Asymmetrical Information

The bad news is that we will need every morsel of this reasonable attitude to deal with such complex global problems as climate change, fresh water, and economic inequality in an effective way.

I won't point out the baffling stupidity of this, but I will say that I thought concepts like "stewardship" and "social justice" (very generally, at least) were widespread in Western religions?

I think it is vanishingly unlikely that there is a God, but that is not the same thing as having proof that it is so.

You'd think these kinds of things would at least be tolerated as a lifestyle choice these days.

This post is needlessly snotty. I think you come off sounding like a jerk.

Hmm, after reading this again (rather than my first, 6 ppm read), he's clearly saying he expects anti-rational strains of religion to fade and is not talking about religion or theism generally. He confuses things by linking global warming etc. to anti-rational religion, but otherwise I see nothing particularly questionable, offensive, or novel.

It sometimes seems as if the most devoutly religious people and the most committed atheists are actually pretty similar.

Around the world, the category of “not religious” is growing faster than the Mormons, faster than the evangelicals, faster even than Islam, whose growth is due almost entirely to fecundity, not conversion, and is bound to level off soon.

And what has been the state of nations that are not religious?

Soviet Union/Russia? Ecological disaster.
China? Human rights violator, protector of dictators, pollution, etc.
Post-Christian Europe - Demographic collapse, carbon emissions increasing faster than the U.S.'s.

Does the professor want to reconsider his thesis? Mayhaps religion is not the problem.

Can "vanishingly unlikely" be plotted on a curve tied to experience and/or knowledge, or is that attitude event driven? (ie. How could a loving God let Old Yeller die?)

Oh, I'm looking forward to the public service announcements against devoutness. Pretty soon there will be college students standing outside classroom buildings praying aloud before exams.

By far the most interesting part of the article is the notion that the problem right now is making martyrs out of people who want to be martyrs.

Just out of curiosity, what has Daniel Dennett done with his life that we ought to consider him to be a “smart person”?

Half-Canadian’s correct, Dennett’s thesis is fatally flawed based on the evidence of secular regimes tending to be even more murderous than their religious counterparts. Also as evidenced by the hysteria over second-hand smoke and anthropomorphic global warming, there doesn’t appear to be much of a causal relationship between “secular” and “rational.”

Generally agree with Thorley, but one aside in the thesis struck me as .....odd. That was:
"Recall that only fifty years ago smoking was a high status activity and it was considered rude to ask somebody to stop smoking in one’s presence."
I don't recall, circa 1950, that smoking was ever a "high status activity" nor was it considered rude to ask one to abstain, either in certain company or places. Strange comment, IMO.

While there is, of course, zero evidence to support theistic beliefs, Dennett comes off as hopelessly naive. With the wide availability of information comes new avenues of proselytizing and more efficient methods of religious organization and communication. Intelligent theists have shown that new information doesn't always lead to deconversion (where, ideally, it should), but rather just a modification of their already byzantine structure of post hoc religious justification. For Dennett to think that this is likely to change displays his own susceptibility to post hoc justification.

I'm a little puzzled by the claim that there is no evidence to support religious belief. If by evidence you mean mathematically-based logic that compels consent from every rational person, then there is no evidence for religion, or libertarianism, or environmentalism beyond an elementary public health level, or the belief that gay marriage will be socially beneficial, or the belief that gay marriage will be socially harmful, or any of a million other things that people believe. Are we expecting people to stop believing all of those things?

From the original post:

"I’m so optimistic that I expect to live to see the evaporation of the powerful mystique of religion."

I think this is as likely to happen as God descending from heaven.

He contradicts himself:

I’m so optimistic that I expect to live to see the evaporation of the powerful mystique of religion.

Of course many people–perhaps a majority of people in the world–will still cling to their religion with the sort of passion that can fuel violence and other intolerant and reprehensible behavior.

If "perhaps a majority of people" are passionate about religion, how can it (or it's mystique) be said to have evaporated?

While there is, of course, zero evidence to support theistic beliefs, Dennett comes off as hopelessly naive. With the wide availability of information comes new avenues of proselytizing and more efficient methods of religious organization and communication.

Agreed, this is a really bizarre statement considering that the first major instrument of mass communications, the Guttenberg printing press, was so key to spreading the Bible to millions of people. Today we have Christian booksellers as a key segment of the publishing industry, Salem radio as the third largest owner in the talk radio market, the Pope praising the internet as a valuable instrument for spreading the Gospel, churches with homepages and email distribution lists, and Godbloggers making their niche in the blogosphere. IMO if past history and current trends are any indication, religion will probably continue to thrive because or rather than in spite of new information technology.

If "perhaps a majority of people" are passionate about religion, how can it (or it's mystique) be said to have evaporated?

Good question, does it strike anyone else that in his article Dennett seems to be ignoring facts that contradict his worldview or misinterpreting them with the same “passion” and intensity of the straw-theists that he so openly despises?

Chad Orzel over at Uncertain Principles had a similar reaction to another recent Dennett comment. You don't have to disagree with him to wonder if there's something a bit wrong with him. . .

Hey, I'm not religious, but "stupid smart" is a guy who can do advanced physics but not tie their shoes. The proper phrase for this guy is more along the lines of "fucking nutjob". His argument seems to be "I'm such a tolerant person, I hope we kick the religious to the bottom of society, because I'm smart and peaceful."

Thanks, buddy, but while lots of wars and uprisings have been fought in the name of religion, a lot have been fought in the name of some very secular ideologies. If people didn't fight wars for God and Gods, they'd fight them for some other stupid belief that sounds fucking loony to outsiders. And you know what most of those religion/ideology wars were about anyway? Well, go read a good book on the Reconquista and try and count the amount of times the great religious devout holy warriors on both sides switched, at their convenience. For those of you shaking your fists and saying "Those non-specific intolerant fucks cause all the problems! THE INTOLERANTS WILL GET US ALL!" I'll repeat the cliché: Power and Money and Hate, which you don't need a God to enjoy.

War is about assholes who assume they're better than some abstractly defined-group and feel they can kick that group around. Assholes like Danniel D. Dennit.

And on the issue of proof: No one's proved to me so far that the enlightened atheists will fuck the planet any less than the religious.

I suggest that Jane replace this post in its entirety with the South Park episodes "Go God Go" and "Go God Go XII".

As someone non-religious, but also non-Left, I'd like to point out that positing disbelief in God as equivalent to having a rational belief system, per se, is, as the lawyers on TV like to put it, assuming facts not in evidence.

Pretty soon there will be college students standing outside classroom buildings praying aloud before exams.
At my school, they called us 'engineers'.

Hitler was raised a Catholic and mobilized a Christian nation composed of millions of true believers to commit genocidal slaughter and try to conquer the world.

At the same time, the Vatican -- which taught that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus -- stood by and did nothing to try and stop the genocide.

All of which is to say that it is neither here nor there whether a regime is a theocracy or "secular". Atheism simply declares that there is no evidence for a god, and that morality should be derived from reason.

PS The Flying Spaghetti Monster has not been disproven either. And I swear, he's gonna get ya.

Hitler was raised a Catholic and mobilized a Christian nation composed of millions of true believers to commit genocidal slaughter and try to conquer the world.

Hitler also disavowed his Catholic upbringing as an adult and described himself as a “complete Pagan” and blamed Christianity for the fall of the First Reich.

At the same time, the Vatican -- which taught that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus -- stood by and did nothing to try and stop the genocide.

Right, that’s why Israel has a monument in honor of Pope Pius XII for the Church’s role in helping to rescue some 700,000-860,000 Jews from the death camps.

Thanks for that rebuttal, Thorley. Saved me the trouble.

As a practicing Catholic (I'd say devout, but I'm not even close, although I'd like to be, someday), I'm thrilled with the resources now available to me that I never had growing up. The wealth of reference materials, apologetics, and Catholic blogs is simply fantastic, and reveals the depth and richness of Catholic thinking. Then there are things like the recent NRO symposium of Catholic thinkers on the execution of Saddam Hussein, which shows the wide range of opinions on that thorny issue. I know my experience is not unique; the availibility of more information has enriched my faith and my understanding of my religion. Dennett's not just wrong about the impact of the information age on religion, he has totally missed the boat.

