tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post7485659432500663723..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: Crucifolks, "Reason is the enemy of faith"Lippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-58575648959004024322010-10-20T18:49:42.564-07:002010-10-20T18:49:42.564-07:00Hanson: For an argument against the "lack of...Hanson: For an argument against the "lack of belief" definition of atheism, see <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2010/01/definitions-of-atheism-and-agnosticism.html" rel="nofollow">this blog post</a>.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-29652703591401426942010-10-11T08:01:29.887-07:002010-10-11T08:01:29.887-07:00Faith is the belief in the impossibility of reason...Faith is the belief in the impossibility of reason. Which for proof believers use their belief in such for evidence.<br />Atheism is not a statement of "faith" Atheism is a lack of the belief in the Supernatural. Logic puts the burden of proof on the assertion of the positive i.e. "God exists." We do not simply deny God exists. We do not even acknowledge the belief. It is the believers assertion. It is their burden to prove. And it is impossible.Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17287393175463594261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-70732282249767467632008-08-29T14:27:00.000-07:002008-08-29T14:27:00.000-07:00It is catchy, isn't it?It is catchy, isn't it?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-75225092453617838592008-08-29T13:36:00.000-07:002008-08-29T13:36:00.000-07:00Thanks! I've been looking for that mp3!! Can't get...Thanks! I've been looking for that mp3!! Can't get that song out of my head!Dollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10067013547449638722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-76145869253613518052007-10-05T10:57:00.000-07:002007-10-05T10:57:00.000-07:00It's very boring to argue with you, because you re...It's very boring to argue with you, because you resort to ad hominem, attacks upon straw men, and a copious amount of red herring tossing. Einzige<BR/><BR/>Examples in my own words, please. If you hadn't mentioned "skepticism" I'd never have mentioned Kurtz' little goon in explanation. Other than that I don't think the "ad hominem" charge could possibly be entertained. And telling the relevant truth is always a defense in the charge of ad homiem. <BR/><BR/>If there are any fair minded people following this, please notice who has been making personal comments from just about the beginning. <BR/><BR/>As to red herrings, I've only answered things you've said. You are free to refute any errors I make at any time as I've requested. If you don't like that I can keep answering you, why you keep it up?olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-79501067807593483752007-10-05T10:43:00.000-07:002007-10-05T10:43:00.000-07:00olvlzl,It's very boring to argue with you, because...olvlzl,<BR/><BR/>It's very boring to argue with you, because you resort to <I>ad hominem</I>, attacks upon straw men, and a copious amount of red herring tossing.<BR/><BR/>In the current context (or almost any other, actually), I really couldn't care less about what Kurtz does or doesn't do with his time and money, what Dawkins and Dennet do or do not say, or any history of any atheist "movement".<BR/><BR/>Unless you're willing to start being intellectually honest, and argue about errors and/or ommissions of facts and/or logic <I>on the current topic</I>, without bringing up irrelevancies or throwing around meaningless labels like "neo-atheist", then I'm not interested in any more discussions with you.<BR/><BR/>Out of respect for Jim and his wish to keep blog comments at least somewhat relevant to the original post, this is the last comment I'm going to make in this thread.Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-54138551717071425002007-10-05T10:16:00.000-07:002007-10-05T10:16:00.000-07:00Jim Lippard, I was aware of Kurtz back in the 60s,...Jim Lippard, I was aware of Kurtz back in the 60s, well before "skepticism". And he goes back much farther than that. I don't recall making an accusation of him getting rich off of his activities, though I'd really like to know more about the financial side of his and organized "Humanism's" history. It's not easy to trace with the resources I've got available but I suspect there's something interesting there. If some atheists aren't more interested in the history of their movement or the still living links they have to it, their lack of curiosity isn't my fault. Perhaps that's what comes of thinking only science can