What a really really nice person she seems to be. How refreshing.

Regarding Professor Roughgarden's final point: We do not, in fact, need to talk about evolution using language that will make the religious feel good. We should be polite (at least when we're on the offensive, which is less common than Professor Roughgarden seems to imply), but our only real imperative is to discuss evolution honestly. In fact, the account of creation found in the Scriptures is flatly inconsistent with the account favored by those who prefer empiricism to revelation. We could try to paper this over by inventing theologically-questionable new readings of straightforward passages from the Bible, but the result will satisfy neither serious believers (who aren't, after all, children) nor serious empiricists. Dishonesty about the inconsistency of scientific and religious accounts of creation is isn't just troubling for its own sake. I think it's also bad politically, at least in the long run. If Dawkins conceded this point, he really shouldn't have.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/191...5:25&out=36:11
Or at least I hope he learned something there!
I hope he will also go back and listen both to his own words and to Joan's correction of him in the selfish gene section.
Bob's book, The Moral Animal is shot through with confusion on the point of "selfishness" -- a confusion I think he picked up from his equally confused scientific sources. Listen to Bob denying that the selfish gene view implies that we are all really selfish, then seconds later talking about "apparent altruism" and how it shows that we are really all selfish, but just more subtly and unconsciously selfish. The confusion about selfishness belongs to Bob and the evolutionary psychologists, not just to their readers. There are SEVERAL confusions here. I tried once upon a time to disentangle one of them in the comments here -- no use trying it again.
But I hope Bob will pay more attention on a second listen to Joan's criticism of treating "selfishness" as a metaphor for "success". He doesn't actually seem to take in what she says there.
Bob, her point is NOT NOT NOT NOT merely that selfish genes can produce altruistic behavior. She points out that it's

A conversation like this one is about 10 to the googolplex more interesting than your chats with the bloviating likes of Mickey and Bob Kagan or Jonah Whooshamalcallhim. Please give us more percontation and less right-wing constipation. Joan was thought-provoking at every turn. I'm buying her book for sure, and not just because I want to know why my highly social African Grey parrot is sexually monomorphic (DNA-test required to find out he was a male) while other species of equally social and intelligent parrots are clearly dimorphic. On a perhaps more serious note, it might be interesting to have some of the experts in aggression/conflict resolution/reconciliation that John Horgan has been interviewing (mostly primate studies) discuss Joan's theories of "friendship" in selection.

Quoting Wonderment: A conversation like this one is about 10 to the googolplex more interesting than your chats with the bloviating likes of Mickey and Bob Kagan or Jonah Whooshamalcallhim. Please give us more percontation and less right-wing constipation.

Joan was thought-provoking at every turn.

I agree with everything you say there. I plan to buy her books as well -- but they aren't available on Kindle or through Audible.com!! How frustrating! I do hope that Joan will come back and debate the other essayist Bob mentioned -- or to talk with just about anyone else. Her talk about the consistency of theism and evolution would be interesting to hear as well. Please come back often, Joan!

Evolution's Rainbow for $5.21 and Genial Gene for $9.95 here.

yeah, can we ban mickey? i can't believe he gets paid to offer his opinion.

My God! Emily Dickison has reincarnated into a biologist!! And wearing moon earphones to boot!!

bhtv should explain its relationship with Templeton Foundation and what is the foundation's involvement in the production of this and similar diavlogs.
I remember I saw their logo decorating other episodes in the past, but didn't pay attention until today. Until bhtv puts forward other explanation, my interpretation is bhtv received funding from Template Foundation on condition it would feature Dr. Roughgarden propagating particular set of ideas.

I haven't watched the diavlog, so I would like to ask those who did: did Dr. Roughgarden criticize the theory of sexual selection, calling it locker room bravado? Since that's just what she did in her speech I did see, on a conference she attended with Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, also known as Professor Richard Dawkins.
Needless to say, Dawkins wasn't amused.

I don't think this one really got traction but I enjoyed it still. I think it's great that people are going back and actually testing if sexual selection is for reals or not. Roughgarden pretty much convinced me that it's just another just-so story that ought to be taken less seriously. I recently came across a book by Alan Blinder in which he went out and checked what real supply curves look like. Turns out only about 11% of GDP is produced by firms with rising marginal cost. I guess it doesn't hurt to question the fundamental premises of entire fields once in a while. Did anyone else think that her idea of teamwork is pretty similar to econ 101's gains from trade? Also I'm surprised Bob didn't take the opportunity highlight the Nonzero-ness of that.