It's funny to read such a wishful-thinking puff piece on what I assume must be a respected site. I once wrote a paper like that when I was a freshman in college, just hours before it was due -- I had a topic in mind and instead of doing research to find out whether or not my thesis had any merit (or any basis in reality), I made a bunch of sweeping generalizations with no factual support. It's the one and only time I ever got an "F" on a paper, and I deserved it. If Dennett had submitted this work for a grade, I'd fail him, too.

I am not sure what qualifies as "hysteria" in Thorley's book but I am surprised that he thinks he can tie
1) secularism to belief in global warming
2) and that doing so will somehow discredit secularism.

For y81, what evidence do you think there is for a specific religion or religion in general? Popularity?

Tom G.

Thorley, where is your evidence? Hitler did not formally disavow his religion. He certainly became more and more hostile to it as his rule went on, but the record is mixed. Certainly, he did not declare himself an atheist. And his genocidal policies were carried out by Christians who elected him and abetted him. The reality is, you can be full of God or Godless -- either way, you can still kill.

As for your hilarious whitewash of the Vatican, there were Jews who praised the Holy See's actions during WWII, but largely to get it to recognize the state of Israel. (That figure of 700,000-860,000 was bandied about by Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide, but it's just speculation.) If Pope Pius XII was such a friend to the Jewish cause, why isn't he recognized as a "Righteous Gentile"? I understand that Catholics seek to erase the stain of inaction on their history, but they'll have to try a little harder.

I'll second the question: What causes you to regard Dennett as smart?

If he's looking for violent, intolerant, reprehensible behavior, how about starting with atheists who happen to be preoccupied with economic inequality?

And his genocidal policies were carried out by Christians who elected him and abetted him.

Once again someone has confused true Christians and cultural Christians. Its like confusing fresh water with salt water: you will live drinking one and die drinking the other.
Remember the parable of the Wheat and the Tares?

While Dennett is vastly overstating, well, just about everything, there are a couple of core phenomenon behind what his points that are worthy of notice. It's little noticed, but there does seem to be a quiet rise in the belief that the existence or non-existence of god is a fundamentally uninteresting or unimportant question. This belief (beautifully dubbed "apatheism" by Jonathan Rauch) is compatible with both theism and atheism, just not with militant versions of either. The rise of a substantial class of people who don't much care about god one way or another seems to be a new thing under the sun, and it's long-term societal impact is unknown. Dennett himself is clearly not apatheist (being a militant atheist of the sort afflicted with a particularly silly sort of scientism), although it looks like he is claiming their numbers under his flag.

There's an interesting post to be had, by the way, on the subject of "stupidest smart person in the world". Dennett would surely lose out to Peter Singer, and Leon Kass would certainly be in the running. Discussion of other candidates (Francis Fukuyama? Amatai Etzioni? John Kenneth Galbraith?) would undoubtedly provide endless fun.

Thorley Winston wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what has Daniel Dennett done with his life that we ought to consider him to be a “smart person”?

More than you, me, Jane, and anyone else who inhabits this dusty little corner of the Internet have ever done. Check out his CV:

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/cvrecent.htm

This is just wild speculation... I'd say he's at least 100x smarter than you are...but only 99.99x smarter than me. ;)

Isn't Dennett just making a very loose analogy between religion and smoking, where long-term social conditioning can perhaps change a deeply held perception? I'm not saying it's a good analogy, but it's also not quite as stupid as saying that we should "do for religion what we did for smoking." Would it have been better if he'd made the analogy between racism and religion? (Hm, hope that doesn't get me in trouble.)

Also, don't we have the same "caliber of evidence" against some of religion's foundational elements (e.g., stories in the Bible) that we do on the health effects of smoking?

For the fellow unaware of Dennett's work and legacy, this article is a decent summary:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1193371,00.html

Wikipedia has a decent collection of links on him and his work.

As for his books, Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are good places to start.

Okay, maybe its me, but I read Dennett's article and I'm repulsed. Now, I'm not a very religious person. But, the essay seemed almost monsterously totalitarian in its mandates as to what could constitute a rational, and thus acceptable religion. It seemed that always looming, but left unsaid was the belief in state control, or at least influence. Maybe I'm the odd person out here, but I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with a society in which faith is judged by the extent to which it promotes environmentalism and favors income redistibution.

MikeinAppalachia:

Generally agree with Thorley, but one aside in the thesis struck me as .....odd. That was:
"Recall that only fifty years ago smoking was a high status activity and it was considered rude to ask somebody to stop smoking in one’s presence."

I don't recall, circa 1950, that smoking was ever a "high status activity" nor was it considered rude to ask one to abstain, either in certain company or places. Strange comment, IMO.

No, not strange, but ignorant and downright stupid. Fifty years ago, in 1957, there was still a pretty clear code about smoking. Relatives of mine were smoking then, although some gave it up in the 1960's, and thus I got to see in person the code that was expected from people. This included the following, although it is not limited to:

* No smoking in elevators or "No smoking" areas of public transportation.
* Asking "Mind if I smoke"? before lighting up, and actually not smoking if some demurred.
* No smoking around other people's food, unless they did not object.

I can't say if it was a high status thing or not; many people did it, it was in TV shows and movies. But there sure as heck was a lot of cultural/social force deployed to keep people from being bothered by unwanted smoke. Then came the "do your own thang" 60's, and that all ended.

Then, in reaction, came laws and more laws regulating smoking.

So based on this excerpt, the author is someone who doesn't know what he's on about, and apparently doesn't know that he doesn't know. He's ignorant, to be blunt, about at least one thing...and therefore quite likely about other things, too. The sad thing is, looking at his picture he seems to be more than old enough to remember the world of 50 years ago, and thus ought not to make such a stupid, antifactual claim.

As for his main argument, it is rather a trite piece. I recall reading similar things 30 years ago. I have a book from 1961, "Toward a Reasonable Society" by one C.E. Ayres that confidently predicts an end to all superstition (explicitly including organized religion) in a generation or two. It is interesting to reflect that Sayid Qutb was writing in Egypt at the same time as Ayres in America.

Today, almost two full generations later, Ayres is forgotten, and Qutb's influence, thanks those like Osama bin Laden who seek to put his ideas into practice, has a world-wide influence.

Maybe it is the "last gasp" of religion. Then again, Voltaire pretty much could have written this essay back in 1790...

If "perhaps a majority of people" are passionate about religion, how can it (or it's mystique) be said to have evaporated?

My impression is that Dennett's mind religion is evaporating among people who count. The wealthy, educated classes. Arthur C. Clarke (who is also very much an atheist) had expressed this explicitely -- he does not expect religion to disappear any time soon, but thinks only people who have little say in how world is run (majority, that is) will cling to it. It may be an elitist position, but not so unreasonable. I suspect Dennett does not articulate this position the same way because wealthy, educated classes is all he ever meets.

"Once again someone has confused true Christians and cultural Christians."

It's easy to define away the problem. Socialists today would say people are confusing true Socialism and the "wrong socialism" of e.g. the USSR.

Also, I don't get agnostics. Just like you are innocent until proven guilty, God doesn't exist until he is proven.

Also, I don't get agnostics. Just like you are innocent until proven guilty, God doesn't exist until he is proven.

I get it. Agnostics understand that you can't prove a negative. They have no proof for God, so they can't say God exists, but they can't say that God does not exist.

It's like failing to reject the null hypothesis. You don't reject the hypothesis.

On the claim of proof on the existence of God, I endorse Thomas Paine's view on revelations from God. They are only revelations to the people who received them. They aren't revelations to me, or anyone else.

And I consider myself to be religious.

While there is, of course, zero evidence to support theistic beliefs,

That is patently untrue. There are two major, and modern, lines of evidence for the existence of God. Check the Amazon reviews of this debate between Christian JP Moreland and atheist Kai Nelson. Even the atheists conceded that they lost the debate. This does not mean that others cannot make a stronger case for atheism, see this debate between William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

For those who really are curious about the evidentialist case for God, I recommend picking up a debate book rather than listen to "preaching to the choir."

