A quick question for Dr. Liddle and other skeptics

[Vincent Torley has posted this at Uncommon Descent. As many people who might like to respond, not the least among them Dr. Liddle herslf, are unable to do so directly, I reproduce it here. The rest of this post is written by Vincent Torley]

Over at The Skeptical Zone, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle has written a thought-provoking post, which poses an interesting ethical conundrum about the morality of creating sentient beings.

Dr. Liddle’s post was titled, Getting some stuff off my chest…., and its tone was remarkably conciliatory, as the following extracts reveal:

I don’t think that science has disproven, nor even suggests, that it is unlikely that an Intelligent Designer was responsible for the world, and intended it to come into existence.

I don’t think that science has, nor even can, prove that divine and/or miraculous intervention is impossible.

I think the world has properties that make it perfectly possible for an Intelligent Deity to “reach in” and tweak things to her liking – and that even if it didn’t, it would still be perfectly possible, given Omnipotence, just as a computer programmer can reach in and tweak the Matrix.

I don’t think that science falsifies the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity – at all.

Apparently, Dr. Liddle’s main reason for disbelieving in an “external disembodied intelligent and volitional deity” is a philosophical rather than a scientific one: she is “no longer persuaded that either intelligence or volition are possible in the absence of a material substrate.” Fair enough; but Dr. Liddle should tell us what she means by the word “material.” Does she mean: (a) composed of visible and/or tangible “stuff”; (b) having some (non-zero) quantity of mass-energy; (c) spatially extended, and inside our universe; (d) spatially extended, and inside some universe; (e) composed of parts; (f) behaving in accordance with the laws of Nature; or (g) behaving in accordance with some invariant set of mathematical laws? What is Dr. Liddle’s definition of “matter,” and why does Dr. Liddle believe that an intelligent being has to conform to that definition?

But the most interesting part of her post came in two paragraphs where she made it clear that while she regarded the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient deity as quite compatible with science, it was ludicrous to suggest that this deity might also be omnibenevolent:

I do think that the world is such that IF there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity, EITHER that deity does not have human welfare as a high priority OR she has very different ideas about what constitutes human welfare from the ones that most people hold (and as are exemplified, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), OR she has deliberately chosen to let the laws of her created world play out according to her ordained rules, regardless of the effects of those laws on the welfare of human beings, perhaps trusting that we would value a comprehensible world more than one with major causal glitches. In my case, her trust was well-placed…

I don’t think that it follows that, were we to find incontrovertible evidence of a Intelligent Creator (for instance, an unambiguous message in English configured in a nebula in some remote region of space, or on the DNA of an ant encased in amber millions of years ago) that that would mandate us in any way to worship that designer. On the basis of her human rights record I’d be more inclined to summon her to The Hague.

This is a little inconsistent. On the one hand, Dr. Liddle declares that she values “a comprehensible world” with no “causal glitches”; but at the same time, Dr. Liddle wishes that the Intelligent Creator, if she exists, would do more to promote human rights and alleviate suffering.

At any rate, here is the question I would like to ask Dr. Liddle. Suppose you were the Intelligent Creator of a world containing life. Suppose also that you have decided that your world should contain no “causal glitches” whatsoever: miraculous interventions are out of the question. Suppose, finally, that the laws of your world happen to dictate that any sentient beings in it will suffer and die, and suppose, also, that death in your world is absolutely final, with no hereafter. That goes for sapient beings as well: in your world, you only get one innings.

The life-forms that currently exist in your world include not only micro-organisms, but also complex animals, rather like our insects, which are capable of a rich variety of behavioral feats, but lack any kind of phenomenal consciousness: they react to environmental stimuli in a very sophisticated manner, but for them, there is no subjective feeling of “what it is like” to experience those stimuli. So far, everything is unfolding in accordance with your pre-ordained program.

Here’s my question for Dr. Liddle, and for skeptical readers. Given the above constraints, would you regard it as immoral to be the author of a program that eventually resulted in the appearance of:

(a) sentient beings capable of feeling pain, but with no self-awareness whatsoever;
(b) sentient beings with some rudimentary self-awareness;
(c) sapient beings capable of reasoning and language, as well as a rich sense of self-awareness?

