Randi tackles religion vs. science

[Doc_Nickel]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
**I agree that folks claiming to foretell the future should be subjected to the same standard of proof, whether they claim their source to be innate ability or a vision from God. I ask of the prophet and the psychic the same question: what’s your batting average? Same deal with miracles. Claiming God as the source of your power doesn’t give you a free pass. **

-I find it fascinating you said this.

The whole point here is that thare is absolutely no difference, none, zero, between an irrational belief in, say, precognition, and an irrational belief in God- and God, by definition, is irrational.

Both are not rational, they run contrary to logic and observed phenomena.

The dowser will say an “underground river” interfered with his search for the buried pipe. The fortune teller will claim their prediction was “just one of many possible futures”. The remote viewer will call into question the honesty and motives of the testers. The faith healer will say the demon is too strong, you are not praying fervently enough. The UFO fanatic will whisper that the Government is covering up all the evidence, even the evidence of the cover up itself.

The theist will claim that his God only affects the spirit, not the material world.

You, sir, to continue the tradition of insult, are a hypocrite.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Doc Nickel *
**Is it impossible to respond to, or are you just unwilling? **

Your entire post was nothing but armchair psychoanalysis. There is nothing to respond to. **

You yourself have railed against dowsers, psychics and speakers-to-the-dead in this very thread. You insult them, call them names, because they either hold irrational beliefs or they take advantage of the irrational beliefs of others. And yet, Mr. Kettle, you take umbrage at those insults directed at you.**

I have not insulted any class of people or called them names in this thread, at least as best I can remember. Your statement is false. And I certainly haven’t insulted the atheists opposing me. **

That being said, you’re not debating my point, you’re attacking the motives of my argument. Isn’t that, itself, ad hominem?**

No, it is not. Identifying ad hominem is not itself ad hominem. **

Excuse me for a second while I say, suck it up and take it like a man. **

This response is positively juvenile; all that’s missing is leet-speak. Are you incapable of carrying on a respectful debate? Hie thee to a Crossfire guest spot. **

This thread started out mocking athiests for having the unmitigated gall to use the otherwise inert phrase “Bright” in place of the emotionally charged “Athiest”.**

And rightly so. That, too, is an implicit ad hominem. It’s the sort of thing that has no place in civil discourse. **

As I’ve said, it is difficult to debate a man’s deepset and carefully-groomed beliefs without some measure of insult. **

Bullshit. This is a lame excuse, designed to cover your unwillingness or incapacity for civility. **

I’ve read what you have to say, and like Poly and others, I will not mollycoddle you with sweet words. **

No one wants to be mollycoddled. There is a difference between treating your opponent with respect and failing to vigoriosly contest the matter at hand.

Funny you should mention Poly. There are any number of “deepset and carefully groomed” beliefs upon which we violently disagree; run a search on any of our discussions regarding constitutional interpretation and the nature of rights. Yet somehow our discussions of those topics remained civil. You should take heed.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Doc Nickel *
**The dowser will say an “underground river” interfered with his search for the buried pipe. The fortune teller will claim their prediction was “just one of many possible futures”. The remote viewer will call into question the honesty and motives of the testers. The faith healer will say the demon is too strong, you are not praying fervently enough. The UFO fanatic will whisper that the Government is covering up all the evidence, even the evidence of the cover up itself. **

Post-hoc rationalizations all. I, on the other hand, am quite up-front about the limits and problems of my view.

[Avumede]

Dewey Cheatem Undhow writes:

But the line above, and many of the lines following it, disturb me because they crop up so frequently in these types of discussions. The analogy fits the point you’re making, I’ll give you that much. But the subtext of the analogy is galling: it implies that deists are the mental equivelant of children, and only the great and wise atheist has matured into adulthood. It’s insulting on a very basic level.

I think you are correct here. But you must also realize that it’s equally insulting to think that we athiests are missing out on the beauty and mystery of life by not recognizing god or supernatural occurences. If you’ve already apologized for that erroneous statement then sorry to bring it up again, I may have skipped a page when reading this.