Finally, Dennett wouldn't last five minutes in a debate on the existence of God. It seems odd that he spends so much energy on the issue, rather than sticking to evolution.

"Agreed, this is a really bizarre statement considering that the first major instrument of mass communications, the Guttenberg printing press, was so key to spreading the Bible to millions of people."

This actually supports Dennett's point, which wasn't about eliminating religion, but rather about the dramatic evolution of religion. Gutenberg's bibles spread the word to the educated laity. They stripped the Catholic clericy of its monopoly on interpreting the word of god. The protestant reformation and a significantly different Catholic church resulted.

While the printing press gave everyone a bible, the internet gives everyone a pulpit. The tribal aspects of religions, "we believe this because this is what we have always believed", will have a harder time surviving. The more practical and useful aspects of religion will tend to survive more. Where Dennett does miscalculate is in failing to understand that hatred and intolerance can be very useful and practical.

Njorl,

The tribal aspects of religions, "we believe this because this is what we have always believed", will have a harder time surviving. The more practical and useful aspects of religion will tend to survive more.

I really mean no offense by this, but "practical and useful"...for what? Ultimately, Dennett's argument seems to reduce faith into strictly an agent of social control. Ultimately, that seems both a weak standard and a horrifying criterion to judge a religion rational or acceptable.

"It's like failing to reject the null hypothesis. You don't reject the hypothesis."

I fully understand your point, but I respectfully prefer my simile to yours. ;)

Just like I shouldn't continue in perpetual suspicion (but rather fully trust in his innocence) of a person once accused for something and put on trial, but acquitted for total lack of evidence, so I won't continue in perpetual suspicion of God's existence (i.e. being agnostic) if I have no evidence of his existence. Replace God with whatever faith-based entity.

Good post and feisty comments but since this has all devolved into the old Aquinian mudfest, I'd like to just comment on a few nuggets:

That is patently untrue. There are two major, and modern, lines of evidence for the existence of God. Check the Amazon reviews ...

All very interesting, I'm sure. But say, just for the sake of argument (pun intended), that the theists had "lost" these no-doubt scrupulously fair debates. What odds would you give that the "losers" would instantly become atheists? ("Oh, so there is no God! How could I have been so stupid!") Yeah, kind of long. As in stratospheric.

It sometimes seems as if the most devoutly religious people and the most committed atheists are actually pretty similar.

Exactly. Because they all have solid philosophies by which to guide their lives.

The devoutly religious, of course, just never change their minds ...

Valjean,

Interesting points, but couldn't your suggestions regarding theists be equally applied to atheists. Somehow, I don't think that atheists reviewing any argument that is decided in favor of the existence of a God are going to suddenly "see the light". Likewise, I have to ask, how often do the devoutly irreligious change their minds?

Bill,

Thanks for seeing my point. The sword could cut both ways, but if it's purely a numbers game I strongly suspect more atheists are converted to religion (of some kind) than are theists giving up their faith. And I also suspect (choosing my words carefully) that the reasons aren't hard to discern: religion in most parts of the world is very popular. Entire communities are built around it. I've lost count of the number of new parents I've known who've whisked their kids off to church -- to "teach them some values." Even those who would normally opt out of it -- those neo-Pascalian agnostics -- can't be bothered with basic burden-of-proof arguments. To put it bluntly, being an atheist -- and advertising it -- takes some balls (he said modestly) and no small appetite for frustration.

But I'll stay open-minded on the issue! I agree with Peter that the devout and the non-believer share some similarities. I just don't think this is one of them.

Just out of curiosity, what has Daniel Dennett done with his life that we ought to consider him to be a “smart person”?

Good question, Thorley. I've been asking the same thing about Amartya Sen for years. [/offtopic]

On agnosticism vs. atheism:

Rarely in life are there instances where you have solid proof on the level of a mathematical theorem, that something is true. And nor can you follow a heuristic whereby you always err on the side of the negative. Rather, people typically hold beliefs based on what way the evidence seems to point, combined with a standard of how much evidence is required to go one way or the other.

Atheism is the belief that the evidence suggests it is unreasonable to believe there is a god. This is based on a) the presumption in favor of the negative, and b) the lack of evidence in favor of there being a god.

Agnosticism, where I would classify myself, is the belief that the prevailing evidence does not suffice to form a reasonable belief that there is or is not a god. The "god" here is in the most general sense of the term, and does not necessarily refer to the Christian conception of God. Therefore, I take "god" to be any conscious being that is capable of, at will, modifying the universe. This question reduces to that of, "is the universe the product of intentional or unintentional forces?" and is thus harder to justify presumption in favor of one or the other.

(Note: I haven't been a frequent participant in religious debates, so if this sounds naive, please tear it apart.)

Person,

I don't think this counts as "tearing apart," but as an atheist I'd like to comment on your definition:

Atheism is the belief that the evidence suggests it is unreasonable to believe there is a god. This is based on a) the presumption in favor of the negative, and b) the lack of evidence in favor of there being a god.

Ahem. Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of one. If one makes a metaphysical claim for the existence of something (even the squishiest, non-Christian god you can imagine), the burden of proof is on the claimer. Atheists don't need evidence to disprove anything; the onus is on the theists.

Calling atheism a "belief" is, I think, a conceit -- and a very handy one for believers, or even agnostics. It neatly shifts the burden of proof and/or resets the playing field ("everyone believes in something"). Or they subscribe to Chesterton:

"When people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they do not believe in anything but that they believe in everything and anything."

... which tars us with the same brush -- and is, by my estimation, abject nonsense. How I wish believers and agnostics had the imagination to see that some of us will never need even a "conscious being that is capable of, at will, modifying the universe." Which is handy, because it doesn't exist.

"Which is handy, because it doesn't exist."

You say that as if you know it to be TRUE. You can't possibly know that. Maybe you believe it? *wink* *wink*

Valjean, I thought I made it very clear that atheists don't "believe in everything and anything" but that you hold the existence of God to a certain burden of proof, and see insufficient evidence to meet that burden. You seem to be attributing a lot of baggage to my use of the term "belief" that I did not intend. What's the most general, baggage-free term for "what your position is"?

I'll phrase the above without the term "belief".

"Atheists hold that the burden of proof of the matter of the existence of any god lies with those who believe there is some god, and that burden is not met."

So then what your term be for a proposition its proponent has the burden of proving, but is not met? Do you say that that position is "suspect"? "unreasonable to believe"? "unjustifiable at present"? For example, if a prosecutor alleges the defenand is guilty, and only puts forth flimsy circumstantial evidence, how do you regard the proposition, "The defendant is guilty?"

Just so I don't use the wrong term.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of one.

Some atheists are content to say "I don't believe in God," others (including such well known atheists as, well, you:"it doesn't exist") are insistent that there is no God or god.

Which is, of course, a belief, just as unfounded and unprovable as the reverse.

Person,

I humbly apologize for the baggage. I expect you can discern that when I see statements like "atheism is the belief that the evidence suggests ..." I get a bit riled.

If you're confused about how I use "belief" I don't think I can improve on a standard dictionary: "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so". (Italics mine, of course.) Atheists, naturally, believe in many things. A god as you define it just isn't one of them.

prove it,

Well, yes, I know it. Otherwise I wouldn't have written it. What makes you think I "can't possibly know that"? (I also know there's no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy.) You have some evidence, perhaps? And what's that in your eye?

Valjean,

Thank you for your kind response. In response to your point concerning "acceptability" of atheism versus theism, I think its a little more dependent on context than you're suggesting. Sorry, but wide swaths of U.S. and European civilizations are likely to look on atheism with indifference and profession of Christianity with at least a roll of the eyes.

Rob Lyman,

I think you hit the nail on the head here. The absence of belief and the profession of non-existence are two different things. One is a default. The other requires proof.