Putting it another way, would it be better for an Intelligent Creator not to create a world of sentient (and/or self-aware and/or sapient) beings, than to create a world in which sentient / self-aware / sapient beings existed, but where all of these beings would undergo suffering (and where some of them would undergo a considerable degree of suffering), caused by the inexorable operation of the laws of Nature in that world? Or putting it as baldly as possible: if you were the Creator, would you deny us all the gift of existence, on the grounds that it would be immoral to create beings like us?

If your answer is that it would be immoral to create beings like us, then I would ask you to set out, as clearly as possible, the ethical principle which would be violated by the creation of beings like us.

And if it’s not the existence of suffering per se that you object to, but the degree of suffering, where do you draw the line, and why?

Over to you, Dr. Liddle…

[ETA correction to blockquotes – AF]

360 thoughts on “A quick question for Dr. Liddle and other skeptics

  1. William J. Murray,

    I don’t care if it’s true or not, Liz. Whether something is actually true is outside of the scope of my model.

    But you are trying to proffer something of your model to other individuals – to save them from consequences that don’t need to actually exist in reality, they must be persuaded not to care either.

    It seems to be a crusade against multi-definition words. Don’t say ‘random’ because it has connotations (got that; people should try and be clear which meaning they intend when they use it, or say something else. The connotations aren’t just metaphysical). Don’t say ‘natural’ (ditto). etc.

    But there is still something going on which is beyond the particular words we choose to use to describe it. Something in the nature of replication and survival, something in sampling and bias, which causes change and adaptation without any intervention, however the replicative arena is set up. The fact that intervention can influence this process is irrelevant to its investigation, unless it causes behaviour*** that cannot be accounted for otherwise.

    No-one can stop you from tiliting at whatever windmill you fancy, and if your motivation is genuinely the welfare of others, one wouldn’t knock that either. But I think attempting the effort by word-gaming is misguided. People know what they mean, and quibbling over the use of particular words because you think the paradigm has dangerous implications is futile. Nobody adopts a ‘Darwinian’ approach to their lives, any more than they behave like quarks or photosynthesise.

    [eta: *** and somehow, I feel the need to add the clarification that ‘behaviour’ refers to the behaviour of the process! Damn this lack of 1-to-1 mapping!]

  2. Gregory: *All* Abrahamic theists accept ‘the design argument,’ but only a small few, mainly right-wing evangelical conservative (RWEC) Protestants, largely USAmericans by citizenship, and an even smaller few non-Christian (whatchamacallit) theists like yourself subscribe (with undying devotion!) to IDT.

    So you agree with Petruska, then, given that he does not share your fetish with Capitalization.

    The remaining vast majority of Abrahamic theists, both in the USA and globally, reject IDT as a quasi-scientistic figment of the imaginations of a few folks funded by RWEC’s in Seattle, Washington, USA to ‘renew’ USAmerican culture from secularism. Is the reality of this social scenario making sense to you?

    Interesting statement, there, Gregory. I suspect that at least 50% of Abrahamic theists, globally, have never heard of uppercase IDT, and if they had, would not reject it based on its quasi-scientistic nature. But I could be underestimating their level of interest.
    Are you going to

    1 Provide evidence to support this statement
    2 Retract it
    3 Rant tangentially

    I get the feeling you need to get out more.

  3. Gregory: That’s like saying everyone who believes in Creation is therefore a ‘creationist.’

    They are. And they are usually proud of that creationism.

    What then about the Abrhamic believers who deny being ‘creationists’ and have never heard of IDT or reject it too?

    They are denying that they are YECs (young earth creationists). But, if you question them further, they will usually acknowledge that they are OECs (old earth creationists). At least that’s my experience.

  4. The question is whether humans would be what they are without intentional design or without intervention. I would welcome responses from anyone. Perhaps a dedicated thread if anyone is interested.

    A second question — widely discussed, but probably unanswerable — is whether humans are a goal of evolution or an inevitable product. Would the tape play the same way if replayed?

  5. William J. Murray:
    Patrick said:

    That is a claim about objective reality.

    No, it’s a description of how I think, within the parameters of the model I described. I already told you this. When I tell you that you are in error about an inference or interpretation, the thing to do is accept your correction and move on.