My thoughts:
You can’t prove or disprove God. But I like to apply Occam’s Razor here. There’s no reason I know of to suppose God exists, so by default I’ll assume he doesn’t. I don’t place much stock in personal feelings of revelation or otherwise “feeling the divine”. We must remember that some people feel the divine and therefore abandon skepticism. Others feel the divine talk to them and kill their family. Obviously, God doesn’t have to exist to explain all of this.

[TVAA]

So God doesn’t affect the physical world, but He doesn’t scruple to alter the function of a person’s nervous system?

:rolleyes: yet again.

I can imagine that the universe might not be Euclidean, although that wouldn’t invalidate the correctness of my geometric statements. I can imagine that I’ve somehow bungled my thought processes completely when I’ve analyzed the proofs of those statements, although I find that doubtful in the extreme.

Once those uncertainties are acknowledged, we can make those statements with utter certainty.

That’s precisely what you don’t understand, Dewey: it is logically justifiable to be completely certain about something. The argument the rest of us are making is not that God’s existence cannot be proven and God cannot exist. We’re pointing out that the arguments in favor of God’s existence do not meet the criteria for logical validity. Given that experience shows us that irrational beliefs are frequently error-ridden, incomplete, and just plain wrong, we conclude that rational thinkers have no more reason to respect belief in a divine entity than to respect dowsing, alien abduction accounts, and the validity of fortune cookies.

Oh, and before I forget: claiming that someone is implying an ad hominem attack can also be an ad hominem attack, as you’re suggesting that your opponent is being dishonest and deceptive. There really isn’t enough reason to conclude that Doc Nickel was attacking you…

[GodlessSkeptic]

All I’ve got to say is this:
Where in the great beyond do I sign up for the Doc Nickle fan club??If I register and become an official “Nicklehead”(or whatever DN’s fans are called) do I get a discount on ordering transcripts of his debates with irrational spiritualists??
Dewey:There is absolutely no fundemental difference between alleged psychics like Edward and God-claims.Niether can be disproven and every rationalization you employ to get around the inconsistencies and lack of substantiation are equally employed by believers in such paranormal claims as “speaking with the dead”, ghost-hauntings etc.

The only difference is in the presentation.When John Edward or Van Prague perform their reading, yes we can pose as psychics and mimic the feats using cold-reading techniques but that does not falsify the psychics’ claims in the mind of the believer any more than skeptics exposing the human belief mechanism(psychology etc.) and logical fallacies of your arguents will falsify God’s existence in your mind.

Your performance differs slightly from John Edward’s performance.You point to an empty box and tell us “God is in there”.We reply :“I do not see anything in there” adn you assure us “God cannot be seen”.We retort that we do not feel anything in the box when we stick our hands in and you offer that God cannot be felt or interacted with in these ways.

“So why say he exists?” we ask.

Finally you offer that God acts in ways which are indistinguishable from self-delusion(that pattern-seeking belief mechanism again) and then get in a huff when we point out these more likely explanations.
Finally, like a chronic gambler who is fleeing a group of leg-breakers because he has no payment to offer their boss, you end up running down a blind alley that ends in solid brick.
AT this point you pull out your last card:

“God interacts with me personally but in some way that is inexplicable, indescribable and very real but I cannot say why it is real because it is inexplicable and beyond human reasoning”

THAT Deus Ex Machina can be employed to support ANY claim, no matter how ridiculous.

[godzillatemple]

OK, one more time and then it’s off to bed with me…

When a skeptic is told that somebody can communicate with the dead (something which violates all known natural laws), he responds, “I refuse to believe your claim unless you can show me empirical proof.”

When a skeptic is told that aliens from other planets are visiting us (something which violates all known natural laws), he responds, “I refuse to believe your claim unless you can show me empirical proof.”

When a skeptic is told that ghosts exist (something which violates all known natural laws), he responds, “I refuse to believe your claim unless you can show me empirical proof.”

