Open Letter to PZ MyersPZ Myers is an out-spoken atheist and biologist at the University of Minnesota. He runs an immensely popular blog called Pharyngula, which features some beautiful photos of the natural world. Far more popular, though, are his angry, snearing, and not infrequently obscene (though sometimes funny, to give the devil his due) attacks on Christianity. His daily blog often elicits hundreds or more than a thousand almost uniformly enthusiastic responses of like or more vehement sentiment: those few that take issue with anything Myers says, as I have discovered, are not quite welcomed by other posters!
This morning PZ posted a blog called, "We aren't angry, we are effective, which is even scarier." I'll post a few of his comments here, then my quick response. I may follow up with a more in-depth response later.PZ Myers: "What I'm interested in seeing happen is the development of a strong cadre of vocal atheists who will make a sustained argument, over the course of years or generations, who will keep pressing on the foolishness of faith. I also don't mind seeing believers get angry and stomping off determined to prove I'm a colossal jackhole — that means they're thinking, even if they're disagreeing with me.
"I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive. Look at all those assertive Gnu/New Atheists — they are not making Spock-like dispassionate arguments only, although there is a strong rational core — we are hitting people in the gut and telling them to open their eyes. It gives us that unseemly aggressive reputation, but at the same time it's a very effective way to let people know we think they are dead wrong."
My (knee-jerk) response: You're joking, Myers. What I've seen from atheists in this forum so far is a lot of swearing, insults (never so subtle as innuendos, and little real wit, though you get in some amusing barbs), and caricatures, in decending order of frequency. I have yet to see any real anti-Christian argument, sustained or otherwise. Maybe those come in June?
What you don't seem to realize, is Christians can get tough, too. The communists in the USSR started off with insults; that didn't do the trick, so they got nastier, and the Christians got tougher. Wait till North Korea falls, and after 70 years, you will find some very tough Christians coming out of the rubble of that hell-hole. I don't think you're planning to go that far: but don't dream that jeering, or "F YOU" a hundred times (last time I posted here, one of your disciples) is going to accomplish anything but make your own followers dumber and more intellectually complacent.
Or you ca
n try arguing. Let both sides talk, as in a Bill Craig debate, and there's a good chance you'll lose. Make it a debate of books, and you may lose again -- I've shown why the New Atheists, Pagels & Co, and the Jesus Seminar are wrong, respectively, in my last three books, without breaking much of a sweat. I'm thinking I may take on Ehrman, next.Someday some of your disciples -- maybe even you yourself -- will stop hating, and start to think, even ask searching questions. That's when things might become difficult, and interesting.
In the meanwhile -- it's spring, and the mountain snows are melting -- let the floods of vituperation descend!
63 comments:
It's not a question of tough or not, nasty or nastier. It's a question of whether you have anything to support your beliefs.
You can shout that you believe in magic skydaddies all you want, as loud as you want, using as many swear words as you can. It still doesn't make you right. Also, no matter how loud you shout or how aggressive you get, you cannot dispute scientific evidence with anything other than more (and more convincing) scientific evidence. So, when you're ready to show me scientific proof supporting your deity, I promise I won't swear at you or even raise my voice (and remember, publishing something is not the even close to proving something. Peer review might be a good place to start moving towards that direction).
I personally do not hate religious people in the least (well, some individuals, for reasons other than their religiosity), I find them incredibly amusing in their stupidity, that's all =)
Gnu: I don't get loud, or aggressive. Myers does both. That's fine: what I was disputing was his claim that his ARGUMENTS are winning. Having followed the debate for years, now, I see no evidence of that.
I have no reason to think that you hate Christians: patronizing is probably a more pleasant attitude, though it isn't likely to avail you much more in terms of persuading people.
So, you're only threatening to get loud and aggressive?
Any idea when that's going to happen? Any particular forum where it's likely to happen?
I'm very much looking forward to this.
Huh?
"Christians can get tough, too".
I took this as meaning that you promise to answer Myers's swearing and insults with your own. Otherwise, why would you have chosen to use the word 'too' at the end of that sentence?
I meant tough as in resilient. I meant tough like the Christians in communist countries, who've taken a licking, and kept on ticking. Sorry to disappoint you: I'm not about to break out in hysterics or fits of profanity.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. It's just that 'too' word that makes it sound as if you're going to deploy the same tactics as Myers, if you get my drift.
Sorry for nitpicking, but the word 'too' does imply that the toughness-to-come (of Xtians) mentioned is in reference to something else. Could you elaborate on that, maybe?
Gnu: That was the purpose of the rest of the paragraph, to clarify. I can see how you might read it as you did, though.
Sorry to those who posted, or tried to post, comments! Blogger went down, and the comments already posted here disappeared; I hope they've gotten their act together, already.
[cross-posted from Pharyngula]
All right, let's examine this.
You're joking, Myers.
Quite often, he is and we do. The community standards of Pharyngula put a high premium on jokes. This post, however, is a completely straight-faced capsule summary of (among other things) the reasons Dr. Myers refuses to shy away from the tactical use of sharply pointed humor, even to the evident dismay of some of his fellow co-non-religionists. That is neither a joke nor an intellectually dishonest position.
What I've seen from atheists in this forum so far is a lot of swearing, insults (never so subtle as innuendos, and little real wit, though you get in some amusing barbs), and caricatures, in descending order of frequency.
I see all that as well, although I would dispute the word "never." I see the same kind of vitriol - including the vulgarities, profanities, and obscenities - coming from professed Christians, in this and numerous other internet fora, in published books, sermons, essays, editorials and letters-to-the-editor, public speeches, pep rallies, legislative addresses, etc. You, personally, may have chosen not to employ dirty words in your comment, but you have chosen to employ insult and subtly threatening innuendo. It's dishonest of you to point specifically at atheists with disapproval on this issue.
I have yet to see any real anti-Christian argument, sustained or otherwise. Maybe those come in June?
Unless a major disruption in Dr. Myers' life prevents him from posting updates all next month, I'm strongly confident he'll continue through June and beyond. To paraphrase, in non-scientific terms, some of the many points he has already brought up, in argument sustained since 2006 on this blog alone, are:
* Hard as we look, we've never seen anything happen that could not have happened without God.
* Hard as we try, we've never been able to verify that anything only God could have done actually happened.
* Despite claims to the contrary, it is possible to live one's life in a morally positive fashion without belief in God.
* Despite claims to the contrary, belief in God does not correlate with living one's life in a morally positive fashion.
* The scientific system of thought contains a robust self-correction ethic which generates new knowledge and tends to reduce error.
* The Christian system of thought contains a tenacious anti-intellectual ethic which militates against new knowledge and tends to amplify error.
* Viewing society from an atheist perspective does not uniquely introduce any potential sources of conflict, oppression, or violence.
* Viewing society from a Christian perspective does not uniquely eliminate any potential sources of conflict, oppression, or violence.
You may choose to casually dismiss Dr. Myers' sustained anti-Christian arguments as unreal, but the community here certainly does not, nor have a number of professed Christians who have chosen to engage them.
[continued in next comment]
[continued from prior comment]
What you don't seem to realize, is Christians can get tough, too.
This is the subtly threatening innuendo I mentioned earlier. This statement strongly implies that if Dr. Myers and the Pharyngula community understood Christians better, we would be hesitant to speak our minds fully about its perceived shortcomings, or act against its established interests. I posit that it is precisely our intimate understanding of the dangerous attitudes we see encoded into Christianity that urges us to speak and act.