enlighten. I've never been convinced that Kurtz or most of the "skeptics" are skeptical about much of anything. I'm more inclined to agree with the late Marcello Truzzi on that count. <BR/><BR/>Hume's Ghost, so you do remember that exchange, though not exactly as I do. Have I committed a breach of etiquette here? If you can't deal with the informal kind of investigation I've done, why should anyone think atheist fundamentalism could stand up to a really rigorous and complete treatment? <BR/><BR/>Einzige, please, I await correction. Isn't a blog supposed to be an educational experience? What other reason is there to write or read one?olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-81623776801093118602007-10-05T09:46:00.000-07:002007-10-05T09:46:00.000-07:00"Kurtz’ position in the neo-atheist manifestation ..."Kurtz’ position in the neo-atheist manifestation is demonstrated by how many bloggers in the atheist blogosphere list direct ties to groups that have him as their 'chairman for life', on risk of quoting an atheist who is much too colorful for some. I’ve taken Rawlins advice and googled him. He’s all over the place, though for some reason atheist fundamentalists don’t like it when you bring his name up."<BR/><BR/>I suspect most atheists don't even know who Paul Kurtz is. More skeptics are likely to have heard of him via CSI/CSICOP/Skeptical Inquirer/Center for Inquiry, and many humanists are likely to have heard of him through CSH/Free Inquiry/Center for Inquiry. But there are a lot of independent skeptical groups out there these days--especially with the growth of online forums like the sci.skeptic Usenet newsgroup, the SKEPTIC mailing list, and countless blogs--and most of their participants don't even read Skeptical Inquirer.<BR/><BR/>If you look at connections that derive back to Paul Kurtz, there are clearly a lot. He's been influential in that groups he started have had a lot of impact and involved a lot of people, but I don't think he's directly all that influential.<BR/><BR/>As for the claim that he's gotten rich off skepticism--I don't think he's received any direct compensation for his work for his 501(c)(3)s--last time I looked at the Form 990s, I'm pretty sure his compensation was $0 across the board. I'm sure he gets money from Prometheus Books, and I know he's got a nice home in Amherst, NY (which I've visited--but it's in Amherst, NY, where property is cheap).Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-66040112968677904372007-10-05T09:10:00.000-07:002007-10-05T09:10:00.000-07:00The stuff olvlzl says is so out there that, after ...The stuff olvlzl says is so out there that, after I've picked my jaw up off the floor, I find it difficult not to respond.<BR/><BR/>Then again, I've noticed in my romantic life a tendency to be attracted to crazy women, so...Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-77927969555627656172007-10-05T08:49:00.000-07:002007-10-05T08:49:00.000-07:00"Accusing me of being a neo-astrology cultist in t..."Accusing me of being a neo-astrology cultist in the process."<BR/><BR/>My god. You are possibly the most obnoxious individual I've encountered on the internet. <BR/><BR/>The sum of my "accusation" consisted of me writing something to the effect of "neoastrology ... are you kidding me?" which was in regards to the Starbaby deal. I was in amazement that that was what Olvlzl based his SCI are atheist fundamentalists assertion on.<BR/><BR/>When he retorted that the author was not a neoastrologist I answered taht I never thought he was, although I had briefly considered Olvzl was one before realizing he was just someone who has kook beliefs about "neo-atheists."<BR/><BR/>I knew I should have continued ignoring him.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-19378854023976604222007-10-05T07:35:00.000-07:002007-10-05T07:35:00.000-07:00Dawkins plays a role kind of like Malcom X did for...Dawkins plays a role kind of like Malcom X did for Elijah Muhammed. Humes Ghost<BR/><BR/>Well, I seem to recall Dawkins saying something about Randi having to pay up on his phony challenge, though I don't think that exactly constitutes speaking truth to power.<BR/><BR/>You do realize how ironic it is to associate Dawkins with a minister of religion like Malcom X, don't you? <BR/><BR/>Yes, Humes Ghost is one of those who didn't like me bringing up Kurtz elsewhere. Accusing me of being a neo-astrology cultist in the process.