Bill,

Point taken. We're clearly speaking anecdotally, but my personal experience in the U.S. has encountered many responses beyond indifference and eye-rolling -- and I've lived my entire life in West Coast liberal cities where one might expect more of a "European" attitude.

I clearly can only cover my own context, but I suggest atheism is not quite so uncontroversial as you imply.

Valjean:

Are you famliar with the distinction between a denotation and a connotation? I understand that the dictionary meaning of "belief" is "confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so"; however, the term tends to connote a sort of "leap of faith", and that's exactly the baggage I believed you (mistakenly) added to my usage of the term.

Would you say that you have "confidence that there is no God, without absolute proof of such"? If so, you believe there is no God.

Person,

If you're saying "belief tends connotes a sort of 'leap of faith'" I have no argument -- and I'll own the baggage. When we're talking about existence of a god, "confidence in the truth" clearly doesn't cut it; probably connotes a few other concepts besides "leap of faith," but I think we can agree there. And yes, I understand the connote/denote distinction.

Would you say that you have "confidence that there is no God, without absolute proof of such"? If so, you believe there is no God.

No. I know there is no God -- and as I mentioned, absolute proof is up to you. I endeavor to carefully exclude the concept "belief" from my statements about god -- to avoid the same aforementioned baggage.

We are at least in etymological agreement?

Valjean:

No. I know there is no God

I'm confused. Is this now different from above when you merely "didn't have belief" in God? Or are you stating now some higher level of certainty that there is no god?

and as I mentioned, absolute proof is up to you.

I understand, but I think you're making an unjustified leap. The fact that (let's assume) "the burden is on one asserting there is some god" is separate from the matter of "whether you lack absolute proof there is no God." Quite clearly, you do not have absolute proof there is no god and you, er, "hold" (?) that there is no god. That suffices for you to meet the literal definition of "believing there is no god", regardless of your endeavor.

And on a similar related concern, it is possible to prove some negatives, even if there is never a burden to do so.

I know there is no God

I fail to see the difference between this particular profession of faith and its opposite, "I know there is a God." Nor can I understand how you can describe this as an "absence of belief" unless you're playing some annoying pedantic word game the way some kids did in elementary school, who claimed that black and white were "not colors, but the absence of color."

(sigh)

OK, I admit I'm tiring of this game, fun though it's been. If you'll scroll back through this lovely thread (all the way to yesterday), you'll notice my first point was believers are almost never -- in my experience -- persuaded by debate. While it's fairly obvious I'm not persuading anyone here, I'd like to clear the decks a bit by humbly suggesting one of you offer some proof for your god(s) rather than arguing semantics. In the meantime ...

The fact that (let's assume) "the burden is on one asserting there is some god" is *separate* from the matter of "whether you lack absolute proof there is no God." Quite clearly, you do not have absolute proof there is no god *and* you, er, "hold" (?) that there is no god

Agreed they're separate concepts. Then kindly explain why I need absolute negative proof when you -- condeded assumption -- are offering no absolute positive proof. I have "no absolute proof there is no God" ...? I might actually have it -- you all seem to assume I not only don't, but can't -- but why do I need it?

I'm confused. Is this now different from above when you merely "didn't have belief" in God?

Please quote me rather than "connote" my meaning. And also note my hypocrisy about putting the concept "belief" and god in the same sentence ...

I fail to see the difference between this particular profession of faith and its opposite, "I know there is a God." Nor can I understand how you can describe this as an "absence of belief" ...

Um, maybe because IT'S NOT A PROFESSION OF FAITH! It's a statement of knowledge based on lack of evidence. And you accuse me of playing "annoying pedantic word game(s)!" Can any of you think outside of "belief" and "faith?" How do you know something for certain (besides the obvious fact that what I'm stating is "unprovable and unknowable")?

But Rob, thanks for calling me a "well known atheist." I believe that!

It's a statement of knowledge based on lack of evidence.

So for you, absence of evidence = definitive evidence of absence? Allow me to illustrate why that is a fallacy.

Your thought process seems to run thus: 1) if there was a God or gods, there would be certain types of observable evidence in the world. 2) there is no such evidence, therefore 3) there is no God.

But your #1 is inevitably a (religious) leap of faith. You must necessarily posit certain affirmative characteristics for a (hypothetical) God in order to define what kind of evidence He would leave. How do you know what characteristics supernatural beings have? You can't and you don't know. You merely beleive (in the religious sense). If your belief in God's nature is wrong, then your entire syllogism collapses, because you are looking for the wrong kind of evidence.

At most, you know that God does not have the characteristics you posit for him. You have excluded a particular hypothesis about the nature of God. You do not know if he has others which you have not considered. Apparently you believe you have considered all possible characteristics for God; permit me to introduce another troublesome word: I doubt you have.

Nothing wrong with your belief; I don't have anything against it. But it isn't something other than belief just because you want it to be.

As an aside, I'm not what anyone would call a "believer." I'm an ex-physicist lawyer. So while I'm not an epistimologist, I have spent a certain amount of my life thinking about evidence.

Valjean:

OK, I admit I'm tiring of this game, fun though it's been.

You really have some nerve to say that. I've been very precise to you and you've done nothing but nitpick plainly obvious questions and statements by invoking non-standard usage. You already admitted reading connotations where none were intended. What is the purpose of that?

I'd like to clear the decks a bit by humbly suggesting one of you offer some proof for your god(s) rather than arguing semantics

If you want to find who's insistent on arguing semantics, consult your local mirror.

Agreed they're separate concepts.

Then you don't have to mock my use of emphasis.

Then kindly explain why I need absolute negative proof when you -- condeded assumption -- are offering no absolute positive proof.

Need absolute proof for what? I don't claim you need absolute proof of e.g. there being no god to justify e.g. a belief (!) in there being no god. If you read back to what I was claiming -- that you meet the definition of believing there is no god -- the only reason I mentioned that you have no absolute proof of there being no god was to show that you meet the definition.

-Not that the burden's on you.
-Not that there must be a god if you can't prove otherwise.
-Not whatever knee-jerk reaction you're having.

I have "no absolute proof there is no God" ...? I might actually have it -- you all seem to assume I not only don't, but can't -- but why do I need it?

I only assume that that you don't; I don't know where the "can't" comes from except your emotion. The reason I assume you don't is because if you had such majestic insight you have shared it, if for no other reason than to convince those who can be convinced.

And the reason I belabor the point about whether you meet the definition of "believing there is no god" is because you claimed that much of the intellectual battle (at least in your mind), hinged on exactly this point, comparing my statements to ones by some other guy that I don't endorse (and affirmed I don't endorse).

me:I'm confused. Is this now different from above when you merely "didn't have belief" in God?

you:Please quote me rather than "connote" my meaning. And also note my hypocrisy about putting the concept "belief" and god in the same sentence ...

Sure, I'll quote you. First, can I skip that part about quoting you saying you were an atheist? You also said "Ahem. Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of one." Okay. So there you go. You "don't have belief" in god.

Now, where did I misrepresent your position?

That's right: I didn't. You were just wasting everyone's time again.

I love this statement...

"believers are almost never -- in my experience -- persuaded by debate"

Especially when you consider it in the context of how you said it. You are so certain that you don't "believe" that you can't even come to terms with the otherside of the debate. Here you are, a believer (in no God), refusing to be persuaded by debate.

At the end of the day, none of us have a monopoly on definite truth and clan assert absolute knowledge and authority. To do so, pretty much establishes yourself as the "God" which is what you're claiming/believing doesn't exist. Until we're "certain", we're stuck with our faith and belief one way or the other.

I'm amazed at how fervant and rabid some athesists can get sometimes when you burst their bubble that their assumptions about life are just as unprovable and therefore belief-oriented as the rest of everyone elses.

Now, you may claim your beliefs are more modern and more civilized or whatever. But that's still a belief.

People seem to think there's something wrong with holding beliefs concerning God's existence. I have no idea what.

I'm an atheist. I think there's no God. I don't have 100% certainty. But that's true in general. I don't have 100% certainty in my positions on abortion or gun control or animal rights or free will or the status of morality etc. No problem. I hold positions without 100% certainty, just like everyone else who's at all humble and reasonable.