What you don't seem to realize is that a principled opposition to bullying behavior is an individual human response, not an exclusively Christian trait. What you also fail to acknowledge, wittingly or unwittingly, is that many devout Christians, instead of experiencing their faith as a source of strength, are rendered anxious and fearful by its tenets.
The communists in the USSR started off with insults; that didn't do the trick, so they got nastier, and the Christians got tougher. Wait till North Korea falls, and after 70 years, you will find some very tough Christians coming out of the rubble of that hell-hole.
I applaud with a full and joyful heart everyone who emerges defiant and strong from an oppressive system. I grieve for their silent compatriots, the ones successfully broken by it.
I don't think you're planning to go that far:
I, in turn, have no firm reason to believe that you would go "that far" either, despite my perception of an implicit threat lurking in your first statement about Christian Toughness.
...but don't dream that jeering, or "F YOU" a hundred times (last time I posted here, one of your disciples) is going to accomplish anything but make your own followers dumber and more intellectually complacent.
Dr. Myers has received numerous messages of gratitude and encouragement from professed former Christians specifically crediting his work with helping them to leave the religion in which they were raised. Assuming that at least one of them is genuine, I would argue that that dream has already come true.
As for the quasi-religious terms you apply to us, I would suggest that your own usage implies a sense of unease with the very concept of discipleship as constructed in the Christian system of thought. You and I appear to agree that abdicating one's mental independence to the decrees of a prophetic figure is deeply problematic.
You and I definitely disagree that the members of the Pharyngula exhibit that kind of intellectual complacency. My own commenting history is a counter-example.
[continued in next comment]
[continued from prior comment]
Here on Pharyngula, four posts prior to this entry, in response to the item titled "There goes the Florida tourism industry," I all but directly accused Dr. Myers and the previous commenters of intellectual dishonesty in their attitude toward the legislators responsible for a new state law prohibiting bestiality. I had three major objections to the criticisms and accusations that I saw being leveled:
* That the bill was not as frivolous as accused.
* That even if frivolous, the bill was not as badly written as accused.
* That even if badly written, the language used was not inconsistent with similar usage by the critics.
I received a level of vituperative response consistent with the community standards you've observed at Pharyngula. I also received responses, particularly from iknklast, stripey_cat, and PZ Myers himself, which directly addressed and satisfied my concerns. In addition, John Morales indirectly sounded a note of concern of his own over the insults I was receiving.
What I did not receive was expulsion from the community.
Professer Myers demands and enforces adherence to the well-established and publicized community standards. He does not demand the kind of conformity of opinion implied by the terms "disciples" and "followers." He encourages forthright criticism, in direct contrast to the submissive attitude encouraged among adherents to the Christian system of thought.
I got exactly what long-time observation of Pharyngula led me to expect - entry into an intellectually unrestricted conversation about issues of deep significance, along with tacit assurance that as long as I demonstrate the necessary fortitude, I will be able to express my thoughts as I see fit without compromising my values, ethics, or morality.
Or you can try arguing. Let both sides talk, as in a Bill Craig debate, and there's a good chance you'll lose. Make it a debate of books, and you may lose again -- I've shown why the New Atheists, Pagels & Co, and the Jesus Seminar are wrong, respectively, in my last three books, without breaking much of a sweat. I'm thinking I may take on Ehrman, next.
Having read neither the specific authors or items mentioned, nor your responses to them, I have nothing cogent to say about this paragraph, other than to reiterate that Pharyngula itself represents just such an ongoing debate. Dr. Myers' response to my comments was shortly and testily worded, per his prerogative, but it was a response, not a dismissal. The terms are harsh and the rhetorical atmosphere combative, but as long as you demonstrate a commitment to honest debate, you will be heard. You may not win - I did not - but you will be heard.
Someday some of your disciples -- maybe even you yourself -- will stop hating, and start to think, even ask searching questions. That's when things might become difficult, and interesting.
Hard words are not proof positive of hatred. Soft words are not proof positive of its absence. Respect in the arena of ideas can be expressed vulgarly, profanely, obscenely, as a full-throated commitment to the eradication of laziness of thought. Pharyngula is already difficult, and interesting, provocative and searching. The community demands and enforces it.
In the meanwhile -- it's spring, and the mountain snows are melting -- let the floods of vituperation descend!
Harsh invective rolls down like waters and criticism like a mighty stream. We are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied with anything less than a willingness to completely listen and fully engage.
Mr. Marshall, I attempted to post a response to your open letter. Were my comments redacted, or is Blogspot still malfunctioning?
Thank you, Mr. Marshall - my comments appear now. Please disregard my prior question.
Irion: Sorry for the continued trouble with this site. When Blogger does this to legitimate posters, I usually find the messages in my In Box, and post them right away. Several other comments were, however, swallowed by the machine, including some of mine, the first time that has happened.
That's quite all right, Mr. Marshall. I'm pleased to be in conversation with you.
No "threatening innuendo" was intended by my comment that "Christians can get tough, too." As I explained to another poster, the rest of the paragraph puts that in context: I mean Christians can be resilient in the face of hostility. In other words, "If torture and insults didn't work, what makes you think insults by themselves will work?"
In retrospect, I can see how some posters might interpret that comment the way you did. But the last thing on my mind is to give atheists grief, aside from that engendered by showing that they are wrong.
As to your comments about Myer's substantive arguments against Christianity, I was, admittedly, judging by what I'd seen so far. It looks like the ratio of smoke to fire is extraordinarily high. And the nature of that kind of discourse is that it tends to engender Goodthink and an "Us vs. Them" mentality -- both of which are profusely in evidence on the site. So it is hard to evaluate what you say about looking so hard for signs of God's action in the world -- because it really looks like that is the last thing on most peoples' minds, there, the very last thing in the world they want to discover.
I appreciate your thoughtful challenges; I'll get back to you on the other ones later, gotta go.
That's the joy of the internet - we can drop the conversation to take care of our offline obligations and get back to each other at any time.
Thank you for clarifying your statements about toughness. You've allayed my qualms on that issue.
In my experience, the ratio of smoke to fire is high in almost all conversations, even the old-fashioned face-to-face variety. I find Pharyngula ordinary, not extraordinary, in that respect.
In comment-enabled blogs, the dialogue is asynchronous - hence each commentator's first entry in a thread is usually motivated by a desire to respond directly to the original article, despite any comments posted in the interim.
People also naturally tend to closely follow blogs that consistently provide content matching their interests. Therefore, it's almost inevitable that something like eighty percent of comments work out to little more than "Thank you! Cool! I agree!"
In the opposing case, people rarely bother commenting on posts with which they mildly disagree. They're much more likely to simply surf away. Dissenting comments usually register strong disagreement - which then prompts the already-engaged commentators, each of whom want to respond in their own words.
Under those circumstances, an atmosphere quickly forms that gives the appearance of enshrining the author's posts as something like Holy Writ. It ain't necessarily so.
To find actual evidence of Goodthink, you have to look to the moderation policy. Choruses of angry, scornful, obscenely-worded variations of "Shut up!" don't serve. Only moderators have the power to silence dissent, and at Pharyngula, Dr. Myers is the only moderator.
Professor Myers does not pre-moderate comments before publishing them, and he has an entire page devoted to a detailed explanation of the circumstances under which he will employ a ban, along with a published list of commentators who have fallen afoul of the policy.
There are fewer than 120 individuals on that list, which is an astonishingly small number for a blog which has received over two million comments on the emotionally charged issues he regularly addresses. Even when he does decide to ban a commentator, it's vanishingly rare that he will choose to delete any of his or her comments. This is evidence against a Goodthink ethic.