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-44634927440385037152007-10-05T07:19:00.000-07:002007-10-05T07:19:00.000-07:00Jim Lippard. My problems with Dawkins go back to ...Jim Lippard. My problems with Dawkins go back to his “Selfish Genes” days, being an extension of the problems I had with sociobiology before it made its strategic retreat even further from the realms of reification, conflation and wild jumps clear across into the taxonomy into the realms of historical fiction. Those difficulties were entirely scientific and logical, I had no idea that he would turn out to be the figure in atheist fundamentalism he has turned out to be. Needless to say, I wasn’t impressed with his last few books, the last one was a scholarly abomination. Dennett’s career as his budget brand Thomas Huxley is, if anything, even more of a logical and scientific disaster. If neo-atheists are content to put their fait... oh, ok, eggs in those baskets they can’t complain when someone points out they’re cracked.<BR/>If Dawkins and Dennett had never addressed religion, I’d probably still be talking about them. The only interest I’ve got in the religious-atheist strife is in the effect it has on leftist politics here. If it had no demonstrated impact on elections, I’d never touch the stuff. Not even as tempting as the entertaining arguments can be. I had every last one of those that could be had with my brilliant and feisty atheist-Latin teacher. <BR/><BR/>I base my contention that Dawkins is the current holder of the St. Carl Sagan seat of prominence in the Kurtz empire based on the lurid propaganda that they will insist on sending me. I suppose that is the fate of any long-term subscriber to leftie magazines. Kurtz’ position in the neo-atheist manifestation is demonstrated by how many bloggers in the atheist blogosphere list direct ties to groups that have him as their “chairman for life”, on risk of quoting an atheist who is much too colorful for some. I’ve taken Rawlins advice and googled him. He’s all over the place, though for some reason atheist fundamentalists don’t like it when you bring his name up. <BR/><BR/>I will, of course, not reprint without attribution or a link so people can check to make sure I’m not distorting the record. I will, however give a brief explanation of what it is I’m posting. <BR/><BR/>As for the lyrics, I represented them with complete accuracy. They aren’t at all complex and their connotation is far clearer than their rather muddled and cliched denotation.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-47207851712062033262007-10-05T07:07:00.000-07:002007-10-05T07:07:00.000-07:00I'm not sure on what basis you say that "Dawkins i...<I>I'm not sure on what basis you say that "Dawkins is the chief star in the Kurtz empire these days," or of what significance that is.</I><BR/><BR/>He thinks that Paul Kurtz is the atheist version of Pat Robertson and believes he runs his "empire" for personal profit and to promote "atheist fundamentalism." In this picture, Dawkins plays a role kind of like Malcom X did for Elijah Muhammed.<BR/><BR/>Or at least that's my understanding of Olvzl.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-12898529858359851502007-10-05T06:38:00.000-07:002007-10-05T06:38:00.000-07:00olvlzl: I just noticed that you asked to post thi...olvlzl: I just noticed that you asked to post this entire exchange on your blog. The Creative Commons license of this blog permits you to do so with attribution--I'd appreciate it if you include a link back here when you do it.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-45535813356240791812007-10-05T06:36:00.000-07:002007-10-05T06:36:00.000-07:00olvlzl: Granted, everyone who participated in the ...olvlzl: Granted, everyone who participated in the discussion contributed to its direction. Your original comment, if actually tied in to what the song lyrics say, could have been written something like this: "While this song goes too far in arguing that faith is a replacement for reason, we all have at least some beliefs which are not based on reason." And I don't think anybody would have disagreed.<BR/><BR/>"I know lots of scientists agree that ep is pseudo-science, though there are many who don't. So, why aren't Dawkins and Dennett considered to be discredited when they have based large parts of their intellectual careers on it? Why aren't "skeptics" disavowing them for their intellectual sins? Dawkins is the chief star in the Kurtz empire these days."<BR/><BR/>I often see arguments that Dawkins is mistaken to argue that evolution discredits religion coming from scientists, skeptics, and bloggers. