16. You don't have the slightest idea as to how the scientific method functions do you?

Don't you realize that if there were any hard, scientific data that proved the existence of a deity that there would be no atheists?

Meagan at 4:48PM on Apr 23rd 2007

17. Let me repost that with quotation marks.

Dinesh D'Souza wrote: "My post on limbo has attracted a good deal of intelligent comment, but what puzzles me is how atheists who believe in all kinds of immaterial reality (free will, consciousness, the unconscious, human rights and so on) profess utter amazement when religious concepts like the soul and immorality are mentioned. "So where is this soul?" these radical empiricists demand to know. Yet at the same time they talk about "self-discovery" as if there was a certain kind of "self" hiding inside of them. They speak of their "unconscious" as if it were observable under a microscope. In short, these empiricists are phony realists whose empiricism only seems to kick in when religious ideas are mentioned."

There is a self at least in the sense that some aspects of some humans’ brains help them use language. And there is a subconscious in the sense that aspects of our brain cause us to have certain desires, hopes and fears that are there even sometimes when we are not using language to express those desires, hopes and fear. But there probably is not a God. That I can’t see any gods is not why I believe that there aren’t any. I can’t see any electrons and I’m confident that there are some. I doubt there is a God partly because I haven’t experienced anything remotely similar to a God, and I have lots of experiences.


"In this context several of them like to respond to theological concepts by asking, "And when will the church resolve the issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" No reason to write Pope Benedict about that. For the benefit of humanity, I am going to settle this issue once and for all. Angels, like dreams, are immaterial things."

Angels most definitely don’t exist. But some humans do dream.


"They don't have a bodily existence."

They probably don’t exist. There probably aren’t any.


"Of course the atheist may laugh and say that angels don't exist."

Yes, it is overwhelmingly probable that angels don't exist.


"But equally obviously the atheist doesn't know that."

I think I know that angels don’t exist. But if I don’t KNOW it, it is at least very PROBABLE that they don’t exist.


"His premise that they don't is just as faith-based as the believer's premise that they do."

I’m not sure what you mean by that. But it is overwhelmingly probable that angels don’t exist. There is no event that is known to have been caused by an angel, and nearly every known event has a non-angel as a cause, for instance, dead leaves fall from trees partly because of differences in mass between the earth and leaves. Similarly, it is probable that there are no Tooth Fairies.


"And given the premise that there are spiritual beings called angels, my conclusion follows inevitably."

But there aren’t angels. They don’t exist. There aren’t any. Or at least it is very probable that they don’t exist. For no large group of reasonable beings has witnessed an angel; there is no event that has been caused by an angel; and nearly event that is known to have occurred is known to have a non-angel as its cause. For instance, dead leaves fall from trees partly because of differences in mass between the earth and leaves. Similarly, it is probable that there are no Tooth Fairies.

Wes at 11:00PM on Apr 22nd 2007

18. Cruller wrote: "You've argued that some of the beliefs of atheists are just as squishily unprovable as those of theists."

At this moment in time, I cannot prove that there is no God. Can I prove anything other than things like all bachelors are unmarried males? But I'm very warranted in inferring that there is no God. Many beliefs that I cannot prove are ones that I'm warranted in inferring are true, for instance, I'm warranted in inferring that I will not be the next President of the United States.

Wes at 11:06PM on Apr 22nd 2007

19. I wrote: "I think I know that angels don’t exist. But if I don’t KNOW it, it is at least very PROBABLE that they don’t exist."

I suppose I don't know that angles don't exist. But it is probable that they don't.


I wrote: "there is no event that has been caused by an angel"

I meant that there is no event that is known to have been caused by an angel.

Wes at 11:11PM on Apr 22nd 2007

20. I wrote: "I suppose I don't know that angles don't exist. But it is probable that they don't."

It is highly probable that they don't.

Wes at 11:18PM on Apr 22nd 2007

21. “Of course the atheist may laugh and say that angels don't exist. But equally obviously the atheist doesn't know that. His premise that they don't is just as faith-based as the believer's premise that they do. And given the premise that there are spiritual beings called angels, my conclusion follows inevitably. You see, my atheist friends, it's a simple matter of logic.”

Are you really as ignorant as your writings suggest? Do you think before you write? Do you read anything besides the tabloids? Before you write anything more about “existence”, “logic”, and “atheists”, may I suggest you study some relevant books (even my own, at http://zenofzero.net ). If you do, and if you try very hard to think, then maybe you’d be able to understand the following.