When a skeptic is told that somebody can find water by waving a forked stick (something which violates all known natural laws), he responds, “I refuse to believe your claim unless you can show me empirical proof.”

But then, that very same skeptic states that he believes in a supernatural force whose existence violates all known natural laws, a force he calls “God.” And when another skeptic says, “How can you believe in God in the absence of any empirical proof,” the first skeptic responds, “God’s existence cannot be empirically proven. I believe it because I believe it, and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.”

I personally don’t have a problem if people want to believe in God, and my mission in life is not to prove his nonexistence (this thread notwithstanding). I think a belief in God can bring great comfort to people, inspire them to do good works, etc. I just think it’s hypocritical for somebody who believes in one supernatural being to claim that OTHER people are deluded or stupid for believing in other supernatural beings or events. If somebody deeply believes in ghosts or psychics, and that belief gives them comfort and insipres them to do good works, then what right do YOU have to tell them their beliefs are false when you admittedly believe in something which also cannot be proven empirically.

Now, Dewey, believe it or not I think I understand what you perceive to be the fundamental difference between a belief in God and a belief in ghosts, dowsing, psychics, etc. In the latter case, claims are made which can be proven false, whereas in the former it is only a matter of not being able to prove that it is true. As I’ve mentioned before, however, this distinction is only valid if you define the concept of God extremely narrowly so that he can’t possibly interact with the physical world. That may be your definition of God, but it’s not one that is shared by the majority of people who believe in God (the people that Randi’s argument was targeted at, by the way). Most people who believe in God believe in a god of miracles, one who interacts with the physical world on a regular basis (at least in the past). You don’t believe in a God like that, fine. In which case,

We weren’t talking to you in the first place!

Sheeeeesh…

Barry

[GodlessSkeptic]

I am to be the latest in an apparently long line of posters who have added Lekatt to their “ignore list”.

This will sound crass but there are people who I disagree with on some things but they are intelligent people(e.g. Polycarp in as far as I have had any exchanges with him), and there are people who I may agree with on some issue but who are probably not the most rational thinkers out there,…and then ther are stupid people.

Stupid people are not stupid because of the conditions they were raised in or because they did not go to a decent college or any such thing.Stupid people are stupid because they have access to information…people go out of their way to help them to learn about things they have a less than solid grasp of, and they willingly remain ignorant.They presuppose fnatastic and extraordinary things as fact and vehemently attack anyone offering data which contradicts their presuppositions.

They will even attack knowledge itself(incredible as that sounds)!

These “stupid people” will make arguements such as:

“Spirituality is a scientific fact!”

When asked to substantiate this bold/bald assertion they will offer Readers’ Digest or Weekly World News as their source.

‘Stupid people’ will say things like "Logic is not applicable to the real world."They will offer such paradoxial wonders as “Scientists who employ scientific methodology are not real scientists.*Real scientists just know that the spiritual is real and do not bother with your silly, irrelevant logic and rules of inference!”
I cannot learn anything from stupid people(or the effort and hoop-jumping that I would endure to learn whatever morsel would not justify the effort) and they cannot learn anything from me.
Welcome to the ignore list Lekatt.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Avumede *
**But you must also realize that it’s equally insulting to think that we athiests are missing out on the beauty and mystery of life by not recognizing god or supernatural occurences. **

There is a tremendous difference between the two statements. When I note that reducing love, etc, to mere biological processes is cold and sterile, I’m simply stating my impression of the implications of that particular worldview. It is not an attack on the person making the statement, but rather a criticism of the statement itself. It would be quite another matter if, for example, I said you were a cold, unfeeling person.

Along similar lines, you are free to call deism simplistic or unsatisfying or whatever; that’s just a criticism of the deistic worldview. But when you start describing deists themselves as children or “not bright,” even by implication, then you are crossing the line into ad hominem.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**So God doesn’t affect the physical world, but He doesn’t scruple to alter the function of a person’s nervous system?