Quoting JoeK: bhtv should explain its relationship with Templeton Foundation and what is the foundation's involvement in the production of this and similar diavlogs.
I remember I saw their logo decorating other episodes in the past, but didn't pay attention until today.

Until bhtv puts forward other explanation, my interpretation is bhtv received funding from Template Foundation on condition it would feature Dr. Roughgarden propagating particular set of ideas.

I am as instinctively suspicious of TF money as you are, Joe, but I must say, I found absolutely nothing in the first 98% of this diavlog that could even be imagined to be a "particular set of ideas" that had any sort of non-scientific basis or agenda whatsoever. This was a scientist critiquing how another group of scientists do science. Nothing more. The very end of the diavlog, I suppose, could be imagined to be something that the TF people would like to hear. Joan expressed a view that science and religion can coexist harmoniously; in particular, (1) that atheists should abandon the notion that they are going to convince people of faith of the folly of their beliefs through reasoning and/or ridicule, and (2) that Joan does not see a fundamental

Quoting JoeK: I haven't watched the diavlog, so I would like to ask those who did: did Dr. Roughgarden criticize the theory of sexual selection, ...

Yes, but ...

... calling it locker room bravado?

... she did not use that term, that I heard.

Since that's just what she did in her speech I did see, on a conference she attended with Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, also known as Professor Richard Dawkins.
Needless to say, Dawkins wasn't amused.

She talks about Dawkins to some degree in this DV, disagreeing but not dissing.

Quoting cmonsour: [...]

Very interesting comment, cmonsour. I hope Joan will respond.

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: Regarding Professor Roughgarden's final point:

We do not, in fact, need to talk about evolution using language that will make the religious feel good. We should be polite (at least when we're on the offensive, which is less common than Professor Roughgarden seems to imply), but our only real imperative is to discuss evolution honestly.

In fact, the account of creation found in the Scriptures is flatly inconsistent with the account favored by those who prefer empiricism to revelation. We could try to paper this over by inventing theologically-questionable new readings of seemingly-straightforward passages from the Bible, but the result will satisfy neither serious believers (who aren't, after all, children) nor serious empiricists.

Dishonesty about the inconsistency of scientific and religious accounts of creation is isn't just troubling for its own sake. I think it's also bad politically, at least in the long run. If Dawkins conceded this point, he really shouldn't have.

Well said, Wm. I would like to hear this argument of Joan's supported by examples. The "precursors" in the Bible bit really raised an eyebrow; I am highly inclined to believe that this is exactly the sort of thing she spent the first 98% of

Quoting bjkeefe: I am as instinctively suspicious of TF money as you are, Joe, but I must say, I found absolutely nothing in the first 98% of this diavlog that could even be imagined to be a "particular set of ideas" that had any sort of non-scientific basis or agenda whatsoever. This was a scientist critiquing how another group of scientists do science. Nothing more.

There's a long and proud tradition of scientists taking money from religious institutions to pursue their godless ends. IIRC Horgan and Johnson were cracking each other up about taking TF money too. If TF is supporting bhtv then good for them. It shows they've got good taste. update: I'd opened keefe's link about TF in another tab and just got to it. Ew. Prop 8. Ick ick ick.

Quoting bjkeefe: I am as instinctively suspicious of TF money as you are, Joe, but I must say, I found absolutely nothing in the first 98% of the diavlog that could even be imagined to be a "particular set of ideas" that had any sort of non-scientific basis or agenda whatsoever. This was a scientist critiquing how another group of scientists do science. Nothing more.

The very end of the diavlog, I suppose, could be imagined to be something that the TF people would like to hear. Joan expressed a view that science and religion can coexist harmoniously; in particular, (1) that atheists should abandon the notion that they are going to convince people of faith of the folly of their beliefs through reasoning and/or ridicule, and (2) that Joan does not see a fundamental conflict between believing in God and accepting (and contributing to) the theory of evolution.

Even someone as militantly atheist as I can be could not have a problem with those last couple of minutes.

So, I wouldn't worry about the sponsor's agenda in this diavlog, at least, although I do worry about them in other contexts.

BTW, Sean Carroll has a nice essay on taking (or not) TF money, if you haven't already

Quoting claymisher: There's a long and proud tradition of scientists taking money from religious institutions to pursue their godless ends. IIRC Horgan and Johnson were cracking each other up about taking TF money too.