There are well-known arguments against God's existence, arguments that I think carry some weight. The argument from evil, for example. The outlandish nature of God (inter alia, immaterial mind capable of controlling the physical universe) also makes theism worth doubting. I think that, given the epistemic situation we humans are in (given what evidence there is and isn't), the most reasonable and appropriate attitude to take towards God's existence is one of atheistic disbelief -- "that's probably not true, and I don't take it very seriously". (It's not that this attitude is "more modern and more civilized", it's that it's more reasonable and appropriate). And I think this tends to hold not just for the classical theist God but for more evidence-transcendent gods -- unknowable somethings. Also worth noting: at the margins of the concept, belief in those gods is almost indistinguishable from atheism.

Now, if a theist thought that the design argument, for example, gave good reason to posit some sort of intelligent designer, then that would be okay with me. I'd think s/he was wrong and was holding an inappropriate attitude towards God's existence, but I wouldn't think s/he was being epistemically irresponsible or stupid. It's when people go further, to a god of a religious tradition, that I begin to suspect that intellectual vices are at work.

In general, forming beliefs about the existence of God and gods on the basis of evidence and reasoning is okay. It's better than okay. Anything else looks like a ridiculous mistake.

Oh the vain and foolish traditions of our fathers.

That argument might have some merit, if it had not been uttered for the last few thousand years by millions of people who think they are enlightened.

Some things don't change. Religion and Faith isn't something that was just recently thrown off and looked at as something that is quaint and old fashioned. People have been stoning the prophets for a long time you know...

Which argument? And how is the argument undermined by facts concerning those who have uttered it? (I ask because it looks like you might be committing an ad hominem fallacy)

Rob,

Good points, and I'm glad you clarified the distinction. No, absence of evidence for me does not necessarily equal definitive evidence of absence and largely for the reasons you mentioned. I most certainly have not considered all the possible characteristics of (a) god -- nor would I care to.

If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing (apparently explosive on this thread, but bear with me), you're saying "evidence for God could show up tomorrow so how can you say 'there is no such thing'?" Approximately correct? If so, I'll concede the point. When I say "I know," it's clearly temporal: I'm saying "I know based on the evidence (or lack thereof) right now." To say "I know for all time" would necessariliy get into the nature of god -- if his (her?) existence is necessarily impossible or not. Certainly a different conversation.

As for the rest of you,

Sheesh! Was my last post really that snarky? Why did you even bother engaging me but rather just point out my nervy, nit-picking, mocking, emotional, divine-truthful, God-like, fervant (sic), rabid qualities right away and call it a day?

I truly was only attempting to make some observations, and state what I know and defend it -- and OK, get a few digs in when I thought I could. I confess to being rather surprised at the reaction I've caused and apologize for causing offense.

Valjean, my reaction was more "pity" than "offense".

Valjean,

No, I'm not talking about evidence showing up tomorrow.

You say "there is no evidence." Clearly, you have some idea in your mind of what the evidence would look like, if it existed. That idea must be formed from some notion of what the nature of God would be, if He existed. And that notion of God's nature must be, so far as I can tell, essentially a religious belief, just as a Christian's notions of God's nature are.

I'm sure you can convincingly exclude the existence of a God whose principal concern was that I get lots of action. On the other hand, if God is conceived as a guy with a weekday radio show on the Sirius network interviewing strippers, then theologians are unanimous on His certain existence.

But how you can logically exclude any and all possible gods, I have no idea. Thus, I [believe, hold, assert] you must have some limiting conception of what God is our could possibly be, and that conception is what I am identifying as your "belief."

Rob, there's no need for a (shamefully religious) commitment to a particular conception of God. You can just think of all the different conceptions that fit the bill (Christian conception in, mystic conception in, 'God = basketball' out), and make a judgment call for each one of them. You don't need to select any one of these conceptions. You just need to know which ones are candidates. And for that, all you need is the linguistic understanding of a native English speaker. (Same goes for less stretchy terms like 'leprechaun', 'altruism', or 'cruelty')

Also, don't we have the same "caliber of evidence" against some of religion's foundational elements (e.g., stories in the Bible) that we do on the health effects of smoking?

Not even close. First, because they're two completely different types of evidence; second, because the veracity of the Biblical record is frequently misunderstood (or willfully denied, in the extreme case).

The hazards associated with smoking are ascertainable with scientific evidence. We can chemically decipher the contents of a cigarette, determine how those components are affected by being set on fire, perform additional studies to see how the resultant products affect living tissues and life processes, and then pull in a few smokers to see if/how the effects have carried into humans. Most important of all, we can do this over and over again, and verify that the results are reproducible.

With the Bible, however, we are now predominantly in the realm of historical evidence. History cannot be judged in the manner of the scientific method for the obvious reason that there is no way to fully replicate the conditions in order to verify the claimed results. Instead, the criterion used are more along the lines of...

(i) authorship authenticity -- do the details match with what the witnesses would have known, based on what we know? (e.g. Socrates would not write about a red Ferrari).

(ii) internal consistency -- do the witnesss generally agree with each other, and if not, are the apparent discrepancies resolvable? (e.g. there are varying accounts on the burning of Rome, but all generally agree on Nero's culpability and many of the peripheral details.)

(iii) historical preservation -- how many copies do we have of the documents, what kind of embelishments or transcription errors have occurred in successive copies, and how close do the oldest known copies date with respect to the alleged time of writing? What do we know about the methods of copying that might reflect on this?

...and so forth. In all respects used to judge ancient documents, the Bible far exceeds any other famous book by orders of magnitude, and even though it is not a history book per se, there is no historical reason to doubt its accuracy whenever it does give such details.

Which hasn't prevented some from trying. For years, it was a popular sport among some secular historians to attack the two books of Luke (Luke's Gospel account, and the Acts of the Apostles) due to the fact that Luke had a historian's own attention to detail, yet many of the things he wrote about were completely unknown to secular history. The popularity of that sport waned after the critics were disappointed by a long succession of confirming archaeoligical finds.

On the other hand, at least one archaeologist (the name escapes me at the moment) has generated several successful finds by using the Bible as a guide regarding ancient geography and culutral customs.

Rob,

Your clarification is appreciated, thanks. I think Dave stated it pretty well, and I'll add that from my standpoint when someone else makes some claim for a "god," of course I have to ask -- or make an assumption based on my knowledge of our common language -- what he means by that term. If you call that "limited" so be it; I see it as no more limited or expansive than any other concept in the English language. What are the characteristics of your god? What claims are you making?

I made what I thought was a perfectly natural assumption that the god discussed on this thread was one claimed by, say, a major world religion (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) and further stated that -- from the evidence I've been presented -- I know that those gods (god?) don't exist. I really don't "have some idea in (my) mind of what the evidence *would* look like, if it existed" -- at least before someone gives me some evidence to evaluate.

Valjean, Dave,

If you're making a narrow claim that "God as described in the Bible does not exist," that's very different from "God does not exist."

The first is, at least plausibly, no more than the examination and rejection of truth claims made by others, akin to "Your house is not haunted by ghosts who got you pregnant." The second is (as I think I have made clear) necessarily based on a religious notion of the theoretically possible nature of God.

The first can be accurately described as an absence of belief, but the second is a form of religious faith or belief, or at least grounded on some form of faith.

To use an entirely eartly analogy, it's the difference between saying "Mercury levels in this river are below the detection threshold of X ppb" and "there is no toxic waste in this river at all." If you're only looking for mercury, you might miss all the benzene that's there.

Rob_Lyman: Well put. That's the point I was trying to make in my first post on this thread: If you want to say your atheist, you have to not believe in the most generalized conception of a god (i.e., somethign meeting the minimum for most people to call it a god), rather than just some particular religions' overspecified conceptions of their god. That's the problem with the "are you agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster?" angle.

There is no rational reason what-so-ever to believe in the concept of 'god'. Atheist is the proper default position meaning that whoever asserts the existence of this 'god' must prove it. There is zero evidence for the alleged existence of 'god'.