1. Any claim for “existence” of anything is a hypothesis, and any hypothesis of any value must have testable prediction. For example, the hypothesis “I exist” provides the testable prediction that, if I do exist, then I should be able to finish this sentence. It worked; therefore, I have one more piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that I exist. For contrast, consider your hypothesis that angels exist. What testable predictions does your hypothesis provide? And if you can define any tests, then what are the results of your tests? Since I have found no confirmation for the hypothesis that angels (or gods) exist, I dismiss such ideas as “mere speculations”. That conclusion is not “faith-based”; it’s based on a lack of evidence.

2. “Logic” is based on the premisses that A is identically equal to A (i.e., things exist) and A is not identically not-A (i.e., things are distinct). Therefore, logic can’t be applied to things that don’t exist – and THAT conclusion, not yours, is “a simple matter of logic.”

3. I challenge you to provide evidence to support your hypothesis that there exist any atheists who would consider you to be a “friend”.

And I admit that what bothers me most is that our education system seems to be failing us so badly. Why are people such as you and Cho being granted high-school diplomas – let alone being permitted to enter our universities?

zoro at 6:04AM on Apr 23rd 2007

22. Dinesh writes: "My post on limbo has attracted a good deal of intelligent comment, but what puzzles me is how atheists who believe in all kinds of immaterial reality (free will, consciousness, the unconscious, human rights and so on) profess utter amazement when religious concepts like the soul and immorality are mentioned."

i agree with the concept, except for the slip-in of morality in light of past blogs and the kind of morality that has been expressed by neo-cons. So, to sum up the agreement point - how anyone could look at the complexity of life and not believe in God; how anyone could hear about near death experiences recorded from Egyptian times and not believe in a soul - all this is beyond me.

However the morality, given the fan base of the blog where its slipped in (I can't speak for the author) will instantly be construed as "discriminate against gays unless they are 'cured' (meaning having less natural sex) or 'saved" (meaning have no sex), as well of course as the old standby, abortion.

As a gay person, of course the "morality" code of the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council is IMMORAL. They have a two point platform: no gays, no abortion. They advocate discriminating against me in housing, emloyment, and even in the context of serving me as a customer. When someone like me gets slaughtered by someone who hears their point of view but conveniently forgets the Golden Rule and "thou shall not kill", they conveniently don't need to turn the other cheek (they're provoking the attack, not being attacked). Rather; they stay silent and turn their eyes away. This is why millions of Evangelicals have recently splintered off from mainstream Fundamentalism. The evacuees believe morality means more than a two concept idea of Christianity - they think it also means human rights, saving the earth from global warming, spreading love, not hate ....

While the whole concept of gayness as immorality in Fundamentalism is based on selective Bible quotation, traditional Catholicism bases its believe of immorality on selective bible quotation of "thou shall not commit adultry" and the anti-gay Bible comments thrown in with the pro-slavery, pro-killing misbehaving children, pro-"you're going to hell if you wear mixed fabric clothing comments. In sum, traditional Catholic immorality believes sex was made only for procreation and therefore any other kind of sex is immoral. Abortion, to them, is based on the concept of thou shall not kill, but the Bible doesn't address when a fetus becomes a human or contraception.

Then, of course, both of the above brands of morality have the presumptiousness of believing that their morality is superior to the morality of the billions of people who follow other religions.

I'm deeply religious and took what I wanted and left the rest from a variety of religions to come up with what makes the most sense to me. I believe earth is hell and its only uphill from here. I believe in an afterlife. I don't think God cares what I do or don't do in my bedroom as long as its consentual and no third parties are getting hurt. I think I was more moral than a Fundamentalist when I was at the bedside of every single human being I knew dying from AIDS, doing my best to help them make their transition to what lies beyond, than the Fundamentalist who was saying what lies beyond is hell, no matter how kind they were in life. I believe it was more moral for me to take an unsophisticated pure spirited friend (he has no sense of materialism)with a 103 fever to the public hospital emergency room and use my advocacy skills on the cell phone to get beyond the triage nurse who would have had him wait 4 hours for care - than the morals of a Fundamentalist taxi driver who would say I don't deal with gays so I can't take you to the hospital.

