2007 at 4:17 am
Ok you just went in the ignorant moron bucket.
Seriously, this would have to be the stupidest rebuttal I have in a long time.
Frankly given I actually addressed this point you tried to make, i'm inclined to question your ability to read.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 28, 2007 @ 4:17 am
August 28th, 2007 at 9:46 am
thesciphishow wrote:
LOL! I was about to comment on the same thing, perhaps a little less bluntly, but the same sentiment.
Bradford may be right; dimasok may simply be a covert operative from the DI coming here to sharpen our wits.
Edit: And did you notice how he reacted when I rebutted him with solid numbers from practically irrefutable sources? BOOM! His little dinghy takes a broadside volley and all he can do is shake his fist and sink.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 28, 2007 @ 9:46 am
August 28th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Yes, you're the man:roll:
Fine, Muslims will take over, your numbers speak the truth, are you satisfied now? Why don't you help them by converting into an Islamic jihadist?
Well, the quote above my reply speaks volumes of how I am unable to read, right? You stated your point clearly, I rebutted.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 9:58 am
August 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
By the way, stunney, I read your "fascinating" article and after reading the following excerpts I have nothing to say really:
At least the multiverse hypothess is based on some sort of empirical need, whilst the contention that "God is infinitely creative" or whatever is pure hogwash. The only thing the author uses there is the ontological argument, which is entirely incoherent anyway.
Yeah well why don't you stop telling God what to do, what to be, how to do it or whether to exist at all. The hubris in this is astonishing.
Theism always did and always will follow in the footsteps of science, attempting to fit the data into whatever picture of reality science has at the moment and nothing ever will satisfy it… it will always push more and more questions, some unknown to science at the moment and some that might never be solved, but push it must whilst theism itself is not even a field of investigation - anyone can do it in his free time. Once it stops approaching the universe with a demand, perhaps it will finally retire.
Comment by dimasok — August 28, 2007 @ 10:11 am
August 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
dimasok wrote:
You are more likely to do so than I am. Your vehement hatred for Judaism and/or Christianity is shared by Islamic radicals.
As thesciphishow mentioned earlier in the thread, European-style secularism with its anemic, rapidly disintegrating, state-sponsored Christianity is giving way to Islam in response to a two-pronged attack - demographics and political correctness.
The same Europeans who share much of your worldview are mysteriously becoming more and more sympathetic to Islam.
Why? In my opinion, it's because radical Islam (some would say fundamental Islam) demonstrates the easily understandable doctrine that is purposefully missing from Christianity: the strong should conquer and dominate the weak. Coincidentally (or perhaps not), Darwinism demonstrates exactly the same thing.
Also, since Islam speaks of an afterlife consisting of carnal pleasures, it corresponds quite well with the Kurzweilian dream of an eternal virtual life where transmogrified monkey brains will continue to have monkey brain desires. All the Muslims would need to do is convincingly promise this to you, and you would be strapping on the bomb belt tomorrow.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 28, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
For someone who displays ignorance of both and yet loudly proclaims his knowledge on both, I'm not surprised such a historically inaccurate and reality devoid statement would be made.
Comment by Doug — August 28, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
The arguments for the existence of God are many, and not one by itself is adequate to explain the whole. The ontological argument in itself is a good one.
Your idea of empiricism could not have arrived in its present form without theism. Our ancestors believed in a rational God who created a universe that could be understood rationally. It is Western theism that brought us science as it is today. In fact, most of the fathers of science were theists. It is in the realm of (bad) philosophy by which atheism is generated.
The multiverse hypothesis is not really based on an empirical need. It is based on an avoidance of the God hypothesis. The existence of God is parsimonious to everything that we observe in nature. Certainly any empiric need should weigh the question of origins. That question has to deal with the problem of infinite regressions (everything has a cause; there must be a first uncaused cause). The multiverse explanation overlooks this question.
Comment by Randy — August 28, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Dimasok,
You're too precious.
Please explain how the modal argument is entirely incoherent. Contingency, necessity and sufficient reason are incoherent to you? Might it just be that you either don't understand the argument or that you don't understand the terms?
Dimasok, take note: hypothesis and theories are UNDERDETERMINED BY THE EVIDENCE.
Comment by Doug — August 28, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
You claimed the evidence for religious claims was on par with belief in Santa Claus. You could not demonstrate this even if you tried, you are overselling your point endlessly.
Worse than that, it is irrelevant whether or not it is true for the purposes of the argument.
If the person saying it is convinced it is true, then warning someone about Hell is a loving act not a spiteful one. Dawkins labelling of religious instruction as child abuse is purely spiteful.
And while we are on the topic of Dawkins, perhaps seeing as you seem to share the same mentality as him, you can answer a question for me.
Why does Dawkins so frequently behave in a manner indistinguishable from the way he criticizes creationists for acting ?