Rob,

I understand a disagreement with a particular without rejecting the general. But if I understand you correctly you equate the statement "God does not exist" with religious faith (?), presumably because it's supposed to cover god as he ever could exist? (Thus my question about him showing up tomorrow ...)

As I've stated, I certainly should have earlier qualified my "god" reference to "god as he's (it's?) ever been explained to me" -- but what else am I expected to evaluate? I'm not supposed to make declarative statements of knowledge because I can't possibly cover any and all future concepts of "god?" I certainly could say the same about an infinite number of concepts that don't exist now. Why is "god" special?

As for how people do define "god," I expect a few billion Christians (not to mention a millenia or two of theologians) might raise an eyebrow at your characterization of "God as described in the Bible does not exist" as "a narrow claim." Throw in "God as described in the Talmud and the Koran" and I would think the claim is reasonably thick.

Rob, I have already responded to your claim regarding the "religious notion of the theoretically possible nature of God". I disagree with you about it, and I gave reasons.

My atheism extends to all sorts of conceptions of God. Of course, on hugely watered-down conceptions of God (e.g., God is nature), Dawkins and Dennett are devout theists. (This is no new point, see part 12 of Hume's Dialogues)

Also, small point, there is a difference between the God of the Bible and the perfect-being 'God of the philosophers'.

anony-mouse,

First, I doubt your distinction between scientific evidence and historical evidence. That is, I think that your construal of historical evidence is well within the province of the natural sciences. Geologists and evolutionary biologists, I take it, aren't exactly experimentalists. They reconstruct the past according to the evidence. These sciences, to be sure, touch base with more experimentalist sciences more frequently than does history. But I doubt they incorporate experimentation in the way that you seem to think is definitive of science.

Second, I am highly skeptical of your hyperbolic historical claims concerning the Bible. I'm no expert, but I would guess Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War to be more reliable a historical source than, say, the Book of Exodus or the Gospel of John or the Acts of the Apostles (to say nothing of the Book of Genesis!). For one thing, we actually know who wrote Caesar's book, as opposed to the Bible, which, I take it, is of largely anonymous provenance, save obvious exceptions like Paul's letters. For another, correct me if I'm wrong, the Old Testament documents are of uncertain date, and uncertain closeness to the actual events. For another, I don't think any New Testament scholars save the most conservative actually think the Gospels represent independent eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Instead, the consensus has it, they are largely written several decades later (from 65 to 100 or so) off of the same early anonymous documents (the Gospel of Mark, and different collections of Jesus's sayings), and stylized to fit whichever early Christian community was the intended audience (e.g., Matthew's audience was different from John's).

So if you have some evidence to back up your strong claims, then please present it. Otherwise, I will presume that you are claiming to have an expertise in something that you do not have.

Rob, I have already responded to your claim regarding the "religious notion of the theoretically possible nature of God". I disagree with you about it, and I gave reasons.

Dave, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understad it your thinking is essentially the same as Valjean's: you examine the religious notions held by others and reject them as lacking in evidence. As I said, that does not require any religious belief on your part, save perhaps the not especially "religious" faith that supernatural beings would certainly leave behind material evidence for your examination.

On the other hand, to reject all possible gods, you would have to either 1) examine the infinite number of possible conceptions of "God" (which you do not seem to have done) or 2) limit the possible conceptions in some way. #2 requires a positive statement about the nature of God. I regard statements about the nature of God as inherently "religious." If you do not, than we're arguing about semantics. If you think you can reject all possible gods without satisfying either #1 or #2, please explain how you do so.

Rob, everyone excludes certain conceptions of God and for good reason. For instance, the conception of God as an ordinary basketball gets excluded. Does that require a religious commitment concerning the nature of God? No, it merely requires a semantic commitment concerning the nature of the English term 'God'. Don't get me wrong, the term is pretty stretchy. But it's not so stretchy that focusing on a limited range of conceptions becomes a religious commitment, becomes something more than a recognition of the way the term is actually used, and the semantic limits imposed thereby.

Also, I don't think the point about how there's infinitely many conceptions of God cuts any ice. After all, there are infinitely many conceptions of leprechauns (one in which they are all 3'2" tall, one in which they are 3 feet and 2.1 inches tall, 3 and 2.11, 3 and 2.111, and so on). But this fact doesn't call for any due care when denying the existence of leprechauns. For one thing, you can simply abstract away from this infinite variability of height as irrelevant to the question of whether they exist.

So, again, why not just consider the conceptions of God that fall within the semantically legitimate use of the term, and decide whether you think they exist? There's all sorts of parameters, and each can be adjusted along a continuum, but that doesn't mean you have to treat God's existence differently from any other issue of a thing's existence.

Dave:

Here's the real question behind this whole thread, which Person, Valjean, you, and I have been fighting about: are you defending a positive, vehement, and metaphysically certain denial of God's existence (Dawkins, Dennett) as "non-religious," or are you merely defending the conclusion that God is, like leprechans and extraterrestrial life, below your detection threshold as non-religious?

The first makes no sense to me for the reasons given above. The second I fully agree with.

(As an aside, Dawkins denies God but seems to believe in aliens, despite identical quantities of evidence for both. Odd.)

The second option, of course. As I said above, "I'm an atheist. I think there's no God. I don't have 100% certainty. But that's true in general. I don't have 100% certainty in my positions on abortion or gun control or animal rights or free will or the status of morality etc. No problem. I hold positions without 100% certainty, just like everyone else who's at all humble and reasonable."

And I very much doubt Dawkins and Dennett go with the first option.

In any case, I don't mind holding a 'religious' position, so long as it's a reasonable one, hopefully the most reasonable one available.

Dave,

OK, no disagreement then, save perhaps over the definition of "atheism." I guess I would call your position more "agnositc" than "atheist."

I suspect (but can't prove) that a goodly number of Christians, especially the better educated ones, would agree with you that there is no scientifically valid evidence for God.

Rob,

As usual, you've clarified the matter in a most excellent fashion. I suppose to close this book I'd pick your second option as well (I too have serious evidencial issues with both Dawkins and Dennett), but with the caveat (as previously stated): I do have 100% certainty -- right now, based on the evidence. To say "I'm not certain of anything" appears to me a hedge -- or, as you imply, closer to agnosticism.

But I'm still fascinated by the "zingers" at the end of your postings:

"... a goodly number of Christians ... would agree with you that there is no scientifically valid evidence for God."

I know you're emphasizing faith, but my goodness, there's a lot of weigh on that "scientifically."

The weird thing about taking less than 100% certainty/confidence as agnosticism is that suddenly I'm agnostic concerning every interesting issue, even the ones I've thought about a lot and argued about a lot and taken a strong position on. I thought I was pro-choice, but apparently I'm agnostic, I thought I was anti-death penalty, but apparently I'm agnostic, and so on.

I emphasize this because I have a pet peeve in the neighborhood. For all other interesting issues, people are okay with taking positions with less than 100% certainty/confidence. But as soon as you start talking about God's existence, anyone who signs on to atheism is expected to have not a shadow of a doubt. Otherwise, you're not a real atheist, you're just an agnostic. This is clearly a double standard. And then, since almost every reasonable and humble person ever becomes an 'agnostic', it starts looking like agnosticism is pretty much mandatory, which leads people to think there's no way to reasonably discuss and form opinions concerning the existence of God. And that simply neglects millennia of interesting and important intellectual work. It also leads people to think that the only reasonable attitude to take is one of doffing one's hat and solemnly respecting the great mystery of God's existence, and then "atheists are just as religious as Christians lol!!!!" All of this gets on my nerves, so I wish people would be consistent and allow for atheists (and reasonable theists!) who take their position with less than 100% certainty/confidence.

Dave,

And I don't think athiests (as I am defining it) are "just as religious" as Christians; I'm not sure exactly how one measures devoutness, but Dawkins is clearly more devout than many Easter Christians. I mean, he has a book out called "The God Delusion," and they can't make it to church but once or twice a year.