As to the presence of an "Us versus Them" mentality, I would delicately suggest that the Christian rhetoric that the Pharyngula community actively confronts has constructed non-Christians as "Them" for a very, very long time. The most politically active Christian congregations are not merely encouraged, but taught that they are commanded, to view atheists as unaccommodatable enemies. That conflict predates Pharyngula. It was not engendered there as a result of the fact that it was created to serve as a place where atheists are "Us."
Finally, I should clarify my statements about seeking signs of God's action. You are correct that practically nobody involved in the Pharyngula community goes looking for evidence of divine action. Professor Myers certainly does not. My use of "we" was meant to have a wider scope, referring to humanity in toto. A significant number of scientists are committed Christians (or devotees of comparable religions) and do actively pursue documentable evidence that would support the existence of the god or gods described in their traditions. Dr. Myers argues that every verifiable phenomenon proffered as confirmation can be explained equally well, if not better, in purely naturalistic terms.
Hard as we look, we've never seen anything happen that could not have happened without God.
"Could not have happened without God" in this case amounts to "That whatever we see or hear reports of can somehow be accounted for without God, limited only by logical possibility, if that."
This is not exaggeration, considering Myers is on record as saying that in his view no evidence is possible for God, even in principle, because he will always rely on or hold out for any non-God explanation. Even Jerry Coyne balked at that.
Despite claims to the contrary, it is possible to live one's life in a morally positive fashion without belief in God.
One, 'morally positive' is vague in way after way. What is 'morally positive' for an atheist & materialist? (It's worth noting here that even Sam Harris has noted that moral relativism is a major issue among atheists - is he right?)
Two, I'm aware of no Christians who deny that one can do this or that (as construed by the Christian) moral act without being a Christian or a even a believer in God.
Three, is approving of unrestricted abortion 'morally positive'? Approving of all 'sex acts which involve consenting parties'? Eugenics? The division would illustrate the problem with both the possibility and correlation.
The scientific system of thought contains a robust self-correction ethic which generates new knowledge and tends to reduce error.
Why "the scientific system of thought" instead of "atheistic system of thought"? It looks like science got swapped in for atheism here.
Can the "scientific system of thought" be abused? Can that which is not "scientific" be presented as "scientific" without warrant? Does merely saying "this statement is the conclusion of science or scientific thinking" make it so?
Further, have you noticed that Myers - in the very comment Marshall quotes - admits he will happily drop rational argument in favor of emotional appeal if it gets the results he wants? So much for "reason".
Viewing society from an atheist perspective does not uniquely introduce any potential sources of conflict, oppression, or violence.
First, wouldn't it depend on the particular 'atheist perspective'?
Second, if the 'atheist perspective' is merely 'the lack of God belief', then isn't it likewise true that "Viewing society from the atheist perspective does no provide any barriers against any acts whatsoever, whether typically thought of as heinous or righteous"?
We are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied with anything less than a willingness to completely listen and fully engage.
I answer this with Myers' recent response to a rabbi questioning the explanation for the Origin of Life. Lightly edited for Marshall's blog.
If we're going to start comparing lacunae, let's start with thermodynamics. We've got detailed, complete mathematical descriptions of a fundamental mechanism that drives all of biology; the Torah's got nothin'. The believers have got a dissipated invisible vapor with not reasonable support; we've got Ludwig Boltzmann.
We win. Argument over.
F*** off, rabbi.
Two, I'm aware of no Christians who deny that one can do this or that (as construed by the Christian) moral act without being a Christian or a even a believer in God.
Obviously excepting certain arguably moral acts that involve a belief in God: Prayer, etc.
Orion: I've had a chance to read more of your comments now, and appreciate the lucid case you make for Myers.
A religious founder, or someone who starts a blog, tends to set tone for subsequent discussion. He may be casual and open-minded, or a tyrant. So long as they stay within the bounds he sets, his followers may think there is quite a bit of liberty in the sect. Sects often save their anger for those who leave.
I have no doubt that as a member of the atheist community, you can get away with quite a bit on Pharyngula. You're not the enemy. Maybe if you announce yourself as a Republican, you become the enemy, again, because Myers and his fellows seem to hate Republicans at least as much as Christians.
Did you read the extraordinary "F Republicans" post a few weeks ago? Myers sets the tone, then hundreds of his disciples followed him in a drawn-out version of what looked like Orwell's 10-minute hate, chanting the same message in various forms. I admit the exhibit made an impression on me. It looked pretty cult-like to me, and a lot like hatred.
But you make a good case that Myers allows contrary opinions to be expressed, at least within some limits. Myers does not seem to be as bad as Jerry Coyne, anyway. I hope to continue to test him on that, and maybe I'll learn more of the local culture.
Your description of a "submissive" Christian attitude I think suggests that you could stand to learn more about Christian history. Mutual submission within relationships of limitted delianated authority is a necesssary part of life. But one of the main charges against Christianity (in China and Japan, for instance) has almost always been that it undermined structures of hierarchy in some fundamental way. The Church's challenge to the State (beginning with someone like Justin or Ambrose, or rather with the OT prophets) helped give birth to social pluralism and modern freedoms. In the intellectual community to which I belong, debate tends to be much more intellectually-challenging than any atheist site I have found on the Internet.
But I'm glad to learn that we agree on the need for open debate, and frank disagreement. I believe that Christians can benefit from our atheist critics.
Crude: Again, you make some very good points. There certainly are some big gaps between what Christians and atheists usually assume to be moral. I think atheists, because they don't have an eternal canon, probably shift more quickly with the Zeitgeist, and also fail to recognize how culturally-dependant (often religiously dependent) their moral beliefs are. A Confucian atheist is not a Marxist atheist is not a secular humanist atheist born in a "Christian" country.
I have to admit, Myer's description of those he's put in the "dungeon" is pretty amusing:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
David,
I hesitate writing this, since I don't want to be too critical or be misunderstood. But, here it is.
One problem I have with your open-letter is that, oddly enough, it's too charitable to PZ. Are you not familiar with the exchange Myers had with Coyne over the possibility of there being evidence for God's existence, or the falsity of 'naturalism'? I ask that seriously - I don't know how often you keep tabs on Myers. I can provide links if you like, to his own words, and Coyne's responses.
Insofar as Myers takes that stance, no debate is possible with him. Worse, there's a difficulty with failing to acknowledge as much.
Here's an illustration: Imagine someone told you that the universe suddenly appeared on July 7, 2009, complete with the illusory impression of a past. Further, they say that it's always possible to interpret all available evidence in a way consistent with this claim, and make it clearly that they will interpret all evidence in this way. If ever, somehow, there were evidence they had no immediate answer for, they would opt to hold out with the confidence that an explanation compatible with their current position would one day be available. And if they ever witnessed evidence that it seemed could not be explained even in the future, they would assume they experienced a hallucination or the like.
Would you debate such a person? Clearly it wouldn't be sensible to do so with any hopes of convincing them. You don't convince a fideist or a solipsist with debate after all - something else needs to change.
Now, you may say, 'But at least I can expose the flaws in their reasoning to others.' But there's a problem there: I think offering to debate someone carries certain implications. You imply, on a certain level, that the person is reasonable. That their views are worthy of being taken seriously and addressed openly. That they themselves can be engaged in an intellectually profitable way.
So, there's my concern. I think arguments do need to be answered, approaches and tactics criticized, etc. But I question the value of debating the man himself. You can do as you wish of course - you don't need me telling you what to do (who am I anyway, after all?) - but I wanted to air this, because I feel that in a rush to engage and confront intellectually, sometimes people legitimize what they shouldn't.
My two cents.