Comment by thesciphishow — August 28, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
dimasok:
As you said to stunney, pure hogwash. The multiverse is completely unnecessary in any and all scientific senses, is totally non-empirical, and is a grotesque violation of parsimony - Occam's notorious razor. It exists by virtue of "fun with math" exercises by theorists (NOT experimenters) who don't like the implications of actual experimental results and limitations, which highlight an honest empirical need.
That honest empirical need is for some extra dimensions to account for causes of observable effects in our 3+1 spacetime. Multiverses are pure escapism, an excuse not to consider reality here to be particularly real. Said universes by definition can never interact with ours, can never cause effects here, can never be observed or measured. Empirically useless flights of metaphysical fancy no different from Valhalla or the Seventh Circle of Hell. This is NOT science, and the fact that it's scientists doing the speculating doesn't make it science. People who pride themselves on their metaphysical skepticism should know better than to allow themselves to be confused so easily by this sort of thing.
Further dimensions, however, do have probabilities that appear - inescapably - in the math, could in principle be observed and/or measured in some way by us, and would have causal influence on our 3+1 spacetime. THAT is science.
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Actually the need is purely metaphyscial.
The only reason multiple universes are typically invoked is as a means to avoid what is otherwise undeniable fine tuning in the physical constants of the universe.
A "multiverse" is fallen back too as a way to provide multiples bites at the apple to get a universe as finely tuned as this one without a fine tuner.
If you think that is an "empirical need" then you need a dictionary and need to look up the word empirical.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 29, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
August 31st, 2007 at 10:49 am
Fine-tuning of the universe? Intelligent Design? How about STUPID DESIGN as Neil Tyson beautifully outlined in his presentation:
http://video.google.ca/videopl...
There is no reason to think that the universe prefers simplicity other anything else, and so, Occam's Razor is simply a convenient tool for lazy-asses.
You do know that all of these universe are embedded in one multiverse anyway - unobservable and casually disconnected as they are, right?
If you're willing to give extra dimensions a spin (wait for the LHC I guess), then postulating a multiverse is not as outlandish as you vehemently propose it is.
Max Tegmark said it better than I ever could about your "concerns":
http://www.uboeschenstein.ch/b...
Comment by dimasok — August 31, 2007 @ 10:49 am
August 31st, 2007 at 11:21 am
HAHA,
Dimasok just linked Tyson's video.
Wow. Are you really that impressed by his reasoning, dimasok? Are you just joking again?
Uhhhh, you're not helping your cause by stating this. Wait, what side are you arguing for? Or is this just "FIRE" yelling in a theater?
How is this supposed to by a response to the blurb from Joy that you included? It doesn't make any sense.
Comment by Doug — August 31, 2007 @ 11:21 am
August 31st, 2007 at 11:45 am
I was trying to show her that the multiverse idea is not a far-cry from the extra dimensions idea, not at all.
Some of you suggested that the multiverse hypothesis is more absurd than the transcendent God hypothesis and alluded to the complexity it would require and the unparsimonious nature of it (violating Occam's Razor). I brought in the quote to demonstrate why it is not so, so how exactly did I harm my cause?
I read some of his work. And yeah, I'm more than impressed with his reasoning. It sure is more convincing than the typical "I heard it a billion times" fine-tuning argument which I'm frankly quite tired of. Reasoning Tyson proposes shows us that whoever designed the universe (if there is a designer) - he either didn't have us in mind or he is simply so damn incompetent as to be mentally-retarded.
You expect me to be impressed with your theological reasoning?! I consider this intellectual laziness, since you have absolutely nothing going for you except the "fine-tuning hypothesis" and the perceived unlikelihood of the universe NOT having an intelligent, transcendent creator because of elements like morality, etc.
The "fine-tuning" argument PALES in comparison to the overall nastiness of the universe, earth and biological life to human beings - all clear indications that either we're a very cruel experiment or that we're indeed a marginal accident.
Someone here mentioned my belief in transhumanism against me and attempted to demonstrate how unwanted the repercussions of that state might be. I lost the guy who said it, but please could he/she talk about that some more, cause I have quite a few rebuttals up my sleeve
Comment by dimasok — August 31, 2007 @ 11:45 am
August 31st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Do you find alternative arguments more convincing because the initial one bored you?
No, Tyson is not convincing - because here we are. What is the issue of whether or not numerous locations in the universe are uninhabitable? Are we not thriving where we are? Could we not conceivably find other locales that are just as habitable? What's the point? Hell, there's numerous locations on a jet where you wouldn't be safe to stay (the engines)…. is the jet no longer designed because of that?
I know, that's why his reasoning is wrong. Because we are here. It's funny to see how emotional you get over this. How much do you have riding on the non-existence of God? Why would you lash out with emotional (damn - mentally retarded) spillovers?
That's one of the most disturbing thing with atheists such as yourself (not all atheists) - you're so passionate to