    In this case, at this time, the thing for me to do is take a mental step back and consider what I have learned from my interactions with you over the course of this discussion. When I do that, I am forced to conclude that your goal is not to participate in a mutually beneficial, honest exchange of ideas.

    Based on your behavior, your goal is to avoid committing to any position, preferring the mental cocoon of never saying anything useful to the terror of possibly saying something that could be proven wrong. Despite this intellectual cowardice, you still presume to lecture others on how to behave (until called on it, of course).

    It would be irrational to continue to abide by Lizzie’s rule of assuming good faith on your part. You want attention, nothing more.

    In short, you, sir, are a troll. One I am embarrassed to have fed for so long. That ends now.

  6. “*All* Abrahamic theists accept ‘the design argument’” differs significantly from “all Abrahamic theists are IDists.” If one or a few people don’t like that it nevertheless doesn’t change the meaningful fact/intention of those semantics.

    “I suspect that at least 50% of Abrahamic theists, globally, have never heard of uppercase IDT.”

    I’d guess upwards of 75-85%. Don’t just go by the Anglo-American discourse. French Catholics and Russian Orthodox, for example, are long familiar with ‘the design argument.’ But the particularly USAmerican IDT is largely unknown to them and rather unconvincing to those who have heard it. Francis Collins’ “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” is more well-known globally than any text by an IDist author.

    Btw, when was the last time you were outside of the USA or UK for more than a month, DNA_Jock?

    “They are. And they are usually proud of that creationism.” – Neil Rickert

    The ASA isn’t. Faraday Institute isn’t. BioLogos isn’t. CTNS isn’t. Counterbalance isn’t. Metanexus isn’t. ISSR isn’t. But I doubt you follow their work, Neil, do you?

    Do skeptic folks here really think it makes sense to judge the best thinking on this topic by taking small-town RWEC USAmericanism as your reference point?

    My solution, which several other leading thinkers in science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse have also endorsed, is simple, though it may seem complex to USAmericans who are as elevated as dwarves on topics relating to ideology.

    1) Distinguish people who believe in Creation from ideological creationists.
    2) Distinguish people who study evolutionary theory in biology and other natural sciences or who accept limited biological (or cosmological) evolution from ideological evolutionists.
    3) Distinguish people who believe in (lowercase) ‘intelligent design’ – by which they/we mean a Divinely-created universe – from those who ideologically endorse the narrow scientistic theory called (Uppercase) ‘Intelligent Design Theory.’

    These three communicative moves, taken together provide ample new and potentially fruitful space for constructive discussions. IDists are much smaller this way, creationists are marginalised as they should be for their anti-science approach, and evolutionists are reminded that exaggeration and worldview posturing (even while claiming neutrality and non-religiosity) in the name of their atheist (cf. ‘skeptic’ here at TSZ) worldview is neither a welcome nor helpful position at the discussion table.

    “they will usually acknowledge that they are OECs”

    See here, Ted Davis’ series at BioLogos: http://biologos.org/blog/series/science-and-the-bible-five-approaches – Notice how he corrects Rickert, when he says:

    “Although some prominent YEC people are fond of saying this is really a type of “theistic evolution,” that is neither accurate nor helpful. This is a type of creationism, in which the special creation of humans (and usually the evolution of many other organisms) is clearly held.”

    Rickert is far weaker and lacking in knowledge than Ted Davis in terms of understanding the history of creationism, evolutionism and IDT in the USA, so perhaps that might count for something here.

    The problem is, for most people at TSZ who actively seek to elevate evolutionary theory into evolutionism, they simply want to have their cake and eat it too. I’m just saying they can’t do that and the clear and simple expression of terms I’ve offered makes that obvious. Most here will likely stick their heads in the sand about it and continue to link ideology with Marxism, critical theory and something simply too uncomfortable for most Anglo-Americans to think about. A few others will see that the logger-heads needn’t continue. What is proposed above, and continued elsewhere in greater detail, can be accepted faithfully and rationally by people who believe in Creation, evolution and ‘intelligent design.’ Iow, by people of goodwill who simply seek the truth and welcome discussion of beauty and goodness too, in our amazingly complex electronic-information era.