Crude: Don't hesitate to criticize. I'm ignorant of all kinds of things, even though some skeptics think I'm a know-it-all! I've only been following PZ's blog for a few weeks, and was expressing my thoughts on what I'd seen so far. (Coyne seemed to kick me off his site the first day or two I posted, there! At least he threatened to, and I haven't been back to see if he did or not.)
One thing I have noticed, is Myers is funny. He seems to have a rather warped mind, but some of what he shoots at, deserves the shooting.
I don't have any notion at all that Myers has an open mind about God, design, Jesus Christ, or how to deal with the national debt. But the evolving communal consciousness that takes the name of the "New Atheism" is to me (as a student of religions) an interesting and sometimes disturbing phenomena: I can't help but watch.
For a kinder-if-not-gentler perspective, I've asked an atheist friend who has worked with Myers, and often posts here, to repeat some of what he told me in an e-mail; we'll see if he feels like doing that.
To answer your question: I think I would debate Myers on-line, but not in person. But I don't see him stepping up to the plate to do either.
David,
Then maybe you missed this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/its_like_he_was_reading_my_min.php
And even Jerry Coyne was taken aback by Myers' position:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/can-there-be-evidence-for-god/
Incidentally, prior to this, Jerry Coyne used to argue that atheists were more rational than theists, in part because he thought atheists were willing to admit to evidence that would change their beliefs. Which makes the question of Myers' rationality, by Coyne's measure, interesting. (I've noticed Coyne is a bit more quiet about that metric now.)
Either way, I offer this up so you get a better picture of Myers' mentality. While Coyne is able to offer up ridiculous standards of what sort of miracle he'd need to believe in God (and suggesting that anything short of that makes belief in God irrational), Myers goes a step further: No evidence is possible. He would rationalize away any evidence, no matter what it was. He admits it.
So, there you go. This is what you're dealing with in Myers, and this is the face of one of the online presences of the New Atheists: Naturalistic fideism, basically.
His argument is one of scientism: the tacit assumption that the only way to know anything is through scientific testing. It is like watching a dog eat its own tale: a self-contradiction painful to observe. Of course one cannot prove that science is even effective without bringing other epistemologies: logic, math, visual and tactual observation, human witnesses, appeals to authority (which is what journals are, and why notes are used, and where peer review comes in) . . .
The irony is too thick to slice with a Japanese samurai sword. But the error is remarkably common. That's what comes when scientists don't understand the philosophy on which their own scientific biases are based.
I actually wonder about that. Scientism seems to be applicable to Coyne's beliefs (though Coyne also redefines 'science' to mean 'anything involving reason' typically).
But Myers? For Myers, science is irrelevant on the God question, I think. He will accept no evidence, he already knows how he will interpret any evidence or experience or argument he encounters, because he already knows what he's going to believe. That's something crazy, but may be be crazier than scientism.
Crude:
I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to get back to you and Mr. Marshall yesterday. To accommodate Blogspot's limits on the length of comments, I'll be submitting my counter-arguments on a point-by-point basis. The first point in particular has grown as I watched the conversation develop, and I want to give this issue the time and attention it deserves.
Hard as we look, we've never seen anything happen that could not have happened without God.
"Could not have happened without God" in this case amounts to "That whatever we see or hear reports of can somehow be accounted for without God, limited only by logical possibility, if that."
This is not exaggeration, considering Myers is on record as saying that in his view no evidence is possible for God, even in principle, because he will always rely on or hold out for any non-God explanation. Even Jerry Coyne balked at that.
I'm afraid I don't fully understand your first sentence. I would agree that the statement, "Whatever we see or hear reports of can somehow be accounted for without God," is as accurate a paraphrase of Dr. Myers's argument as my own was, but I'm not sure what part of that clause the rest of the sentence is meant to modify. I'll therefore confine my response to explaining his position as I understand it.
Please bear with me - I'm about to get very dry and precise and technical. I'm not doing it because I believe I can intimidate you by using a lot of complex sentences and multi-syllable words. In fact, I don't think I can intimidate you that way, and I don't want to. I'll explain why I'm choosing this extreme style of expression at the end.
I agree that it is considered out-of-bounds to say, as a scientist, that it is a priori impossible for any conceivable phenomenon to qualify as conclusive evidence in favor of a given hypothesis. However, Dr. Myers is not actually doing this.
In the scientific system of thought, a proposition is treated as a hypothesis if and only if it conforms to certain criteria of well-formed statements. A coherent, stable, agreed-upon definition for all concepts referred to in the proposition is one of the most important of these criteria. Since no coherent, stable, agreed-upon definition of "God" has been offered around which a well-formed hypothesis concerning the existence of God can be constructed, no phenomena exist which can serve as conclusive evidence in favor of it.
[continued in next comment]
[continued from prior comment]
When challenged, Dr. Myers further cited the following principles used to weigh evidence in scientific reasoning:
* Phenomena which are not predicted as necessary consequences of a hypothesis, but are merely allowed as possible by it, do not qualify as conclusive evidence for that hypothesis.
* Phenomena which are merely allowed by a hypothesis, not necessarily predicted by it, do not qualify as conclusive evidence in favor of another hypothesis.
* A rare phenomenon allowed as improbable by one hypothesis does not qualify as conclusive evidence in favor of another hypothesis under which it is allowed with higher probability.
* A rare phenomenon predicted as highly probable under a hypothesis does not qualify as conclusive evidence for that hypothesis.
* A phenomenon predicted by a hypothesis does not qualify as conclusive evidence for that hypothesis if other phenomena also predicted by that hypothesis are absent.
* A phenomenon predicted by a hypothesis does not qualify as conclusive evidence for that hypothesis if other phenomena disallowed by that hypothesis are present.
* A phenomenon predicted by a hypothesis does not qualify as conclusive evidence preferring that hypothesis to a more simply-constructed hypothesis in which the phenomenon is allowed.
Under all these principles, Dr. Myers proposes that no scientifically conceivable phenomenon will ever be offered as conclusive evidence in support of a well-formed hypothesis asserting the existence of God.
In short, he doesn't think it's possible to do, he's sick and tired of hearing people try, and he feels perfectly justified in dismissing the whole idea as nonsense.
Now for the reasons I thought it would be useful to spell all that out in robotic bafflegab.
First, to demonstrate that despite the appearance of closed-mindedness, Dr. Myers has valid reason to deny that this position is motivated by prejudice.
By analogy, the Roman Catholic Church denies that its refusal to allow women to take clerical vows is motivated by misogyny. It justifies that position by appealing to theological arguments that are as complex and abstruse as those offered above in defense of Dr Myers, and are as valid in its system of thought as his are in his.
The conclusion may be offensive to someone who does not subscribe to that system of thought, but it cannot be successfully argued against by attacking the conclusion directly. To refute the argument, you have to attack it at the level of the principles underpinning it. To do that, you must be willing to learn how the system works and engage it by its own rules on its own terms.
Your only other alternative is to construct an argument in your own system of thought which refutes the entire opposing system outright - in which case you have to accept the risk that people who subscribe to the opposing system will either not understand your argument or not accept it as true.
Second, to demonstrate that despite the mocking and derisive style, real arguments against the Christian system of thought are presented on Pharyngula.
Dr. Myers attacks the Christian system of thought by constructing arguments in the scientific system which refute it outright. He accepts the risks involved. You may not accept the argument as true, but I contend that you cannot say it is not real.
Third, to demonstrate that a calm, dispassionate style is not the only effective way in which to present one's arguments.
Do either of you believe that Pharyngula would be as widely read or its topics as vigorously discussed if Dr. Myers adopted my writing style? Or Richard Dawkins, if he did? Or Christopher Hitchens? Or, for that matter, Bill O'Reilly? Ann Coulter? I certainly don't. A harsh, combative rhetorical style does not bolster one's arguments, but it can be undeniably effective in projecting them into the public discourse.