:rolleyes: yet again.**

This is hardly rolleyes-worthy. It is actually quite sensible given my view of God’s character: more concerned with the hearts and minds of people than in the external goings-on of the mortal world. God doesn’t guide touchdown passes because that isn’t important to Him. God does deal with people on a personal level because that is important to Him.

You want to say that the fact I can crudely articulate the fact that I’ve had spiritual experiences means God does touch the physical? Fine. I’ll accept that as a technical matter – in that narrow area, God touches the physical. I still think it better to use “spiritual” vs. “physical” nomenclature, as the use of the separate terms illuminates more than it obfuscates – it’s a lot simpler, and thus clearer, to simply use “spiritual” to mean “communion with the spiritual and its consequent translation to the physical.” **

That’s precisely what you don’t understand, Dewey:**

I really wish you’d stop with the “you don’t understand/are incapable of understanding” assumption. I understand what you’re saying. I’d ask that you extend to me the same courtesy you would extend to Poly and others by not suggesting your argument is simply beyond my mental facilities. **

it is logically justifiable to be completely certain about something. The argument the rest of us are making is not that God’s existence cannot be proven and God cannot exist. We’re pointing out that the arguments in favor of God’s existence do not meet the criteria for logical validity. **

As I’ve repeatedly noted, I can’t prove God. It defies rigid syllogistic proof. Indeed, as I said earlier, it would be quite irrational for someone to base belief in a deity on nothing more than my say-so. I’m not trying to convert anybody.

All I’m saying is that it is a perfectly sane choice to be a deist based on one’s own significant spiritual experiences. It is better to accept what the soul overwhelmingly tells you is real than to cling to a foolish consistency. **

Given that experience shows us that irrational beliefs are frequently error-ridden, incomplete, and just plain wrong, we conclude that rational thinkers have no more reason to respect belief in a divine entity than to respect dowsing, alien abduction accounts, and the validity of fortune cookies. **

Define “respect.” I don’t think you have to accept my view, or even find it plausible. If that’s what you mean by respect, fine. On the other hand, I do think you ought to accept that intelligent, learned, “bright” people are perfectly and reasonably able to come down in favor of deism, and that doing so does not render them “not-bright” or “credophiles” or anything similar. I think that sort of respect is perfectly reasonable to expect. **

Oh, and before I forget: claiming that someone is implying an ad hominem attack can also be an ad hominem attack, as you’re suggesting that your opponent is being dishonest and deceptive. There really isn’t enough reason to conclude that Doc Nickel was attacking you… **

Spare me. Calling someone on the use of ad hominem is not the same as calling them “dishonest and deceptive.” It simply points out their incivility. And it’s absurd to suggest that pointing out an ad hominem is itself ad hominem – if that was the case, no one could ever point out his opponent’s use of ad hominem without being called a hypocrite.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic *
The only difference is in the presentation.When John Edward or Van Prague perform their reading, yes we can pose as psychics and mimic the feats using cold-reading techniques but that does not falsify the psychics’ claims in the mind of the believer any more than skeptics exposing the human belief mechanism(psychology etc.) and logical fallacies of your arguents will falsify God’s existence in your mind.

There is a world of difference between absolutely demonstrating that Edward is a fraud (say, by making up a person and throwing out answers accordingly) and suggesting that science has an absolute grasp on the workings of human consciousness such that the soul can be similarly falsified. Edwards I can prove is false. The worst that you can say about my beliefs is that they cannot be proven true. **

Your performance differs slightly from John Edward’s performance.You point to an empty box and tell us “God is in there”.We reply :“I do not see anything in there” adn you assure us “God cannot be seen”. We retort that we do not feel anything in the box when we stick our hands in and you offer that God cannot be felt or interacted with in these ways.

(…etc, etc, etc…) **

The difference, of course, is that I don’t go down this little progression of yours. I admit, up front, that I can’t prove God exists, that I don’t expect to sway you to that position, and that you would be foolish to accept God’s existence on my say-so. In short, I tell you right from the beginning that you won’t feel anything if you stick your hand in the box.