  7. I fail to see the significance of the Discovery Institute. The argument for intelligent design was expressed pretty much in its current form by Paley 210 years ago. I haven’t seen anything really new or better coming from current theorists.

    The central questions are intervention and intention. As lizzie has been at some pains to point out, science cannot disprove intention. Science cannot disprove assertions that are not amenable to evidence.

    What science can address is the necessity for intervention. That is the question Darwin asked and which biologists — including Lenski — continue to ask.

    The only ideology involved is in this question. Can we discern regular processes capable of accounting for phenomena?

  8. I’ve read Ted Davis. My question remains: would humans be exactly as they are in the absence of intention?

    I do not believe there can be evidence supporting or rejecting this.

    I do believe there can be evidence that regular processes account for evolution. Any claim that intentional fine tuning actually occurred is a variant of id. It may very well be true, but it’s not something addressable by science.

    Are you suggesting that it is in some sense wrong to persue regularity?

  9. Gregory,

    My solution, which several other leading thinkers in science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse have also endorsed

    My bold.

  10. Gregory: Would your life be exactly as it is in the absence of intention? It’s kind of a silly question. Homer would say ‘Duh.’
    Ted was referenced for Neil. petrushka seems to need a whole lot of learning to help him explore more elevated, meaningful and vital thoughts than the atheist in him has yet dared to face in almost 70 years. (Oh, but he’ll tell you he’s dared and then some…just like Ayn Rand.)

    And Gregory, apparently, will continue to hide his light under a bushel. His thoughts being too elevated to reveal. All he needs to do is assert that he has them and that they are superior.

    Rather than “duh” try yes or no.

  11. Gregory, the question is not whether people have intentions, but whether the existence of humans is the result of intention or design.

    Contingency or design?

    I don’t have an answer, but my assertion is that even theists of your elevation would say that humans were intended by an intender. Yes or no?

  12. I’m curious how theists approach this question and what their reasoning might be.

    Here’s how a physicist might approach the question of tuning:

    Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncalculable? Einstein put it more crisply: did God have a choice in creating the universe? Imagine the Old One sitting at his control console, preparing to set off the Big Bang. “How fast should I set the speed of light?” “How much charge should I give this little speck called an electron?” “What value should I give to Planck’s constant, the parameter that determines the size of the tiny packets — the quanta — in which energy shall be parceled?” Was he randomly dashing off numbers to meet a deadline? Or do the values have to be what they are because of a deep, hidden logic?

    My own way of asking the question of deep hidden logic is to ask if the constants are the expression of a deeper level of regularity.

    My own intuitive answer is it’s turtles all the way down, and we’ll never run out of levels to investigate. This answer is useful to me in a William Murray sort of way, but I have no interest in promoting it.

  13. “theists…would say that humans were intended by an intender. Yes or no?”

    Such strange language: “intended by an intender.”

    Abrahamic theists believe human beings were/are Created (read: Intended) by a Creator (read: Intender). Is that shocking? It shouldn’t be.

    Are you going to ask the wrong question demanding empirical natural scientific evidence now?

    You display multiple signs of an empty soul (that you don’t believe in), petrushka, likely due to your atheism, a person not knowing what he believes, unable to admit obvious mistakes, unwilling to educate oneself about science, philosophy and theology/worldview, and certainly not someone to trust teaching one’s children. If only you could realise that higher and better is possible even for you when properly self-oriented to a Creator that is always-already greater than us all. It doesn’t seem you have much else to offer until you try, so that’s probably my last rope of hope for you petrushka.

  14. Go see a priest, imam or rabbi with a PhD in physics or mathematics, petrushka. In person, face to face. You might be surprised what difference it makes realising that many of the questions you ask have been thought about for millennia by people who are devout, curious and caring. And that the ‘new science’ questions are dealt with in such a different, more holistic, personal and enlightening way by religious scholars than by scientistic atheists without hope.

  15. Gregory:
    Go see a priest, imam or rabbi with a PhD in physics or mathematics, petrushka. In person, face to face. You might be surprised what difference it makes realising that many of the questions you ask have been thought about for millennia by people who are devout, curious and caring. And that the ‘new science’ questions are dealt with in such a different, more holistic, personal and enlightening way by religious scholars than by scientistic atheists without hope.