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, makes that argument. It's a very common dispute in the ScienceBlogs arena between people like P.Z. Myers on one side, and John Lynch, Ed Brayton, Rob Knop, Matt Nisbet (former PR Director for CSICOP!), Chris Mooney (regular writer for Skeptical Inquirer), and many others on the other side. A recent Skeptics Society conference I attended at Caltech had several presentations critical of evolutionary psychology (such as one by Roger Bingham), and none in favor.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure on what basis you say that "Dawkins is the chief star in the Kurtz empire these days," or of what significance that is. From your postings elsewhere, I think you grossly overestimate Kurtz's influence among skeptics.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-45775592222040911772007-10-05T06:33:00.000-07:002007-10-05T06:33:00.000-07:00I've decided that I'd like to post this entire exc...I've decided that I'd like to post this entire exchange on my blog, without alteration. Considering the embarrassing consequences of my having lost my glasses before it started that's a pretty big concession on my part. If you don't object I'll take that as permission.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-18370453229545548372007-10-05T03:49:00.000-07:002007-10-05T03:49:00.000-07:00Jim Lippard, since most of my comments were in res...Jim Lippard, since most of my comments were in response to one of the bloggers here I don't think you can blame me for the progress of the discussion, well, not entirely. As for the unwise use of disciplines to look into questions and assertions they can't, I don't think that exactly constitutes a hobby horse, it's rather important. Or I'd have thought anyone with an interest in honesty in thought would think so. I re-read my first comment and think it exactly answers the assertions of the lyrics you posted. <BR/><BR/>Einzige, I know lots of scientists agree that ep is pseudo-science, though there are many who don't. So, why aren't Dawkins and Dennett considered to be discredited when they have based large parts of their intellectual careers on it? Why aren't "skeptics" disavowing them for their intellectual sins? Dawkins is the chief star in the Kurtz empire these days. <BR/><BR/>If I've said anything absurd, please list. I'm always interested in where I'm wrong, believing that it's better to change an idea than it is to continue in error.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-62629426940269909892007-10-04T18:51:00.000-07:002007-10-04T18:51:00.000-07:00olvlzl,Are you arguing just to argue?Your statemen...olvlzl,<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing just to argue?<BR/><BR/>Your statements are either patently absurd or else not germane to the topic at hand (neither I nor Jim are advocates of evolutionary psychology, and I daresay we, and very likely much of the scientific community, agree with your assessment of it).<BR/><BR/>Frankly I found you tiresome about 5 comments ago.Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-90716107651053226272007-10-04T18:50:00.000-07:002007-10-04T18:50:00.000-07:00olvlzl: I've updated the post with some commentar...olvlzl: I've updated the post with some commentary about where this discussion has gone. I think you completely missed the point of the song lyrics.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-57714421970197678552007-10-04T10:11:00.000-07:002007-10-04T10:11:00.000-07:00Faith, on the other hand, has no such tools. Einzi...Faith, on the other hand, has no such tools. Einzige<BR/><BR/>Well, that's a charge that is often made but, well, how about reflection, examination of conscience, shame, guilt, a sense of personal responsibility. You see, faith has its tools of correction too. Just as with the tools that are supposed to get science right, they are only used by people who are honest and conscientious. I know that some, if not all, of these tools of morality are out of fashion and scorned by many they work pretty well when they are used the right way.<BR/><BR/>Now, how about applying the tools of science to that list to those Just-so Stories of evolutionary psychology. That's been going on for decades now and it's getting worse as time goes on.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-30122309911548619222007-10-04T08:34:00.000-07:002007-10-04T08:34:00.000-07:00Isn't it nice, though, that the tools of science (...Isn't it nice, though, that the tools of science (reason... experiment... criticism... argument...) make it self-correcting over the long term?<BR/><BR/>Faith, on the other hand, has no such tools.Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-79504981531608903612007-10-04T08:24:00.000-07:002007-10-04T08:24:00.000-07:00Jim Lippard, I'll take that as a non-invitation to...Jim Lippard, I'll take that as a non-invitation to explain what I meant re Dennett.