When gayness is conclusively determined to be genetic, and thats very close, the James Dobson's of the world will be bright red from blushing in embarrassment. But if my instincts are right, what they will then do is continue to advocate the right to life by fighting abortion, but add in that its ok to "slightly alter" God's creation in the womb through use of genetic therapy to remove or suppress the gay part of the gene, and that ability is close too.

Finally, I believe its immoral and stupid for traditional anti-abortion Catholics to deny women the opportunity to use contraceptives so they can avoid abortion. I believe its immoral to tell a woman who has just been beat up and gang raped that she doesn't have the right to take a morning after pill to avoid getting pregnant by someone who ruined her psyche, possibly for life. I believe its immoral for the Catholic Church to advocate in Nicaragua an abortion law so strict that it does not have any exception for abortion to save the life of the mother.

Dinesh, I wish the blog has expounded a little more on exactly what you mean by "immorality." Your fan base of neo-Nazis who simply redefined what they are as Christian will be posting about morality coming through the words of Saint James Dobson or the Pope, and liberals will be talking about the kind of morality I'm talking of, though they may expand well beyond gayness to address other issues.

Phil at 7:24AM on Apr 23rd 2007

23. Dinesh D'Souza wrote: "And given the premise that there are spiritual beings called angels, my conclusion follows inevitably."

What conclusion? The conclusion that angels exist? The claim that "there are spiritual beings called angels" does not help anyone reasonably infer that angels exist, because part of what you mean by the claim "there are spiritual beings called angels" is that angels exist. In other words, when you say "there are spiritual beings called angels," you mean that angels exist. At least I suspect that is what you mean by the claim, as that is what most people in your linguistic community mean when they say things like "there are spiritual beings called angels."

A premise that includes the same meaning as a conclusion does not help one reasonably arrive at the conclusion. It is as if you were arguing: "I'm quite sure that angels exist, because I'm quite sure that angels exist."

Wes at 10:21AM on Apr 23rd 2007

24. Dinesh D’Souza wrote: "And given the premise that there are spiritual beings called angels, my conclusion follows inevitably."

What conclusion are you referring to? The conclusion that angels exist? Your claim "there are spiritual beings called angels" does not enable anyone to reasonably infer that angels exist. Because part of what mean by "there are spiritual beings called angels" is that angels exist. At least that is what I suspect you mean by the claim, as that is what most people in your linguistic community tend to mean when they say things like "there are spiritual beings called angels." For example, when people say "there are cats," "there are dogs," "there are tables," "there are chairs," they tend to mean that these objects exist. Moreover, a given claim does not help justify another if one of the claims includes the same meaning as the other claim. It is as if you are arguing: "I'm sure that angels exist, because I'm sure that angels exist."

Wes at 10:32AM on Apr 23rd 2007

25. Mr. D'Souza,

You are right in that many atheists are perhaps somewhat intellectually dishonest when they ridicule the religious term "soul" and tout the "unconcious" mind or "self-perceived entity" of psychology. It's mostly semantics and obscures the real issue: whether you call it the "soul" or the "inner self" does not matter to the question of whether or not such a non-corporeal "self" exists after death. Atheists say no, theists say yes. The debate over the evidence for that goes on and on, but it's not the focus of your blog today, so I'll leave it on the shelf for another time.

As to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (which leads to the question of their existence [and the natural extension of your argument for the existence of God]), you seem to have wandered into the realm of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Bertrand Russel's "Celestial Teapot." Saying there is lack of evidence for a firm belief is not faith, as you stated in regards to atheists' opinion that there are no angels (or God). To believe in angels when there is little to no evidence, however, is the very definition of faith. So you see, there is a real difference between atheists and theists, which I think is at the core of the disagreement. Theists of different religions don't have the sort of fundamental conflicts that they do with atheists, for the simple fact that, while the specifics of distinct religions may differ, they both base their beliefs on faith, and this is a strong link for establishing a rapport between people of different religions. It's the common ground that all theists stand upon. There is no such common ground between theists and atheists, because atheists do not base their beliefs on faith.

So you see, your premise for the existence of angels (or God) based on the fact that non-belief is just as faith-cased as belief is utterly undone. To say simply that something is *possible* without clear evidence as to its *actual* existence is not an argument for or against such a thing's existence. To return to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there is no way to *disprove* that there is such a being. However, such a being is so *improbable* that belief in it is simply not realistic; it's silly, in fact to say there's a "great noodly master" who created "the mountains, trees, and migits [sic]." So it is with the Abrahamic God, as well as Zeus, Shiva, Baal, or any other deity that is worshiped today or has been in times past.