    Are you willing to share more about your faith journey (in a separate thread of course)? It might help some of us understand better where you’re coming from.

  16. So your approach to adult discourse is to assume the worst of other people, label them, assert they are unworthy of basking in your light, and clutch your pearls rather than cast them before swine.

    I get it.

  17. This is too funny.

    Gregory: “*All* Abrahamic theists accept ‘the design argument’” differs significantly from “all Abrahamic theists are IDists.” If one or a few people don’t like that it nevertheless doesn’t change the meaningful fact/intention of those semantics.

    And I acknowledged that was your capitalization-fetishist position. But it’s sweet that you confirmed it, because you went on to say

    [DNA-Jock]
    “I suspect that at least 50% of Abrahamic theists, globally, have never heard of uppercase IDT.”
    [Gregory]
    I’d guess upwards of 75-85%.
    [Gregory’s tangential rant snipped]

    Thereby agreeing with me (75% > 50%), and making it abundantly clear that your original statement that the “vast majority of Abrahamic theists, both in the USA and globally, reject IDT ” cannot possibly be true.
    Awesome that you went for option 3a : tangential rant and prove yourself wrong. Better than I could have ever hoped for.
    “The vast majority of Papuans reject Pastafarianism”
    😀

    P.S. last summer and thanks for asking.

  18. “the vast majority of Abrahamic theists, both in the USA and globally, reject IDT”

    That’s true. DNA-Jock is yet another to chalk up in the ‘doesn’t understand’ camp. The great irony is that he does a disservice to his fellow ‘skeptics’ (read: anti-IDists and anti-theists) by not understanding the actual problem.

    If you label all Abrahamic theists as ‘IDists,’ like petrushka mistakenly does, then there are an awful lot of IDists in the world! Add to that, you’ve then got a major problem on your hands with those Abrahamic theists who refuse the label ‘IDist,’ such as myself, rhampton and Steve Schaffner (just here on TSZ, where very few theists visit). Such persons constitute a significant category, even in the limited realm of science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse.

    So what do you do? It is already obvious that you are anti-theism; that you are atheists. But you seemingly still want to have your cake and eat it too.

    The capitalisation issue is especially ripe for atheists who are quasi-theists (not to mention that it is validated by leading Abrahamic theists who reject IDism). They’ll capitalise terms like Nature or Mind, like Lizzie does. But they’ve floated themselves away and lost contact with the roots of what the capitalisation is deeply intended to mean/signify. Theirs is usually frivolous talk that has little grace of thought or soul. But they may be seeking it, which is reason to hope for them, unlike petrushka, who seemingly cannot elevate to save his life, even in his 7th decade on Earth.

  19. If you label all Abrahamic theists as ‘IDists,’ like petrushka mistakenly does, then there are an awful lot of IDists in the world!

    That’s true, and it would be problematic if I went on to assert they were stupid, immoral and wrong because they fit the label.

    What I am after is not to demonstrate that all idists (lowercase, OK?) are bad people, or even that they are wrong.

    What I am after is some positive statement of what you believe and why you believe it. I do not see science as denying the existence of God, but I do see it as having made theology irrelevant to scientific inquiry.

    Having been educated in social science — such as it is — I am rather deeply aware of its shortcomings, and the shortcomings of science in general with regard to solving human problems.

    I think that William Murray has made a better case for belief than you have. He at least has cast the problem as a personal one and does not prescribe his solution for everyone.

    You, on the other hand, have jumped into the arena with guns blazing, accusing everyone here of having personal and ethical defects. Way to be a light unto the world.

  20. Gregory,

    So it is your position that
    “The vast majority of Papuans reject Pastafarianism”
    and
    “upwards of 75% – 85% of Papuans have never heard of Pastafarianism”
    are both correct.
    Okaaay.
    🙂

  21. The important question for me is whether science should continue seeking regularities, or whether it should simply give up when it encounters a hard problem.

    When I use the phrase science stopper, I’m thinking about what you do about questions that are currently unanswerable (or unanswered).

    Gregory has assumed that people who seek scientific answers are mentally deficient. He has a wide and deep vocabulary of invective.