That's all very well, as long as we can be sure that the scientists really are taking advantage, and not being taken advantage of.

If TF is supporting bhtv then good for them. It shows they've got good taste.

Mostly agreed, except ...

update: I'd opened keefe's link about TF in another tab and just got to it. Ew. Prop 8. Ick ick ick.

... yeah. There always do get to be those sticky bits, don't there?

Quoting JoeK: I would still like to know how it exactly works. For example, does the Foundation come to bhtv with the list of people they would pay to see on bhtv or is it the other way around? Another way to ask the question is would bhtv consider inviting Dr. Roughgarden if she wasn't coming with Templeton money.

I guess I can't dispute your wanting to know the answers to the questions. I'll just say again that however it was that Joan ended up here, I enjoyed the diavlog and excluding the last couple of minutes, found none of it even remotely suggestive of a religious or anti-scientific agenda. If the TF paid to have her on just so she could do that last two minutes (and paid Bob to ask the set-up question!!!1!), hey, no prob, as far as I'm concerned. If it's not one advertising sponsor, it's gonna be another, or else we're going to have to start donating, or else there's not going to be a Bh.tv. Pick your poison.

There are other concerns, what about other sponsors?

Yeah. How come we have to look at so many banner ads with Ann Coulter's face

Quoting bjkeefe: If the TF paid to have her on just so she could do that last two minutes (and paid Bob to ask the set-up question!!!1!), hey, no prob, as far as I'm concerned. If it's not one advertising sponsor, it's gonna be another, or else we're going to have to start donating, or else there's not going to be a Bh.tv. Pick your poison.

There is a difference between advertisers who want to sell their stuff and sponsors who want to see bhtv producing certain kind of content. I am not even asking for bhtv to stop taking money from Templeton, just to fully disclose what their relationship is.

It would be nice to have Joan paired with Geoffrey Miller, author of the book "The Mating Mind". The guy is brilliant and that particular book was based on the sexual selection being far underrated in human development. He also has a new book coming out next month, so I'm sure he'd be game.

The "precursors" in the Bible bit really raised an eyebrow...

Agreed. Actually the word she used (twice) was "foreshadow," but precursor is close enough. It seemed to me she went beyond arguing that religious faith is compatible with science. We'd have to find out what she meant by "foreshadowing," however. It may be as benign as noting some proto-scientific passages. She certainly can't be thinking of the so-called Bible as a book with a unified theme. It is a scientific fact that the so-called Bible is a compilation of texts by various authors written at different times over a period of several centuries. These authors had different theologies, points of view, literary styles and backgrounds. The Bible is not a book in any coherent modern sense of the word. It also contains several versions of God and gods, monotheism and monolatry in the compilations. Myth is freely mixed with fragments of historical data. Bottom line: With a little poetic license (as Dawkins apparently suggested) you can find almost anything you want.

Quoting JoeK: bhtv should explain its relationship with Templeton Foundation and what is the foundation's involvement in the production of this and similar diavlogs.
I remember I saw their logo decorating other episodes in the past, but didn't pay attention until today.

Until bhtv puts forward other explanation, my interpretation is bhtv received funding from Template Foundation on condition it would feature Dr. Roughgarden propagating particular set of ideas.

If religious kooks were trying to buy programming decisions on BhTV, I would find it surprising that they would insist on a noteworthy transsexual woman as their shill of choice, seeing how most evangelical organizations in America are (a the risk of understatement) a bit behind the times when it comes to understanding the nature of transsexuality. The TF is known for throwing money at "Intelligent Design" stupidity, but also at legitimate science. It's essentially a charitable trust run by non-scientists which is interested in the kinds of questions scientists ask, and towards that end tend to offer grants for a rather wide assortment of thinkers. Furthermore, a bit of poking around the net reveals that TF did *NOT* support Prop 8. The President of the

This conversation was a treat. It's refreshing to hear a biologist seriously question sexual selection, or any other aspect of Neo Darwinian theory, which is often accepted as ideology rather than as working theory in need of ongoing testing. Not long ago I watched a TV special about various biologists investigating sexual selection. What was remarkable was the rigid conformity of their theoretical stances. None of them questioned the basic premises of sexual selection; they were all simply studying various organisms as exemplars that would demonstrate the already accepted theory. Their main conformity was to agree that the males of the species they were studying had no real efficacy in terms of mate choice. The males merely displayed their genetically determined sexual characteristics and all choice was attributed to the females. This is a pendulum swing from thirty years ago when males were assumed to have full control of mating behavior. Then most biologists were sure of the truth of their assumptions, so too today. Dr Roughgarden reminds us that honest scientific investigation must always seek alternate stories to explain empirical observation and not simply assume the truth of currently fashionable theory.