Gents: I have not read as much of PZ Myers as either of you, yet, so correct me where I'm wrong.
It appears to me that Myers is, in fact, operating from an assumption of scientism, not fideism. He denies that there is any scientific evidence for God, implicitly conflating "evidence" with "scientific evidence." This is suggested by the link Crude gave, and by Orion's gloss, which also seem to conflate the two.
Myers may think no good evidence has been offered for God. He has a right to think and say what he likes about the subject. But it is absurd for a biologist to glibly assume he is in a position to simply dismiss the opinions of billions of people, many of whom have expertise in other fields where they do find evidence of God's work, and claim to be "tired of" such arguments.
What this shows is that he privileges his own epistemology, as he understands it, over non-biological or non-scientific epistemologies. This is scientism. It also suggests (what is evident in his blog) a remarkable degree of arrogance and predilection for bombast.
Which is no doubt part of his charm for the choir to which he is preaching.
From what you (Orion) says, there also may be a hint in his thinking (as is usual with people who think they are arguing scientifically) of an old, discredited philosophical notion behind his attitude:
"Since no coherent, stable, agreed-upon definition of 'God' has been offered around which a well-formed hypothesis concerning the existence of God can be constructed, no phenomena exist which can serve as conclusive evidence in favor of it . . . "
This sounds like some offshoot of logical positivism, and is, in any case, both wrong and naive, in my view. There is certainly a "coherent, stable, (generally) agreed-upon definition of God." And there is no such thing as "conclusive evidence" for anything: one can only argue to the most likely conclusion.
Finally, I think your juxtaposition of Myers with Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly demonstrates what I'm talking about. Coulter does tend to be nasty, I agree. But O'Reilly seldom if ever swears at people, almost always asks people he criticizes to give their side of things, never endorses candidates, and does not lead followers in chants of "F Democrats."
Crude:
Despite claims to the contrary, it is possible to live one's life in a morally positive fashion without belief in God.
One, 'morally positive' is vague in way after way. What is 'morally positive' for an atheist & materialist? (It's worth noting here that even Sam Harris has noted that moral relativism is a major issue among atheists - is he right?)
You are correct that we, in this conversation, don't have an agreed-upon definition of "morally positive," so let's see if we can arrive at one.
I propose beginning with the reciprocity ethic, or Golden Rule. Luke 6:31 phrases it as "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise," in the King James translation, but it's one of the most ubiquitous cross-cultural precepts in moral philosophy, and I've never seen anyone coherently argue against it.
I suggest that a person who -
* Consistently attempts to maximize expression of the Golden Rule
* Consistently attempts to minimize suffering in those with whom he has contact
* Consistently makes choices such that, if everyone made similar choices under similar circumstances, society in general would experience greater contentment and less misery
- is living his (or her) life in a morally positive fashion.
I don't suggest that this brief statement completes a complete, robust moral philosophy, but I think it'll serve as a minimal set of criteria that we three might agree on. We can hammer out extensions and amendments as necessary.
As to moral relativism, I also agree that the lack of an absolute moral standard can make it more difficult to do the math, so to speak. Being unable to say "God said so" means that you have to work harder examining your actions and grounding your choices, and it means that you can never be completely certain that everyone around you is applying exactly the same moral standards. I see that as a benefit.
Two, I'm aware of no Christians who deny that one can do this or that (as construed by the Christian) moral act without being a Christian or a even a believer in God. [Obviously excepting certain arguably moral acts that involve a belief in God: Prayer, etc.]
Also true, but not quite the point I was arguing. The particular Christian tradition in which I was raised, for example, is quite adamant that while it is possible for an unbeliever to perform individual good works, citing the Good Samaritan as an example, it is impossible, absolutely impossible, for an unbeliever to live a good life.
Not perfect - even devout Christians are considered incapable of that - merely good. My pastor was not of the fire-and-brimstone type, and I can still recall sermon after sermon in which he drove home the point that without the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, a person's actions will inevitably tend toward selfishness, pride, violence, and sin. Only those born again in the Blood are in any way capable of showing forth the Fruits of the Spirit, whatever accidentally good things an unbeliever might happen to do.
If you like, I'll search the net for representative examples, but I think you can recognize statements like: "Our schools are violent because we took prayer out of the classroom!" "Society would fall apart if we let atheists have their way!" and "Secular humanists want to destroy America!" as sentiments that are expressed with some frequency in public discourse.
I contend that this argument is, in fact, being made, and needs to be argued against.
Three, is approving of unrestricted abortion 'morally positive'? Approving of all 'sex acts which involve consenting parties'? Eugenics? The division would illustrate the problem with both the possibility and correlation.
If you don't mind, I'd like to defer addressing particular difficult moral issues until we've had some time to discuss the minimal standards that we can agree on.
Crude:
The scientific system of thought contains a robust self-correction ethic which generates new knowledge and tends to reduce error.
Why "the scientific system of thought" instead of "atheistic system of thought"? It looks like science got swapped in for atheism here.
You are correct that "scientific system of thought" and "atheistic system of thought" are not logically equivalent. Science is an atheistic system of thought, in the minimal sense that it does not take the existence of a god or gods as an axiom, and in the sense that the default stance when making observations and conducting experiments is to proceed as though divine intervention were not a factor. Science is not an atheistic system of thought in the sense that it takes the nonexistence of a god or gods as an axiom.
Keep in mind that my intent was to provide specific examples in response to Mr. Marshall's statement that he had yet to see any real anti-Christian arguments in the discourse at Pharyngula. Particularly when coupled with the accompanying sentence, "The Christian system of thought contains a tenacious anti-intellectual ethic which militates against new knowledge and tends to amplify error," such an argument exists, and both points can be found, singly and together, in posts by Dr. Myers and in responses from commentators.
Can the "scientific system of thought" be abused? Can that which is not "scientific" be presented as "scientific" without warrant?
If you were to ask a police officer, "Can I walk up to a stranger on the street, brandish a gun, and demand he turn over his wallet?" the answer would be "No". Obviously, that can be done, because it is done. It is not, however, sanctioned by the system. Note, please, that the same questions may be asked of the Christian system of thought, with the same result.
Does merely saying "this statement is the conclusion of science or scientific thinking" make it so?
Does the mere assertion make it so? No. One of the rules in science is that you must be willing to reveal your data and demonstrate your chain of reasoning. Furthermore, if by "make it so" you mean "prove absolutely that it is in every sense true" the answer is also no. If, however, you've done your work properly, the scientific system of thought sanctions you to believe it is true and conduct yourself accordingly.
This, by the way, is the operative definition of "conclusive" as I used it in my previous comment. Scientifically, conclusive evidence allows one to draw a conclusion and treat it as true.
Further, have you noticed that Myers - in the very comment Marshall quotes - admits he will happily drop rational argument in favor of emotional appeal if it gets the results he wants? So much for "reason."
To be accurate, Dr. Myers states, "I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills [sic], I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well." (emphasis mine.) I'll restate my point: the presence of emotion does not indicate the absence of reason.
Orion,
Under all these principles, Dr. Myers proposes that no scientifically conceivable phenomenon will ever be offered as conclusive evidence in support of a well-formed hypothesis asserting the existence of God.
Respectfully, Orion, what you're doing here is taking Myers' rants on this subject and doing your damndest to rephrase, and even rethink, the rants into something a little more respectable. But if you want to defend Myers, you have to do what I did: Directly quote Myers, or link to him speaking for himself. I am not interested in discussing an argument an individual person thinks Myers could have hypothetically made, or a position someone thinks he may take in theory: I want to discuss what Myers has in fact said.