Lastly, the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is not a question which addresses the existence of angels. It already *assumes* their existence, which is why atheists have used it to mock religion, as you illustrated in your blog. The question works from an assumption which has not been proved for certain, so you can really say whatever number you want: 10, 100, 134,513, or, as you said, an infinite number. It doesn't matter to the larger question of their existence because it already assumes the answer is positive.

You see, my theist friend, it's simply a matter of logic. :-)

Sincerely,
William Cowan

William Cowan at 5:03PM on Apr 24th 2007

26. Phil: I wholeheartedly agree with your comments on morality, but it’s a pity that you don’t see that morality has nothing to do with any gods.

You wrote “how anyone could look at the complexity of life and not believe in God; how anyone could hear about near death experiences recorded from Egyptian times and not believe in a soul - all this is beyond me.” But in my view, it’s not beyond anyone who has such a clear concept of morality and who so clearly sees that the Bible is riddled with stupidities. [And similar stupidities are in all “holy books”, including the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon.]

The first and probably the most significant step toward freedom from such stupidities is to hold beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants. In contrast, you wrote “I'm deeply religious… I believe in an afterlife.” But what evidence do you have that there’s anything “after life” except death?

To go further, to understand “the complexity of life”, start reading some simple explanations about evolution. I’m sure you’ll see that it begins to make sense – and as a bonus, you’ll learn more about the genetic basis for homosexuality!

Next, to understand “near death experiences” and similar such as “out-of-body experiences”, google the topics and learn about recent neurological studies. For example, read the article entitled “Out-of-Body Experience? Your Brain Is to Blame” by Sandra Blakeslee in the 3 October 2006 issue of The New York Times. In turn, she relies on an article by Olaf Blanke in the 21 September 2006 issue of Nature. Summary statements in The New York Times article include the following:

“When otherwise normal people experience bodily delusions, Dr. Blanke said, they are often flummoxed. The felt sensation of the body is so seamless, so familiar, that people do not realize it is a creation of the brain, even when something goes wrong and the brain is perturbed. Yet the sense of body integrity is rather easily duped, Dr. Blanke said. And while it may be tempting to invoke the supernatural when this body sense goes awry, he said the true explanation is a very natural one, the brain’s attempt to make sense of conflicting information.”

And if you’re thinking something similar to “Thanks, but no thanks; I’ll stick to my beliefs”, then I hope you’ll consider some consequences of what you’re doing. By holding onto beliefs unsupported by evidence, you’re telling the world (by your example) that such is okay. Thereby, you provide support both for those whom you call “neo-Nazis” and for the terrorists: you don’t like their beliefs, but they can (and do) easily dismiss your dislikes – and it’s especially easy for them to do so, since you, too, hold beliefs more strongly than is warranted by relevant evidence.

You, the neo-Nazis, and the terrorists are making the same fundamental error. What you’re doing by “believing” with “faith” rather than as appropriate for relevant evidence is immoral – in the only reasonable sense of the word ‘immoral”: not using your brain as best you can. If you’ll correct that immorality of yours, you’ll be helping us correct theirs.

zoro at 11:17AM on Apr 23rd 2007

27. To Stian: This comment can be found at my blog: www.freewebs.com/theonepercenter

Atheists half-heartedly use science to discredit God, and the idea of a soul or spirit. They say that, there is no non-earthly self. That, every thought is quantifable, and that we live at the behest of our brains' neural signals, and chemisty, which creates these thoughts. They say that, since we can measure neural output and the following chemical reactions, then this takes the mystery out of how and why we think, therefore we can discredit the idea that thoughts come from an ethereal place.

I submit that, neuronal signaling (called, "action potentials") can be measured. Yes, the effects, on matter, of x amount of electricity, and y amount of chemistry, can be known. However, this is simply measuring raw materials that exist a priori in this spatio-temporal reality (electricity, chemisty, matter). But these manifestations are not thoughts at all. The actual thought that is wrought by these electrical and chemical realities is unquantifiable. Not one scientist knows how all of this hardware and math produce even one subjective percept. Not even one.

We have a brain and spinal cord, but we are not our brain and spinal cord. We use our brain and spinal cord to translate the world. Who are "we?" We're not the sum total of actional potentials and ion specific chemical reactions, that's for sure. This "we," co-mingles with the hardware - a system loop that is unique to each individual user.