Hey Bob - Can you get some knowledgable folks on to discuss the Harman - Gonzales - AIPAC scandal as soon as possible?

Thanks for a thought provoking DV! http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...al/session-3-3

Quoting Wonderment: Agreed. Actually the word she used (twice) was "foreshadow," but precursor is close enough. It seemed to me she went beyond arguing that religious faith is compatible with science. We'd have to find out what she meant by "foreshadowing," however. It may be as benign as noting some proto-scientific passages.

She certainly can't be thinking of the so-called Bible as a book with a unified theme. It is a scientific fact that the so-called Bible is a compilation of texts by various authors written at different times over a period of several centuries.

These authors had different theologies, points of view, literary styles and backgrounds. The Bible is not a book in any coherent modern sense of the word. It also contains several versions of God and gods, monotheism and monolatry in the compilations. Myth is freely mixed with fragments of historical data. Bottom line: With a little poetic license (as Dawkins apparently suggested) you can find almost anything you want.

Thanks for the "foreshadowing" correction. And yes, we are completely agreed that the Bible is an amalgam, and that one may read into it practically anything. I'd be inclined to accept the idea that

Quoting JoeK: There is a difference between advertisers who want to sell their stuff and sponsors who want to see bhtv producing certain kind of content.

I am not even asking for bhtv to stop taking money from Templeton, just to fully disclose what their relationship is.

Okay. I have nothing more to add.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Thanks for a thought provoking DV!

http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...al/session-3-3

And thanks for that link.

Quoting JoeK: There is a difference between advertisers who want to sell their stuff and sponsors who want to see bhtv producing certain kind of content.

I am not even asking for bhtv to stop taking money from Templeton, just to fully disclose what their relationship is.

What about Templeton makes you think they ought to be singled out? Your question presupposes facts that certainly aren't in evidence. It seems clear, especially since, as Brendan pointed out, Ann Coulter ads appear here as well, tha the relationship between sponsors and what gets expressed here is tenuous, at best.

I'm glad the professor agrees that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and faith. But I'm not sure how useful or productive these unprovable theories of human behavior based on "Evolution" are. I'd like to see more facts and scientific proof and less BS. As for faith being based on emotion. No doubt true. But its also obvious that most atheists are not open-minded seekers of truth, who put aside their emotions because of Spock like atheistic logic and scientific facts. Most atheists are just the flip side of the emotionally driven religious fanatic. That's why they're continually haranguing everyone with their belief that God doesn't exist.

Quoting rcocean: I'm glad the professor agrees that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and faith. But I'm not sure how useful or productive these unprovable theories of human behavior based on "Evolution" are. I'd like to see more facts and scientific proof and less BS.

As for faith being based on emotion. No doubt true. But its also obvious that most atheists are not open-minded seekers of truth, who put aside their emotions because of Spock like atheistic logic and scientific facts.

Most atheists are just the flip side of the emotionally driven religious fanatic. That's why they're continually haranguing everyone with their belief that God doesn't exist.

Belief? Skeptics believe in evidence. Skeptical atheism simply says "show me a good reason to believe in God, some true fact that can't be explained without 'God.'" We're still waiting. I ought to just add a link to Russell's Teapot to my sig. Misunderstanding the nature of atheism does not refute atheism, rc.

Since I have never really studied this, the discussion got me thinking a bit about the group / individual survival thing. Some birds issue warning calls when a potential predator is spotted. This seems like a good example of a trait that aids survival of the group, which is warned, at the cost of a possible disadvantage to the individual, who might call attention to itself. Presumably this advantages genetic survival of this trait, and the strategy advantages the individuals overall when practiced universally, despite the cost to an individual in a particular instance. Sort of an interesting parallel to the prisoner's delemma in game theory terms, and makes one wonder a bit about whether human triats that supposedly advantage us above other species are necessarily advantages since we as a species don't default to that strategy, else no dilemma. We can instead consciously opt to attempt to gain an individual advantage, with the risk that that choice turns into a disadvantage if shared. Maybe its just the question of whether humanity will prove to be the top of the evolutionary heap or a "close but no

Quoting AemJeff: What about Templeton makes you think they ought to be singled out? Your question presupposes facts that certainly aren't in evidence. It seems clear, especially since, as Brendan pointed out, Ann Coulter ads appear here as well, tha the relationship between sponsors and what gets expressed here is tenuous, at best.