Further, as David said, this issue is not one of 'conclusive' evidence. Coyne objected strongly to Myers' position, and did so while stating that he (Coyne) could be convinced by (ridiculous) evidence conditionally - meaning, that it would be entirely possible for said evidence to be overruled in the future.
On the flipside, in the link I gave, Myers did not talk about "conclusive" evidence. Never even used the word in the original post. He talked about evidence, period. "there can be no god evidence" is what he said. Nor does Myers, in any of the posts I've read where he mentions this, qualify his statement to mean there can be no 'scientific' evidence for any God or gods. Again: Evidence, full stop.
Do either of you believe that Pharyngula would be as widely read or its topics as vigorously discussed if Dr. Myers adopted my writing style?
Widely read? Probably not. I never doubted that Myers had appeal as an entertainer.
Its topics as vigorously discussed? Echo chambers and comments-section mob rule do not amount to "vigorous discussion", unless two sports fans engaged in a fistfight qualifies as a "vigorous discussion on the relative athletic capabilities of the Giants". If you're telling me that the downside of convincing people using reason is that it doesn't always get the results a person wants, I won't disagree. But then, I'm not a person who is part of a movement that makes so many gestures in the direction of praising and promoting reason - then turns around and admits to using emotional or other tactics, so long as it gets me where I want to go.
Think about it this way: If I repeatedly stress the importance of an honest society on my blog, and my blog gains a huge following because of various lies I've told, one could charge me with inconsistency.
David,
It appears to me that Myers is, in fact, operating from an assumption of scientism, not fideism. He denies that there is any scientific evidence for God, implicitly conflating "evidence" with "scientific evidence." This is suggested by the link Crude gave, and by Orion's gloss, which also seem to conflate the two.
We seem to disagree here, and that's fair enough. But I do want to ask this: Where do you see Myers conflating 'evidence' with 'scientific evidence'? I ask this because it seems clear to me that Myers is saying there can be no evidence, period, for God or gods. Now, maybe you think Myers only counts "scientific evidence" as "evidence". But it seems to me that Myers is explicitly going the extra mile here and is saying that is and can be no evidence, full stop, for any God or gods.
(Myers also charges - in his 'There aren't any zogweebles' post - "I won't repeat my previous explanations, but will simply summarize by saying that the god hypothesis is incoherent, causally inadequate, unsupported by any other line of evidence, inconsistent with what we do know about how the universe works, and also internally inconsistent in all religions." Mostly I'm wondering how something can both be incoherent, yet also causally inadequate, unsupported by evidence, inconsistent, etc. Isn't this similar to saying "A Zogweeble didn't lift this rock, because a Zogweeble is a nonsense word, it's incoherent. Also, a Zogweeble would be too weak to lift this rock."? How can it be incoherent, yet capable of being evaluated so?)
Orion: Did your last post appear? I thought I found a couple posts by you in "spam" again, and shifted them over to "not spam," but now I don't see them. Or am I trying to juggle too many balls this morning, and just imagined those posts?
Crude: Yes, I think Myers only counts science as real evidence, and he thinks every scientific claim to support theism has been and in the future will be easily debunked.
The only kind of fanatic from whom one can expect much consistency is a trained philosopher, which Myers certainly is not (I hope!). So I won't be surprised if you find statements from him suggesting utter fideism, and also total commitment to the evidence.
Another comment.
Science is an atheistic system of thought, in the minimal sense that it does not take the existence of a god or gods as an axiom
That's nonsense. You may as well argue that Thomas Aquinas' works are atheistic, on the grounds that Aquinas argues for, rather than axiomatically assumes, God's existence. This is a case of trying to rework definitions mightily to label something desirable "atheistic". (I imagine prisons are filled to the brim with people guilty of atheistic crimes.)
Theism is entirely compatible with science, and the demarcation problem of science is a tricky issue besides.
David,
The only kind of fanatic from whom one can expect much consistency is a trained philosopher, which Myers certainly is not (I hope!). So I won't be surprised if you find statements from him suggesting utter fideism, and also total commitment to the evidence.
Fair enough, I suppose we could agree on that much.
=====
Orion Silvertree said:
[PZ Meyers] encourages forthright criticism, in direct contrast to the submissive attitude encouraged among adherents to the Christian system of thought.
=====
Just thought I'd mention that David does the same, with this blog. ;-)
=====
Crude said:
I'm aware of no Christians who deny that one can do this or that (as construed by the Christian) moral act without being a Christian or a even a believer in God.
=====
I am.
I have directly asked a number of Christians, "Can't one live a life which is moral according to Christian principles of behavior, and be a moral being even though they may not believe in either God or Christianity?"
The majority of those I have asked have replied "No".
When pressed for explanation they mostly produce variations of what boils down to "Unless you accept Jesus Christ as Savior, you cannot be saved. If you are not saved, you will be cast into the lake of fire."
In other words, in their eyes, a life of faultlessly moral behavior -- by their own standards -- would still result in an unbeliever being treated as an unmoral, or evil being, and subject him to eternal damnation.
At this point in my life I'm so familiar with this attitude that it pretty much rolls off me like water off a duck. But in my younger days the untractable arrogance that position seemed to display prompted me to more than one outburst of venerable four-letter Anglo-Saxonisms in response.
As they say, YMMV.
=====
Crude said:
Can that which is not "scientific" be presented as "scientific" without warrant?
=====
Of course. Two examples which immediately come to mind are "creation science" and "intelligent design".
=====
Does merely saying "this statement is the conclusion of science or scientific thinking" make it so?
=====
Of course not. It must be demonstrated that the statement is based on conclusions drawn from
practices which adhered to the scientific method, with all that entails.
=====
if the 'atheist perspective' is merely 'the lack of God belief', then isn't it likewise true that "Viewing society from the atheist perspective does no provide any barriers against any acts whatsoever, whether typically thought of as heinous or righteous"?
=====
If the theist perspective is merely the belief in God, then this must be true for the theist perspective, as well.
Mere belief in God provides no barriers agaist such acts, and indeed has often been cited as justification -for- them.
Life is more complex than simple a "theist" or "atheist" perspective, either of which is going to be merely a single
part of a multifaceted world view.
=====
David Marshall said:
Mutual submission within relationships of limitted delianated authority is a necesssary part of life.
=====
Some of us think of this as cooperation, rather than as "mutual submission."
=====
David Marshall sez:
...appeals to authority (which is what journals are, and why notes are used, and where peer review comes in) . . .
=====
Um... there is nothing wrong with appeal to a legitimate authority so long as one does so as part of a larger picture of examining and testing evidence.
Appeal to authority becomes problematic -- a logical fallacy -- when one insists that a claim is true simply because it has been uttered by a recognized authority on some subject.
Done in proper context appealing to authority is part of the larger scientific process of replication and peer review. But it is only one part of that larger process.
=====
David Marshall said:
It appears to me that Myers is, in fact, operating from an assumption of scientism, not fideism. He denies that there is any scientific evidence for God, implicitly conflating "evidence" with "scientific evidence."
=====
David, I see you here substituting "evidence" for the very specific phrase "conclusive evidence" which appears several times in Orion's admirable statement of Meyer's position. You and I have run around similar definitional trees before, including the definition of "evidence," and the conflating of "evidence" with "proof".
In short: stating the conditions under which evidence does not constitute conclusive evidence, is not the same thing as denying that there can be any evidence.