My goal isn’t conversion. It’s just to suggest that intelligent, “bright” people can be deists.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Most people who believe in God believe in a god of miracles, one who interacts with the physical world on a regular basis (at least in the past). You don’t believe in a God like that, fine. In which case,

We weren’t talking to you in the first place!

Sheeeeesh…**

That is not apparent from Randi’s article. If that was a distinction he wished to draw, he should have written his article more carefully. As it stands, the article is a broadside against faith in general and religion in particular. It is not limited in application to those who believe in God as miraculous intervenor.

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
On the other hand, I do think you ought to accept that intelligent, learned, “bright” people are perfectly and reasonably able to come down in favor of deism, and that doing so does not render them “not-bright” or “credophiles” or anything similar. I think that sort of respect is perfectly reasonable to expect.

No. I don’t grant that kind of respect to anyone else entertaining irrational notions. Why should old irrational notions be any different from new ones?

“Credophile” describes precisely what is going on. They want to believe, so they do. There are no other mechanisms at work here.

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
** I disagree, at least insofar as my report can be considered meaningful evidence to other persons. Words are a poor vessel for communicating these sorts of things. And other people cannot slip into my skin. Anyone who elected to embrace spirituality solely on my say-so would be a damned fool; it’s the sort of thing that simply must be experience firsthand. **This is the sort of deeply personal thing that doesn’t translate well to others. But we do try. If I compare notes with the likes of Polycarp, would you suddenly find my position more valid? **

If the claim is that there is a link to your mind, demanding other physical evidence seems foolish. Experiments stimulating various parts of the brain sometimes work by the subject reporting on his subjective experience - all good science. And we are not trying to reproduce your internal experience, only see if your report on the features of the spiritual matches that of other people. We don’t know that we see the same colors as other people, but we do know that all people seeing red (who are not color blind) report it as red - red is consistent externally, even if we cannot prove the image of red to be consistent internally.

It’s not spirituality vs. materialism - it is reality vs.unreality.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
**God doesn’t guide touchdown passes because that isn’t important to Him. God does deal with people on a personal level because that is important to Him.

** So now we’re claiming to know the mind of God? [steps away to avoid bolt of lightning]

**You want to say that the fact I can crudely articulate the fact that I’ve had spiritual experiences means God does touch the physical? Fine. I’ll accept that as a technical matter – in that narrow area, God touches the physical.

** Now – how? Via the fundamental forces? Then God can also be affected by those forces, which logically means He can be damaged, injured, and destroyed.

**I still think it better to use “spiritual” vs. “physical” nomenclature, as the use of the separate terms illuminates more than it obfuscates – it’s a lot simpler, and thus clearer, to simply use “spiritual” to mean “communion with the spiritual and its consequent translation to the physical.”

** So what did you mean by ‘spiritual’ in the second phrase? Define ‘spiritual’ and demonstrate how the concept is different from ‘physical’.

**I really wish you’d stop with the “you don’t understand/are incapable of understanding” assumption. I understand what you’re saying. I’d ask that you extend to me the same courtesy you would extend to Poly and others by not suggesting your argument is simply beyond my mental facilities.

** That would be dishonest; the available evidence suggests that the argument is indeed beyond your mental facilities. Poly has proven himself capable of comprehending nuance in argument.
\

As I’ve repeatedly noted, I can’t prove God. It defies rigid syllogistic proof. Indeed, as I said earlier, it would be quite irrational for someone to base belief in a deity on nothing more than my say-so.

Who says we’re looking for rigid syllogistic proof? Do you think there’s a rigid syllogistic proof that establishes beyond all doubt that atoms exist?

Secondly, you’re quite right that it would be quite irrational for someone to base belief in a deity on nothing more than your argument – including yourself.

All I’m saying is that it is a perfectly sane choice to be a deist based on one’s own significant spiritual experiences.

No. If being sane requires rationality, then choosing to be a deist is not sane.

It is better to accept what the soul overwhelmingly tells you is real than to cling to a foolish consistency.