Seems obvious to me Templeton is not like other advertisers. I can imagine Bob Wright not being aware of Ann Coulter’s adds appearing on his site(*). But, I cannot imagine him not being aware exactly which episodes got funding from Templeton.
BTW, I don't think Templeton is particularly menacing organization. They are advocates, or would like to be advocates, of an ideology that is in retreat. What I am worried about is what if one of these days we'll have, for example, some freaks on bhtv inciting people on eating organic food and their crazy ideas go unchallenged so not to offend sponsors. (*)If you disagree with this, that’s only because Bob’s and Coulter’s public personas having peculiar relationship, but that’s incidental to what we are discussing here.

Quoting JoeK: Seems obvious to me Templeton is not like other advertisers. I can imagine Bob Wright not being aware of Ann Coulter’s adds appearing on his site(*). But, I cannot imagine him not being aware exactly which episodes got funding from Templeton.
BTW, I don't think Templeton is particularly menacing organization. They are advocates, or would like to be advocates, of an ideology that is in retreat. What I am worried about is what if one of these days we'll have, for example, some freaks on bhtv inciting people on eating organic food and their crazy ideas go unchallenged so not to offend sponsors.

(*)If you disagree with this, that’s only because Bob’s and Coulter’s public personas having peculiar relationship, but that’s incidental to what we are discussing here.

My point is that there's no specific reason to single out this advertiser. Nobody advertises without some sort of advocacy, whether it's political, or commercial or whatever. If the DNC were advertising here, or the RNC, or even the National Socialists, I still wouldn't find any particular reason for concern, any more than I would in broadcast media. Specific evidence that there was some intent to interfere with the content by an advertiser

Quoting cragger: Since I have never really studied this, the discussion got me thinking a bit about the group / individual survival thing. [...]

Another interesting comment. Wish I knew enough to respond meaningfully, but intuitively, your thinking sounds correct.

Quoting rcocean: Most atheists are just the flip side of the emotionally driven religious fanatic. That's why they're continually haranguing everyone with their belief that God doesn't exist.

I don't have much to add to what Jeff said, but in the interest of trying to persuade you by force of numbers, I am going to weigh in anyway. There are doubtless a few atheists who will say they are absolutely sure that God does not exist, and there are some more who will adopt a more rigid stance than they actually hold when in the middle of an argument, but generally speaking, you are sorely misguided in your impression of atheists. It's not so much that atheists believe in something, it's that they don't believe in something. Remember your etymology. The prefix a- is simply a negator; i.e., an a-theist merely means "not [a] theist." I will point out that even Richard Dawkins does not profess absolute certainty about the non-existence of God. If you talk to any atheist who is not just someone trying to get your goat, the odds are very strong that he or she will tell you, for example, that of course

To another point ...

Quoting rcocean: As for faith being based on emotion. No doubt true. But its also obvious that most atheists are not open-minded seekers of truth, who put aside their emotions because of Spock like atheistic logic and scientific facts.

This is a bit of a straw man. I don't really think there are that many atheists who deny that emotions play a part in their lives and affect how they see things. Here, for example, is an excerpt from a nice essay by PZ Myers, titled "What should a scientist think about religion?"

This does not mean that scientists can't be religious. We can encompass irrational beliefs without regret and without obligation—I can, actually, look at my kids in a different way than I would an experimental subject under my microscope. I also do not pretend that I view my children rationally and objectively, untainted by emotion or history, and I'm not ashamed of that at all. So, a scientist should have no problem demanding one standard of logic and evidence in the lab, and dropping that demand when they go to church on Sunday.

Worth reading the whole thing for a further refutation of

I think Daniel Dennett said it well when Bob asked him on MOL.TV how sure he was that there is no God and Dennett replied "I'm as sure of it as I am of anything else."