In our own dance the misunderstanding was more over the quality of particular kinds of evidence, with you wanting to assign a much higher value to anecdotal evidence than it logically warrants. Yet at no time did I deny that anecdotal evidence was per se indeed a form of evidence.
I believe you are on the verge of similarly misunderstanding PZ Meyers position.
Dr. H: Trying to persuade you of the central importance of testimonial (not "anecdotal," of course) evidence is like pushing the rock up the hill in Hades: I recognize that it will never stay at rest on the heights heights it ultimately reaches, but will in your mind immediately come crashing back down to the depths. It would be wiser to focus the energy spent on that futile task into writing a book on faith, reason, and a Christian epistemology (amateur version), and persuade everyone else, first. For now, I'll decline to assume the burden again.
I think I've got Myers right, he does seem to fall for this embarrasingly unreflective idolization of science hook, line and sinker. Who wouldn't want to be a star? But I'll keep my eyes open for any sign of self-awareness or philosophical depth on the issue.
Dr H,
I have directly asked a number of Christians, "Can't one live a life which is moral according to Christian principles of behavior, and be a moral being even though they may not believe in either God or Christianity?"
The majority of those I have asked have replied "No".
'Christian principles of behavior', without qualification and under even a broad reading, wouldn't be possible, no. Just like you can't expect an atheist to follow the 10 Commandments, not because of all 10, but because of 1, 2, and arguably 3.
Various moral acts, individually, and given the qualification I add (unless I missed something) is another story. As you said, YMMV. I'll also note that Orion did not speak about 'living according to Christian morality' - which was probably intentional, since once we start counting orthodox Christian views about sex, abortion, and elsewise, the 'atheists are pretty much the same morally' argument is threatened.
If the theist perspective is merely the belief in God, then this must be true for the theist perspective, as well.
Sure, go for it. It just serves to back up the point I made - I brought up the importance of understanding what the 'atheist perspective' in question is.
Orion's admirable statement of Meyer's position
Still waiting on anyone to show that this is Myers' position, complete with quotes, as opposed to an imaginary / heavily altered view of what someone thinks Myers maybe could possibly think in theory.
This sort of thing is reverse-strawmanning - taking someone's bad argument or lame statement, and building it up to be more impressive than it ever originally was. As it stands, I go by what Myers has actually said - I could always have missed something, but in the posts where I read him actually engaging this, his statement of his position was pretty far from, and stronger than, Orion's version.
Personally, I found PZ Myers isn't as radical or even as liberal as he claims to be. As he stooped as low as attempting to humiliate me in front of everyone on his blog by claiming that I wasn't a real woman (whatever that means) because I'm transsexual I now don't seem him as fundamentally any different from any other loud-mouthed egotistical bigot.
Oh well, he may not see me as the real deal when it comes to womanhood, but tbh, conversely, I don't see him as the genuine king of sceptism that he lays claim to be.
The fact that him and his Pharyngulite followers then proceeded to lie and falsely accuse me of posting messages on the Internet confirmed the gut feeling that I initially had about him and what appears to be his sect. The fact that I'll never even know what it was I am accused of having said because these messages were deleted before I even had a chance to see them I find kind of sinister. Now, in an obviously minor sort of way, (together with the punitive psychology tactic that he tends to employ against many of his critics) that really does has echoes of Stalinism.
Becky x
Becky: Of course I don't know anything about that history. What was your main quarrel with Myers about, if I can ask?
Does it matter which group a person chooses to hate? That hating out-groups is one of the power sources that make the engine of Pharyngula run becomes more clear the more I observe the site. The snazzy photos of nature never get a quarter of the commentary.
But I was thinking -- maybe the relationship here is that Myers gets his kicks showing people freaks -- freaks of nature, or Christian freaks. Maybe he's bored with the normal. Maybe he's the modern equivalent of PT Barnum.
=====
David says:
Trying to persuade you of the central importance of testimonial (not "anecdotal," of course) evidence is like pushing the rock up the hill in Hades.
=====
You can rest easy on that one, David. You don't need to convince me of the -importance- of testimonial. I understand that it is vitally important, essential even, to your arguments.
Your task is to convince me that a particular form of evidence which is demonstrably inherently /weak/ is, in fact, /strong/ evidence.
Or to convince everyone else, I suppose. Good luck with that.
Dr. H: The argument is long since won, from my POV. You have proven that you are willing to spend years on end passionately making the case for all kinds of things based on nothing other than testimonial evidence. If you're willing to devote your life to the proposition that testimonial evidence is worth such sacrifices and such passion, who am I to stand in your way?
=====
Crude says:
'Christian principles of behavior', without qualification and under even a broad reading, wouldn't be possible, no. Just like you can't expect an atheist to follow the 10 Commandments, not because of all 10, but because of 1, 2, and arguably 3.
=====
However, this is /not/ the reason the Christians I've polled have given. Not one of them ever opined that an atheist wouldn't be able to follow a particular commandment. The reason they did give, as I said, was that acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior was necessary.
One could argue whether the ten commandments were even addressed to Christians: where they are presented in the Bible they are addressed to the Hebrew tribes. God certainly didn't bring any Irish, Zimbabwean, or American Christians "out of Egypt."
I also dispute whether it is impossible for an atheist to obey the letter of the first three commandments.
Using myself as an example: since I have no gods at all, I certainly have no gods "before" the God of the first commandment. And I neither make nor worship any idols, since I don't worship at all, so #2 is no trouble.
#3, I agree, might be a little problematic. But really, how many people raised in a Christian culture -- even devout Christians -- can honestly claim that they have never, ever exclaimed "God DAMMIT!" when they hit their thumb with a hammer or stubbed their toe on a table in a dark room?
=====
...once we start counting orthodox Christian views about sex, abortion, and elsewise, the 'atheists are pretty much the same morally' argument is threatened.
=====
Only if you assume that "atheists" all subscribe to some homogenous belief system as Christians of a particular sect are expected to. Such an assumption would be fallacious. I know atheists who elected to refrain from sex until they had found their life-partner. And I know atheists who do not like or support abortion.
Of course there are other atheists for whom these things are not true, just as there are plenty of Christians who have had premarital or extra-marital sex, and plenty of Catholics who have had abortions.
But this is wandering from the issue. I made no claims about "all atheists" in my post. I related one particular response that I got from Christians to the posit
..."Can't _one_ live a life which is moral according to Christian principles of behavior, and be a moral being even though they may not believe in either God or Christianity?" (emphasis added).
=====
I brought up the importance of understanding what the 'atheist perspective' in question is.
=====
My point was that there -is no- "atheist perspective," any more than there is a "theist perspective". Atheism and theism are but aspects of one's larger wordlview.
On the other hand, it is -not- erroneous (although perhaps imprecise) to speak of a "Christian perspective" or a "Catholic perspective," etc. It would be erroneous to compare either to an "atheist perspective," however, since atheism is a single belief element and not a belief -system- in the way "Christianity" or "Catholicism" are.
=====
Crude says:
As it stands, I go by what Myers has actually said - I could always have missed something,
=====
Well, I won't say that I know Meyers well, but I did actually encounter him in person on various occasions, years back. He was doing (I think) post-doc research while I was working on my master's at the same university, and we worked in adjacent labs. At the time, I didn't even know that he was an atheist; it wasn't something that he wore on his sleeve. And in person he was much more mild-mannered and laid back than you might expcect from the agressiveness of his posts.
But for that matter, so, probably, am I.
I am also familiar with PZ from various Usenet newsgroups, especially sci.skeptic. I think -- and I already conveyed this to David privately -- that people who have not "done time" on Usenet have a, shall I say, very urbane and refined set of expectations about how internet communication ettiquette works, or is supposed to work.