Also, Rob, for what's it's worth, here's Dennett from that Guardian article linked above:

"The trouble with the word atheism is that there are so many different concepts of God it would be foolish to take them all on at once and say they are all rubbish. Apparently that's what the atheist does. But I don't believe in anything supernatural. That's naturalism, I guess. But the main thing is that it's not supernatural."

So, again, I doubt Dennett holds the position you think he does.

Dave, you're probably right about Dennett. I missed that passage somehow. I still have my doubts about Dawkins.

It makes me wonder why he, or others who think like him (and you) bother, though. You can believe in the supernatural and still be both highly rational and thoroughly moral. You can be an atheist and be an irrational, sociopathic moron. Vice versa, of course. I don't see any reason I should care if others believe in God or the supernatural, and certainly no reason to write offensive screeds about it (which both sides do).

At least when theists try to convert someone, they think they're saving him from eternity in hell. Why do atheists bother?

At least when theists try to convert someone, they think they're saving him from eternity in hell. Why do atheists bother?

Rob, every time I try to give up this thread you come back with something like this. I thank you once again and sincerely hope you're doing it intentionally.

I think we've conclusively proven that I don't speak for all atheists, but the reason I bother is to point out that holding something to be true without evidence can be morally and psychologically harmful -- and not only to the holder. Replacing "I know it to be true" with "I feel or want it to be true" can have devastating personal and even (with sufficient power) political consequences. I trust we could all envision some horrific examples of purely emotional decision-making and/or "power of the will."

holding something to be true without evidence can be morally and psychologically harmful

Sure, but so long as we're all good empiricists here, I don't see the evidence that athiests are dramatically more moral or psychologically well-balanced than theists.

... I don't see the evidence that athiests are dramatically more moral or psychologically well-balanced than theists.

Hard to prove from results (e.g., statistics or experience), to be sure. (For example, to at least one Person on this post I'm a pitiful time-waster.) My point was simply those who don't require evidence to discern their "truth" -- a larger group than just theists, to be sure -- have a bad track record because of their metaphysics. And I think that's a point worth arguing.

No one has any "evidence for atheism," and Dennett has never said otherwise. Because no one needs any. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in God. Evidentiary support is the thing you ask of believers when, not content with the private practice of their faith, they expect others to subscribe to the behavioral norms, or manifestly false ideas about the universe and the nature of reality, that arise from it. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins cites the famous "Celestial Teapot" parable found in Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

As Dawkins and Sam Harris and others have pointed out, Russell's teapot has no more (and no less) evidence or rationality behind it than does the belief that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ when certain words are spoken over them, or the belief that the Muslim who kills infidels will be rewarded with 72 virgins in Paradise. At the level of rationality, those three assertions are identical, however different may be the practical outcomes that they lead to in the world.

It seems to me that smoking simply served Dennett as an example of a deeply entrenched practice in the culture that was steadily eroded by a campaign of information. He nowhere says--and surely does not believe--that the evidence against the existence of God is on a par with the evidence for the dangers of smoking. And there's no reason in principle that such a campaign could not, over time, create a strong disincentive in our culture towards the imposition of parochial religious duties or restrictions on people who don't share the religious beliefs from which they arise.

Tom, why do I get the impression that you didn't read the whole thread?

And there's no reason in principle that such a campaign could not, over time, create a strong disincentive in our culture towards the imposition of parochial religious duties or restrictions on people who don't share the religious beliefs from which they arise.

How often does this happen nowadays? Nobody I know tries to forbid me "make fire" between sundowns on Saturday or fobid me to sleep with my wife because we were married by a judge. And it has been ages since I got to stone an adulteress before the house of her father. There already is such a disincentive, which has been evolving and growing for at least 100 years.

Meanwhile, most public policy issues identified as "religious" such as abortion, stem cells, the death penalty, gay marriage, etc. are actually better described as "moral." And since religion has a lot of interesting things to say on moral issues, to shut it out of the debate is to throw away a ton of powerful thinkers and useful effort. Really, give me St. Augustine over a Nancy Pelosi press release any day.

Rob:

Religion does have something to say about morality; it just doesn't own morality. And when local school boards try to teach schoolchildren that "intelligent design"--creationism, to call it by its real name--is science with as much evidence behind it as evolution has, they are attempting to impose parochial religious duties on the general population--as they are when they try to stop stem-cell research. No one said anything about shutting religion out of the debate. The trouble is, there's no debating with someone who says you can't do stem-cell research because God regards a blastocyst as a person with a soul. If you were to debate that person, you would ask him for evidence of this, and of course he can't give any. The point that Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris make is that religion shouldn't be accorded the kind of hyper-respect that makes it bad form to challenge dogmas. Far from shutting religion out of the debate, one would like to bring it in.

(For example, to at least one Person on this post I'm a pitiful time-waster.)

Well, there you have it: valjean won't respond to me except to make snide remarks. Go fig.

Tom: did you miss the part in this thread about atheism requiring you to "not have belief" in any god, in the general sense of the term, and not just the Christian or Muslim conception of "god"? Because for a second there I thought you might be posting in the thread without having read much of it.

Person (and Rob):

The points I was most concerned to make--and I don't see them represented above, or at most only glancingly--are, first, that Dennett does not espouse atheism as a proven fact. The contention that he does appears several times in this thread. Second, I take Dennett to be speaking within the context of the influence of religion on our culture and public policy, and I was hoping to introduce that dimension of the issue into the thread alongside the discussion about evidence for the existence or nonexistence of God.

Now, Person, you ask if I missed "the part in this thread about atheism requiring you to 'not have belief' in any god, in the general sense of the term, and not just the Christian or Muslim conception of 'god'?" I didn't miss it. I agree with Dave's response to that argument and didn't feel any need to address it in my comments. As you'll recall, Dave said:

"I don't think the point about how there's infinitely many conceptions of God cuts any ice. After all, there are infinitely many conceptions of leprechauns (one in which they are all 3'2" tall, one in which they are 3 feet and 2.1 inches tall, 3 and 2.11, 3 and 2.111, and so on). But this fact doesn't call for any due care when denying the existence of leprechauns."

Here, here. At any rate, my apologies if I could have been clearer or if the way I led into my points gave the impression that I didn't read the thread (I did, though speedily).

I agree that "God wants this" is a worthless conversation-stopper, but at least in the fora and media that I am familiar with, it's a pretty rare argument. Really, how often do you see someone actually take that position on the pages of the NYT? Its opposite, however, is common, and I invite you to examine the mote in your own eye in that respect. I'm not opposed to using embryos for stem cells, but it makes me squeamish for entirely non-soul-related reasons. For you to assert that opposition to embryo destruction is an imposition of "parochial religious duties" is every bit as much a conversation-stopper because it dismisses legitmate moral and ethical concerns as irrelevant God-bothering.

Lawrence Tribe once claimed that abortion had to be legal, because the only reason to oppose it was religious, and separation of church and state forbids religious laws. He has since reversed his position, and I'm cynical enough to believe that's because he found out the Pope doesn't like the death penalty. But in any case, attempts to rule religion out of bounds are not uncommon (unless it's the Church Councile of Greater Seattle urgeing a higher minimum wage and gun control based on Christ's teachings, in which case it's known as "social responsibility.")

You say you (or at any rate Dawkins et al.) want to invite religion into the debate, yet you yourself have ruled out arguments against embryonic stem cells as an "imposition." What room is left? Are Christians supposed to be content with the right to discuss the merits of Sarbanes-Oxley and leave the questions of life and death to the "experts"?

(As an aside, the stem-cell debate up until now as been about federal funding, not the actual research. It strikes me that "I don't want my money spent on that because God opposes it" is a lot less of an imposition than "That should be illegal because God opposes it.")

My point was simply those who don't require evidence to discern their "truth" -- a larger group than just theists, to be sure -- have a bad track record because of their metaphysics.

Valjean, which is a bigger problem: bad metaphysics, or bad morals? A gullible moron with a sound sense of right and wrong is probably a better bet than a genuis who can rationalize anything and is unrestrained by fear of the hereafter.