How about an intelligent consistency? Or even a moderately reasonable one?

**On the other hand, I do think you ought to accept that intelligent, learned, “bright” people are perfectly and reasonably able to come down in favor of deism, and that doing so does not render them “not-bright” or “credophiles” or anything similar. I think that sort of respect is perfectly reasonable to expect.

** That would be a lie. A person who believed in the reality of dowsing would be sufficiently gullible to identify as a “credophile” – why should I make exceptions for religious belief?

**Spare me. Calling someone on the use of ad hominem is not the same as calling them “dishonest and deceptive.” It simply points out their incivility. And it’s absurd to suggest that pointing out an ad hominem is itself ad hominem – if that was the case, no one could ever point out his opponent’s use of ad hominem without being called a hypocrite. **

But there is a lack of clear evidence that Doc Nickel was being incivil. You deduced that conclusion from limited evidence. Your condemnation of his statements as ad hominem is quite clear, however.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Priceguy *
No. I don’t grant that kind of respect to anyone else entertaining irrational notions. Why should old irrational notions be any different from new ones?

So that’s it then? All deists are not-bright? You can’t even be bothered to respectfully disagree?

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Voyager *
**If the claim is that there is a link to your mind, demanding other physical evidence seems foolish. Experiments stimulating various parts of the brain sometimes work by the subject reporting on his subjective experience - all good science. And we are not trying to reproduce your internal experience, only see if your report on the features of the spiritual matches that of other people. We don’t know that we see the same colors as other people, but we do know that all people seeing red (who are not color blind) report it as red - red is consistent externally, even if we cannot prove the image of red to be consistent internally. **

This isn’t a simple matter of pointing out a color. I don’t see how self-reporting could work here. Consider the scene of a traffic accident: interview ten eyewitnesses, and you’ll get ten different versions of events. One hopes those versions agree on material points, but frequently they don’t. That doesn’t mean that any particular eyewitness didn’t see the accident.

[TVAA]

But it does mean that we have good reason to doubt any individual’s account of what happened.

**So that’s it then? All deists are not-bright? You can’t even be bothered to respectfully disagree?

** The position isn’t worthy of respectful disagreement.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**So now we’re claiming to know the mind of God? [steps away to avoid bolt of lightning] **

You don’t believe in God; why are you stepping aside? :dubious:

I don’t claim to know the mind of God, but I think that sort of broad-stroke formulation is accurate. **

Now – how? Via the fundamental forces? Then God can also be affected by those forces, which logically means He can be damaged, injured, and destroyed. **

God speaks to the soul, which is connected to the physical. I don’t pretend to know the precise mechanics of how that connection operates. **

So what did you mean by ‘spiritual’ in the second phrase? Define ‘spiritual’ and demonstrate how the concept is different from ‘physical’. **

I think spiritual is reasonably well-understood to mean connnected to matters of the spirit or soul. Defining “spirit” or “soul” is more difficult; it’s a squishy concept. **

That would be dishonest; the available evidence suggests that the argument is indeed beyond your mental facilities. Poly has proven himself capable of comprehending nuance in argument. **

:rolleyes:

Seriously, are you interested in the slightest in having a grownup discussion?**

No. If being sane requires rationality, then choosing to be a deist is not sane. **

Wow. What a mindblowing statement. All of the deists on this board – myself, Polycarp, Libertarian, all of them – are insane. Fascinating. **

But there is a lack of clear evidence that Doc Nickel was being incivil. You deduced that conclusion from limited evidence.**

Horseshit. The statement itself is sufficient evidence to describe it as uncivil. If I call you an asshole, you don’t need to wait for me to also call me a bastard and a sonofabitch to describe my statements as uncivil. **

Your condemnation of his statements as ad hominem is quite clear, however.**

A condemnation of his statement is not itself ad hominem. That statement is absurd, as it means that anyone pointing out an ad hominem statement is himself committing ad hominem.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
So that’s it then? All deists are not-bright?

Actually, we prefer the term “dim”.

Just kidding!