Blogs like this, or even like Meyer's "Pharyngula" are like sitting around in an upscale coffee house, sipping lattes and discussing philosophy; Usenet is like hanging out in an alley behind the pool hall, passing a bottle of cheap wine in a paper bag, and playing the dozens. PZ and I are both veterans of that dank alley.
Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems to me that bloggers who haven't paid their dues on Usenet tend to have thin skins, and judge aggressive posters more harshly than they may deserve.
======
David said:
The argument is long since won, from my POV.
======
Well, you can pat yourself on the back and declare victory for some arbitrary 'argument' if that make you feel good. But you have failed utterly to show that anecdotal evidence is strong evidence, or to seriously address the many reasons why it is inherently weak evidence. Such defense of that postion as you have presented has either ignored context, or been based on the fallacy that 'having a lot of weak evidence is the same as having strong evidence.'
=====
You have proven that you are willing to spend years on end passionately making the case for all kinds of things based on nothing other than testimonial evidence.
=====
Indeed? What "things" have I done that with?
Dr. H: I certainly did, many times. But I'm not going to go over that yet again.
Almost all of your arguments are based almost entirely on human testimony. I've made that point before, too, in case you've forgotten. But this is only distantly related to the topic of this post. I'd hate to irritate some patient reader who is interested in the beef about Myers, follows the argument all the way to the end, and finds there an interminable debate about epistemology.
Some time I'm going to have to take another crack at the subject. Your misconceptions are common ones, and if I'm not mistaken, I think I sensed (Winston Wu taught me this) your opinion budged in the direction of sense almost half a micron over the course of our 254 year debate.
Dr H,
And in person he was much more mild-mannered and laid back than you might expcect from the agressiveness of his posts.
Yeah, I always hear this. And my response is always the same: "Everyone is nicer within swinging distance." If anyone acted RL the way Myers does - and this is on any topic of note, not just atheism - they'd have a fight on their hands.
Further, I've been around since freaking BBS days and Fido.net, nerd that I am. As such, please, spare me the "Usenet is a rough and tumble place for the hardcore" line. I think "Online, people - especially wimps - love to talk and act a lot tougher than they really are" is closer to the mark. In Myers' case, there's also the angle that he has to be entertaining.
Finally, you say you're familiar with him, but I've got to say this: When you keep spelling his name as Meyers rather than Myers, I have to wonder how familiar you really are. To me, this is like hearing someone talk about the views of physicist Stephen Hawkins, knowing they aren't making a joke about Stephen Hawking. Maybe he's been misspelling his name all these years and you know the truth, though. Maybe it's an in joke. But I'm laying it out there.
======
Crude said:
Yeah, I always hear this. And my response is always the same: "Everyone is nicer within swinging distance."
======
True enough. As I've often said elsewhere (even elsewhere on this blog, I believe), on the internet everyone is free to be an arrogant bastard without fear of reprisal.
======
I've been around since freaking BBS days and Fido.net, nerd that I am.
======
As have I -- and clearly my comments about delving into Usenet to grow a thicker hide don't apply to you. However, I included that information, originally relayed to David in private, at this request. I've little doubt that it applies to -some- posters here, at least.
======
When you keep spelling his name as Meyers rather than Myers, I have to wonder how familiar you really are.
======
I believe I stated outright that I don't know him well. We used to occasionally nod at each other in the shared quonset hut where he tended the brine shrimp used to feed his zebrafish, and where the lab I worked in kept our Aplysia californica.
Add to that that I am an indifferent and often phonetic speller, and that this blog lacks a spellcheck utility, and I think you have all the explanation required.
My question to you is: are you primarily riled by Myers' position, or by his attitude?
If the former, then perhaps you should engage in debating that position.
If the latter, then clearly spending a long time on the early, unruly, unrefined frontier of online fora is not a universal prescription for thickening one's hide.
Worked for me, tho'... ;-)
======
DM: Almost all of your arguments are based almost entirely on human testimony.
======
Actually, with the possible exception of a few political opinions, practically none of them are.
======
I'd hate to irritate some patient reader ... finds there an interminable debate about epistemology.
======
Yes, good point there.
======
Your misconceptions are common ones,
======
I'd say, rather, that yours are. But as you say, that's a debate for another place and time.
If I may quote the opposing side:
"Khalid Salad (@Young_Salad) 4/9/11 3:02 PM @LadyAtheist @DaBoyBanks i treat other women much different then how i treat u f***** atheist"
https://twitter.com/young_salad/status/56809169629609984 [I redacted the one word]
Or I could mention the constant death threats many people get from "true believer" Dennis Markuze. Do YOU get daily (sometimes 100's a day) emails from some atheist threatening to cut off your head?
You say "[PZs] argument is one of scientism: the tacit assumption that the only way to know anything is through scientific testing. It is like watching a dog eat its own tale: a self-contradiction painful to observe"
I would argue it is not Scientism specifically, unless you can quote him saying that you are just projecting. I wouldn't be shocked to find that PZ accepts that we have certain innate knowledge (like the ability to acquire language, which doesn't function in some people due to brain damage so it can be lost).
But, in a generic sense... What do you think are things we KNOW that cannot be tested in something akin to a scientific method?
Like logic? Do we not observe, measure, and test logic for accurate and correct results? Hasn't logic evolved as we have learned more?
Mathematics? How do we know the axioms of mathematics give accurate and correct results? Do we not observe, measure, and test mathematics as well? Hasn't mathematics evolved as we have learned more?
What about the scientific methodology itself? Has it not, itself, been tested and refined over the centuries?
How about love? Science cannot measure love can it?
http://66.199.228.237/boundary/Sexual_Addiction/romantic_love_an_FRMRI_study_of_mechanism_for_Mate_choice.pdf
http://www.publicacions.ub.es/refs/Articles/atracsexual.pdf
http://www.helenfisher.com/downloads/articles/Fisher-et-al-Rejection.pdf
Do you really believe that it's impossible to scientifically measure emotions and eventually thoughts? However difficult the task might be due to the scale of the problem, nothing we know indicates these things cannot be done.
The point is that while you CAN know some things without formal science, you cannot really know to what extent those things are correct without some form of scientific inquiry being brought to bear on the question.
The sky is blue. No, blue light is scattered by the atmosphere making it appear blue. What is blue? Well, blue is both certain frequencies of light and mixtures of light and it's only BLUE by convention. And things that appear blue are really just reflecting blue light due to specific electron behaviors of the molecules. So the trivial observation, "the sky is blue" is not really very reliable knowledge.
Just about everything we "knew" of the world from the past was WRONG in light of quantum mechanics and relativity.
So in that context I'm very curious to hear what we can know that cannot possibly be validated through careful observation (other than god)?
Yes (yawn) I've been wished dead and to hell by atheists. But the point isn't what a few fringees do (and I doubt your man "Khalid" even pretends to be a Christian) -- it's the general tone of PZ's site that belies the generalizations he makes.
Ironically, in your attempts to make science the be-all-and-end-all of empirical reasoning, you ACTUALLY emphasize the importance of HISTORY:
"Hasn't logic evolved as we have learned more? . . . Hasn't mathematics evolved as we have learned more? . . . What about the scientific methodology itself? Has it not, itself, been tested and refined over the centuries?"
These are all HISTORICAL claims, for which you cannot, even in principle, provide any purely SCIENTIFIC evidence. Q.E.D.
======
David said:
Yes (yawn) I've been wished dead and to hell by atheists.
======
An atheist that believes in hell?
Wished. One can wish for things one does not believe in.
Post a Comment