    I will concede that there’s been a bit of this from the other side. For the record, I do not think talking to children about religion is child abuse. I reserve that judgement for people who threaten children with eternal hellfire for questioning doctrine. More than 0.5 percent, in my estimation.

    Since I have no idea what Gregory believes, i can’t possibly accuse him of being wrong.

  22. petrushka: For the record, I do not think talking to children about religion is child abuse.

    Nor would C R Dawkins, I suspect. I certainly agree that children should not be shielded from religious bias, bigotry and barminess. They should be informed and reassured that it is their own choice whether to indulge in religion and which religion to indulge in.

  23. Alan Fox: Nor would C R Dawkins, I suspect. I certainly agree that children should not be shielded from religious bias, bigotry and barminess. They should be informed and reassured that it is their own choice whether to indulge in religion and which religion to indulge in.

    I reserve the abuse term for people who instill fear and dread in children in order to make them submit to doctrine.

    there are people on “my team” who, I think, engage in counterproductive rhetoric, not entirely unlike Gregory’s. I think Dawkins is on the edge. I’ve seen him in debates, and I think he is generally respectful of his opponents, but some of his stuff seems harsh when quote-mined.

    My test of a person’s character is how they respond when challenged.

    This thread is a bit amusing. I don’t consider myself to be a great thinker or great debater, but I do my best. I shoot from the hip sometimes and have to back off or moderate my assertions. I’m not terribly concerned about winning. I just want to probe other people’s thinking.

    In the case of Gregory, I’d just like to know what he thinks (aside from his being correct and superior). He’s very vocal about telling others what they think. I know in my case he’s dead wrong. I suspect he’s generally wrong about his analysis of other people’s thoughts.

    As far as I can tell, his theology is identical to William’s, except that William is a lone wolf and Gregory likes being a member of a pack. In both cases, the argument is that theology and belief are a source of comfort.

    That’s okay by me. What I want to know is how does that interface with science?

    I mean, Gregory doesn’t chastise boat builders for being atheists, even if they no longer invoke the blessing of a deity in their work. What would a theistically informed research program look like? Examples?

    If it’s just about personal enrichment, what’s the point of preaching it here?

  24. petrushka: I mean, Gregory doesn’t chastise boat builders for being atheists, even if they no longer invoke the blessing of a deity in their work.

    I don’t know that. It might merely be that we have not had a thread on boat building.

  25. petrushka,

    As far as I can tell, his theology is identical to William’s, except that William is a lone wolf and Gregory likes being a member of a pack. In both cases, the argument is that theology and belief are a source of comfort.

    I think they sing from the same hymn-sheet on another matter too: that atheists, and atheism, pose a threat to society. The kind of society they individually would prefer, anyways.

  26. petrushka,

    there are people on “my team” who, I think, engage in counterproductive rhetoric, not entirely unlike Gregory’s. I think Dawkins is on the edge. I’ve seen him in debates, and I think he is generally respectful of his opponents, but some of his stuff seems harsh when quote-mined.

    I suspect his internal monologue is harsher than his persona. Probably most people’s are, and that comes through more in writing. But you can quote-mine anyone and make them look worse. I think he’s bright enough to be aware of this and says it anyway. I admire Dawkins’s biological writing, more than many seem to in scientific circles. I think, despite his clarity, he is frequently misunderstood. Atheism? Meh. It gets boring, as a topic.

  27. petrushka,

    In the case of Gregory, I’d just like to know what he thinks (aside from his being correct and superior).

    I would too. However, that would require him to submit his thinking to critical scrutiny.

    Gregory, do you have the courage of your convictions?

  28. Gregory: Strike 3: the poster at TSZ known as ‘petrushka’

    GUANO

    The poster is NOT aka ‘petrushka’; the poster IS petrushka, and acting as if you believe that petrushka is not posting in good faith, ie that the actual petrushka is pretending to be some other entity named ‘petrushka’ – that’s a violation of the rules, Gregory.

    You need to apologize to petrushka.

  29. Gregory: “*All* Abrahamic theists accept ‘the design argument’” differs significantly from “all Abrahamic theists are IDists.”