Then the atheists try to convince us that the unconscious is not a mystery either. That, we can know the unconscious empirically, by measuring it, and finding out how and why it works the way it does.

Again, no, we cannot objectively measure the unconscious. We can set up parameters for it, dependent on a subjective baseline that we arbitrarily conjure up. But, attempting to tap the numerical pulse of the unconscious, is, for the lack of a better cliche, like trying to laso the ocean. The unconscious is simply too vast, some scientists even say, infinite. Think of the iceburg analogy. The tip of the iceberg is all that we can readily examine, yet virtually the whole of the iceburg is hidden beneath water. In the same way, the thoughts brimming at the our mental surface, that we can metacognitively explore, are the tip of a megalithic iceburg, I'll coin it, "psychoberg." The difference is that icebergs can be measured, so how much more vast and mysterious is the "whole" of the unmeasurable psychoberg?

If atheists were correct in assuming that we think thoughts only because of the firing off of the nuerons in our brains, then why is it that simply by us making a conscious effort to think differently, can we change the way that neurons fire? Not only that, but we can change the neural structure of our caudate nucleus, and other regions of the brain, if we simply think hard enough. Who's doing the thinking to make these structural changes? It appears as though something independent of the harware is doing something to force the hardware to bend to the pleasure of the independent thing. If thoughts were reliant, linearly, on precedent electricty and chemistry, then willful thinking could not create antecedent neural changes. But they do.

This is, in part, why psychology is not a science, yet an "art." You'll never receive a BS in psychology, only a BA. Why? It's an artform, tied to the whims of modern interpretation. It goes through Freudian, Jungian, or neo-analystic phases of popularity. Today we're in its cognitive-behavioral phase. What's next? What new theory will show us how we should measure thoughts and behavior? Who's doing the measuring? "We" are. Who the hell are we to measure me? "We" are the bickering married couple of "self" and hardware that's trying to translate a moral relativism that is unsuitable to the true us. The effect? Bogus measurements. "We" become walking null hypotheses, which won't be rejected until we get divorced.

I have a BA, not a BS, by the way.

Brian Boothe at 1:17PM on Apr 23rd 2007

28. Brian: I agree that knocking down straw men, which one sets up, can be fun – and maybe it’s even helpful for one’s emotional stability, but is it really necessary to do it in public? Some examples:

“Atheists half-heartedly use science to discredit God, and the idea of a soul or spirit.” What’s to “discredit”? Where’s the data?

“They say that, there is no non-earthly self.” What, pray tell, is a “non-earthly self”?

“They say that, since we can measure neural output and the following chemical reactions, then this takes the mystery out of how and why we think, therefore we can discredit the idea that thoughts come from an ethereal place.” Astounding! With all the current effort being expended trying to understand consciousness, you say it contains no mystery! Then why, pray tell, are scientists working so hard to understand it? And oh, by the way, where is this “ethereal place”? I tried to find it on google, but…

“Then the atheists try to convince us that the unconscious is not a mystery either.” Actually, rather than commenting on that silliness, what I’d really like to know is what the abbreviation BA stand for? Give me a hint: does the “B” stand for ‘Bonkers’ or ‘Bleedin’?

zoro at 2:18PM on Apr 23rd 2007

29. To Brian Boothe,

You are absolutely correct that there are many theories psychometricians are unable to test properly, but there is a great progress being made, technologies are improving, and you list a whole range of proxies that psychometricians may support their work on, and which are far more intuitive than any proxy for the existence of deities. By measuring the tip of the psychoberg, you get some idea of what it looks like. Theometricians don't even have a tip to measure, and are left to discussing void theories of angels on the "tip" of a pin.

Psychometricians are far closer to earning their BS' than theometricians are!

Stian at 2:39PM on Apr 23rd 2007

30. As a Roman Catholic, I believe in God and Jesus, heaven and hell, angels setc... but at the same time I'm a man of science... I also believe in evolution, the big bang (its ultimate cause being God).

I don't regard atheism as total nonsense... they're just as likely to have the answers of the universe as myself. Until they can actually disprove the existence of God and the other beliefs in religion, I will continue to follow the Catholic Church.

What I'm basically trying to say is, atheism is definitely a legitimate way of explaining things, but it is no less flawless than any religion. If Atheists (or at least the ones who post on blogs) would have a similar attitude toward religion, a lot of silly arguments could be avoided.

Tony Messinger at 2:46PM on Apr 23rd 2007