<BR/><BR/>I don't have any problem with taking a scientific look at anything about which real science can be done but it has to be real science and not junk science. Science is actually rather limited in what it can be used for since for a lot of things the necessary accuracy in observation, measurement, etc. can't be achieved. It's a growing practice, especially in so-called sciences such as evolutionary psychology to simply ignore the fact that there isn't any physical evidence and go with self-serving theories and entirely made up stories about the Pleistocene period equally based in nothing but the self-interests of those pretending to do science. While they might hold jobs in universities that allow them to be considered scientists, their work is not science and it does no good in the long run to pretend that it is. <BR/><BR/>Any claims made by religion that can be investigated by science can and should be, those which can't, can't and no one should pretend they can be. There is a mountain of this kind of pretense on both sides.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-33621263943885753272007-10-04T07:18:00.000-07:002007-10-04T07:18:00.000-07:00We're going WAY far afield of "Moral Orel" here, b...We're going WAY far afield of "Moral Orel" here, but I'd just like to say that I see nothing whatsoever wrong with looking for natural explanations (including evolutionary) for religious beliefs and practices. The work that has been done in that area has been quite productive and fruitful, such as Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-71809231289035516522007-10-03T17:31:00.000-07:002007-10-03T17:31:00.000-07:00"We're going to use the tools of science to study ..."We're going to use the tools of science to study something that, by definition, can't be studied by science.<BR/><BR/>No one says that!"<BR/><BR/>Well, what do you call it when Dawkins starts gassing on about using probability (math) to determine that God almost certainly doesn't exist. Oddly, the mirror assertion of the Bayesians he has slammed for their attempts. How about his entirely bizarre attempts to fit the non-physical God into a weird faux-evolutionary concept(he's good at coming up with junk science)? How about his faithful side-kick Dennett and his bizarre assertions about religious belief being the byproduct of natural selection and genetics (an idiotic assertion that is guaranteed to please fundamentalists and, especially Calvinists to no end for reasons I'll explain on request.) <BR/><BR/>What do you call it when countless would be scientific atheists have used any number of observations about the physical universe to "prove" that God doesn't exist? Einzige, atheist fundamentalism consists of little more than countless assertions that science refutes the existence of the supernatural all on the basis of the misapplication of science to the supernatural? I didn't define God as supernatural, that was done well before I was born and the supernatural definition of God is given as "proof" by materialists that God can't exist. <BR/><BR/>Well, these days they've added that vicarious blame so in style these days. And here I'd thought that vicarious guilt was finally put to rest by the late Jewish prophetic tradition, only to have it resurrected by "rationalists".olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-91672083888139226742007-10-03T16:04:00.000-07:002007-10-03T16:04:00.000-07:00It is both bad science and bad reasoning to expect...<I>It is both bad science and bad reasoning to expect to use the tools of science...for things defined as being either partially or entirely apart from the physical universe...</I><BR/><BR/>There you go, winning by definition again.<BR/><BR/>Who would make such an absurd statement?<BR/><BR/>In effect you're claiming that skeptics, scientists, and rationalists are saying something akin to:<BR/><BR/>"We're going to use the tools of science to study something that, by definition, can't be studied by science."<BR/><BR/>No one says that!<BR/><BR/>Various people have made various claims about the nature of God, and most of the time these claims have extended beyond "that thing which is unknowable."<BR/><BR/>Certain types of claims about the world are testable - meaning they can be verified or falsified.<BR/><BR/>Now we're in the realm of science.<BR/><BR/>Even you've defined God as something other than "unknowable". You said God is "entirely apart from the physical universe." A fair question for the scientist and skeptic, then, is "How do you know this?"Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.com