    No, it differs not at all. The two phrases mean exactly the same thing by any reasonable definition. We reasonably subtract your fetish for capitalization and your bizarre belief that words ending in “ist” automatically signal an “ideology” while words not ending in “ist” do not.

    Since that’s not true in the real world, everything you say following your false premise collapses.

  30. petrushka: For the record, I do not think talking to children about religion is child abuse. I reserve that judgement for people who threaten children with eternal hellfire

    Yep. If there were a heaven, it should be permanently barred to every angry parent who ever threatened their child with hell.

  31. hotshoe: Yep.If there were a heaven, it should be permanently barred to every angry parent who ever threatened their child with hell.

    I’m thinking more of words spoken in cold blood to enforce faith. I have no great problem with words spoken in anger.

    Obviously it depends on how much and how often.

  32. “atheists, and atheism, pose a threat to society.”

    It’s atheist propaganda that is problematic, not atheists themselves.

    “Atheism? Meh. It gets boring, as a topic.”

    Yeah, not much to it.

    “Gregory has assumed that people who seek scientific answers are mentally deficient.”

    petrushka loves to fantacise and provides no evidence for his claims.

  33. Gregory: petrushka loves to fantacise

    Is English your first language, Gregory? Are you a scholar? Do you believe in spellcheck?

  34. petrushka: Well that’s a horse of a different color. Fantacise.

    By Pivotal out of My First Romance
    He looked good early in his career, but his last six finishes:

    Last
    Second last
    Last
    7th / 13
    14th /16
    Last

    Strangely apposite.

  35. Atheist propaganda? Not sure what that looks like. There is a discussion, which will never end, between people who do, and people who do not, believe in a deity. On the basic fact, and how it matters to a society. They put their respective positions out in various media. Some of ’em publish books. As with any idea, they feel it matters enough to set down their viewpoint.

    It can take on the flavour of propaganda – UD, ENV, any climate denial site are classic examples of propaganda, though not on the ‘theism question’. Something distinguishes them from someone simply putting a PoV – what’s the atheist equivalent?

  36. Gregory,

    You keep referring to me as an atheist, but I don’t describe myself as an atheist.

    I describe myself as a non-believer.

    I have no opinion about gods or God. I have opinions about belief. I think it’s a bit like a vitamin that some people require for their health, but which is toxic for others, and nearly always toxic in large doses.

  37. “non-believer” is good, although when people call themselves “atheists” its almost always what they mean.

    Hence the “one god less” meme.

  38. Words take on penumbras from their most visible users.

    Atheist has historically been a pejorative, and for much of Western history, being an atheist was illegal, or at least without legal protection. For most of my childhood and youth, it would make you unemployable.

    So it is not surprising to see a pushback, and not surprising that the New Atheists are a bit militant.I haven’t seen any throwing bombs.

    I say non-believer, not because it differs much philosophically from agnosticism or from atheism, but because I am non-political, even anti-political. I’m a non-joiner.

  39. Hi Lizzie,

    I left a comment for you earlier that I’m still curious about:

    Lizzie,

    Earlier in the thread, you wrote:

    I think “theistic evolution” makes much more sense theologically, and solves the theodicy problem very neatly. Suffering because a necessary part of existing, because a sentient intelligent loving being that is cannot suffer makes no coherent sense in a natural world.

    Could you elaborate?

    Evolution is a terribly destructive and cruel process. Why would an omnibenevolent God choose this method for creating sentient life?

  40. Living in a country where no-one bats an eyelid whether one believes or not, I find the term ‘atheist’ to be simply descriptive. It’s a set, not a club or movement, that I am a member of. I’m no ‘militant atheist’ – happy to say what I think about beliefs or lack of ’em, but not interested in changing anyone’s mind about theirs. My #1 daughter identifies as a Christian, my wife is all New-Agey, my son an atheist, my other daughter hasn’t said and I don’t pry …

  41. Well Gregory presumably lives in a more enlightened country than the U.S., and He bats eyelids with an aluminum bat. He wields the word as if it implied intellectual leprosy.

    Now I can understand that it stings to be called a child abuser. By my count there are maybe three people — none of them having political or police power — who use that term. Whereas in my parents’ lifetime, being an atheist meant being unemployed.

Leave a Reply