I make no claims as to the relative aggregate morality of theists vs. atheists, or for that matter their relative aggregate rationality.

Rob:

Well, sometimes a religious argument is tarted up to look like something else, as in the case of "intelligent design." But actually, I don't recall ever seeing an anti-stem-cell op-ed in the New York Times. I have, however, heard plenty of politicians speak against it, and always from religious convictions (or the pretense of them). When Bush vetoed the stem-cell bill last year, he did so on explicitly religious grounds. The one and only objection I've ever heard to stem-cell research is that it destroys human life, and I think you need religion to say that a blastocyst, an insentient cluster of 150 undifferentiated cells, deserves all the protections afforded to a fully developed human being. Whatever objections unrelated to religion may be raised against stem-cell research--and I would love to hear them--as a practical matter religion is the obstacle to its furtherance. And it's not an argument inviting discussion and reasoning that issues from that precinct; it's an a priori assertion, a fiat, about the nature of a blastocyst.

(And yes you're right that the issue has been federal funding, but this type of research is so heavily dependent on such funding that to deny it is tantamount to a ban.)

No argument on intelligent design. Whatever it is, it isn't science by definition because it invokes the supernatural. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it not science.

I think you need religion to say that a blastocyst, an insentient cluster of 150 undifferentiated cells, deserves all the protections afforded to a fully developed human being.

I must say, I find that particular statement to be rather close to "an a priori assertion, a fiat, about the nature of a blastocyst." As Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out when someone said a young fetus "didn't look human," it looks exactly like a human, at that particular age.

Apprently having its own unique DNA and the distict probabiliy, if left undisturbed in the womb, of developing into a fully developed human being, isn't enough for you.

The ultimate question is about line drawing: we wouldn't allow you to kill a baby for his organs or to serve some research purpose, so at what point do we say it's OK to stop the development of a human being for your benefit? I don't have the answers, and I don't claim to.

But for you to impose your preferences on conservative Christians (take their money to spend on something they consider murder) is not really any different than for them to impose theirs on you. That they have a religious motivation and you have some other motivation doesn't make you any better than them.

"God wants X" is a bad argument, but "I want X" isn't any better.

No argument on intelligent design. Whatever it is, it isn't science by definition because it invokes the supernatural. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it not science.

I think you need religion to say that a blastocyst, an insentient cluster of 150 undifferentiated cells, deserves all the protections afforded to a fully developed human being.

I must say, I find that particular statement to be rather close to "an a priori assertion, a fiat, about the nature of a blastocyst." As Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out when someone said a young fetus "didn't look human," it looks exactly like a human, at that particular age.

Apprently having its own unique DNA and the distict probabiliy, if left undisturbed in the womb, of developing into a fully developed human being, isn't enough for you.

The ultimate question is about line drawing: we wouldn't allow you to kill a baby for his organs or to serve some research purpose, so at what point do we say it's OK to stop the development of a human being for your benefit? I don't have the answers, and I don't claim to.

But for you to impose your preferences on conservative Christians (take their money to spend on something they consider murder) is not really any different than for them to impose theirs on you. That they have a religious motivation and you have some other motivation doesn't make you any better than them.

"God wants X" is a bad argument, but "I want X" isn't any better.

Rob:

I think the definition I gave of a blastocyst is entirely consistent with the known facts about them. There's nothing of fiat about it. The person who says a blastocyst has a soul has no reasoning or facts behind him, only dogma, and, no, that's not good enough for me, I'm afraid. As Christopher Hitchens once said: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Public-policy decisions should not wait upon dogma; they should be decided by evidence and reason-giving. It's the enormous potential benefits of stem-cell research, coupled with the absence of any non-dogmatic reason not to pursue it, that persuades me it's the right thing to do and that it should be federally funded. There's nothing a priori or dogmatic about that position, as far as I can tell. (And no one is immune from seeing tax dollars pay for things he disagrees with. Every American taxpayer who opposes the war in Iraq is in that boat.)

To your point about a b-cyst having unique DNA and the potential to become a fully developed human, I am not at all indifferent to the fate of embryos, or deaf to the ethical implications of messing around with them. But for me, moral considerations are those that address themselves to the promotion of human happiness and well-being and the alleviation of human suffering. We have no reason to believe that a 150-cell blastocyst has the capacity to feel pain, while we do have ample reason to believe that research on them may very well relieve untold human suffering from many terrible diseases. That I am able to resolve that dilemma for myself, and would endeavor to persuade others to my point of view, does not make me a dogmatist.

One other thought: You never hear these objections being raised against in vitro fertilization, which also entails the destruction of embryos. I wonder why.

I think the definition I gave of a blastocyst is entirely consistent with the known facts about them.

So far as I know, that is correct. It was not your definition, but your conclusion that a blastocyst did not deserve to be protected as a human being which looks like fiat to me.

I'm not saying your resolution of the possible ethical conflict is wrong, I'm saying it rests on axioms which are neither scientific nor compelled by pure reason. Maybe a blastocyst is not a person; but I am a person, and at one time I was a blastocyst. Apparently somewhere in between I made the leap from object to no rights to person who can't be cavilierly killed even for the benefit of mankind at large. Your decision to draw the line in a particular place is not a scientific matter subject to proof by biological research. It's an axiom that you adopt for whatever reasons of your own.

That your unprovabe axioms are not founded on reference to religion does not make them inherently superior or less "dogmantic" than a different, conflicting, set which is.

(I never hear any similar objection to religious arguments against the Iraq war--"Who would Jesus bomb?" and so on. I wonder why.)

Rob:

My position may be right or it may be wrong, but I'm going to insist that it's rooted in reason (which is of course not infallible). When someone says a blastocyst is a person, with or without a soul, entitled to the same protections as a fully developed human, that is to say the least a counterintuitive proposition requiring proof or reasoned argument to persuade someone who isn't already intuitively committed to it. The proposition "A blastocyst is a person" and "A blastocyst is not a person" are not logically equivalent. There's a paralyzing relativism in that notion, it seems to me. My proposition is falsifiable; the religious dogmatist's isn't. That is, I could change my position if new arguments or evidence came to light showing, for example, that blastocysts do suffer when harvested. It's hard to imagine what would convince the religionist that there's no soul among those 150 cells. Absent a reason to suppose that a blastocyst is a person, or that it can feel pain or distress, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that it does not, especially when the suffering and dying of millions of fully developed humans might be dramatically reduced through this research. I don't know how one places the "rights" of a blastocyst over those of living and suffering humans.

Now I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that on this issue, as on many others, I'm reasoning from probabilities and not certainties. But that doesn't make me a dogmatist. If new arguments or information came to light, I might come to a different conclusion. Until then, I'll camp here.

I don't know, Rob, whether I can state my case any more clearly than I have up to now, so I guess I'll leave it there and give you the last word. I've enjoyed our exchange.

Tom,

I believe you have been quite clear. And I agree that your position is based on reason. That does not mean it is devoid of dogma.

Your reasoning seems to run thus:

1) To be a human being, it must be possible to feel pain
2) Blastocysts do not feel pain
3) Therefore, blastocysts are not human

You proclaim yourself open to reversal by scientific evidence on point 2). But point 1) is essentially dogma. Contrary to what you say, point 1) is certainly not falsifiable; it is part of your definition of humanity.

Alternative reasoning might run like this:

a) Anything with human DNA and X% probability of becoming a human infant is human (this rules out biopsy tissue and allows for spontaneous abortion)
b) Blastocysts have human DNA and beat the X% hurdle.
c) Therefore, blastocysts are human beings.

Point a) could (but need not) be derived from a religious argument, but such a derivation wouldn't make it less valid than Point 1).

Both arguments are equally logical, and both rest on premises that are equally unfalsifiable. Their conclusions are equally valid, so far as I can tell.

Rob, I don't try to convert people to atheism. But if you're wondering why I care about the issue, it's mainly because I think it's interesting, more than because of any social good I hope to promote. Interesting as a philosophical issue, and interesting as a social issue (learning about religions is good fun). As to why I find it interesting, that's a question for my therapist.

Comments are Closed.