Mr. Wright: 1. The differences in male/female jealousy are grounded in primal fears. The female's greatest fear is that she will be abandoned by the male with young, while the male's greatest fear is that the female will acquire a competing male's genes. The 'jealousy' is related to the other's infidelity, but a key subtle difference is revealed by their respective fears. 2. The altruism/avarice divide in human nature is a manifestation of the natural bifurcation of the human psychology. The deepest roots of individualist/collectivist behavior can be found by examining the human skull, where the dichotomy is easily observed (the teeth and eyes). The human animal is forever a meld of predator and prey, hunter and gatherer, carnivore and herbivore. Our status as the omnivore practically guarantees that our psychologies will always be a clash, that we will eternally form and express an alternative or contrary opinion, and that our passive herding behavior (one world government) will be as suicidal as our pro-active predatory behavior is homicidal. 3. An empathy gene will never be found, just as a selfish gene will never be found. Instead, all humans are composites of both primordial instincts, those

I thought this was a very interesting dv and I think it is great that Roughgarden is challenging the sexual selection orthodoxy. That said, I am surprised at how easily you are convinced she is correct. My own view is that the conventional wisdom about sexual selection is closer to the truth than her very interesting iconoclastic position. Positing an alternative theory isn't the same as proving it and given my lack of expertise in the matter, my money is on the dominant paradigm until we have truly convincing evidence otherwise.

Quoting themightypuck: ...
Positing an alternative theory isn't the same as proving it and given my lack of expertise in the matter, my money is on the dominant paradigm until we have truly convincing evidence otherwise.

Nice heuristic. I still haven't seen this dvlog, so I have no real opinion on the matter, but this is an excellent point, regardless.

Good post TMP. And while it would not be very scientific (I'm no scientist) I still grant sexual selection a pretty prominent role in the whole affair based on my own experiences. IE- me, and everyone I know, and every animal we've observed seems pretty obsessed with activities that lead to procreation. With no real home-run alternative theories out there, I would hesitate to write off sexual selection. Perhaps Joan's books would convince me, but nothing I heard in the diavlog has gotten me there just yet. PS- just to add onto what others said, Joan was great and I hope she comes back. I'd love to hear John Horgan (or PZ MYers!) interview her on the god/science issue.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So yes atheism is a belief system.

Quoting piscivorous: Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So yes atheism is a belief system.

In what way do you imagine that refutes anything that's been said, Pisc?

Quoting piscivorous: Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So yes atheism is a belief system.

Then so is your not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So it's a belief system. So what.

Quoting AemJeff: Belief? Skeptics believe in evidence. Skeptical atheism simply says "show me a good reason to believe in God, some true fact that can't be explained without 'God.'" We're still waiting. I ought to just add a link to Russell's Teapot to my sig.

Misunderstanding the nature of atheism does not refute atheism, rc.

Belief? Believers believe . Belief simply says "show me a good reason not to believe in God, some true fact that can't be explained by 'God.'" Why don't you explain to me the differences? they seem to me pretty much achiral structures.

Quoting piscivorous: Belief? Believers believe . Belief simply says "show me a good reason not to believe in God, some true fact that can't be explained by 'God.'" Why don't you explain to me the differences? they seem to me pretty much achiral structures.

Pisc, I'm not quite sure what you said there, but I'm pretty sure you don't understand the argument you're trying to counter. There is a distinct difference between not believing something is true and affirmatively believing that thing is false. The reason not to believe in God that there's no evidence. Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There's equal evidence for it as there is for God. Likewise Russell's Teapot. I thought you wrote code for a living. Surely you've had at least one course in critical thinking? Formal logic? No?

Quoting piscivorous: Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So yes atheism is a belief system.

Your first sentence is true, standing alone. Your mistake lies in your apparent view that anyone claims to have proved God does not exist. What is going on here, for atheists, is that absence of evidence is responsible for their absence of belief. It's not the same thing as "a belief system."

I believe you believe there is a firm difference yet with religion and atheism there is no empirical proof on either side. Unless you believe you know something that I for one don't.

Well if you expect to get the height and weight of God of course there is no evidence for your eyes to see. If you accept that life is a miracle, as most believers do, then there is evidence aplenty for both the existence of
God and the Devil to be seen.

Quoting piscivorous: I believe you believe there is a firm difference yet with religion and atheism there is no empirical proof on either side. Unless you believe you know something that I for one don't.

I'll ask again. Do you need proof of the nonexistence of the FSM? Or do you think that the fact of its existence is equally likely as its nonexistence? It's a relatively simple question.

Given that this ...

Quoting bjkeefe:

Quoting piscivorous: Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So yes atheism is a belief system.

Your first sentence is true, standing alone. Your mistake lies in your apparent view that anyone claims to have proved God does not exist.

What is going on here, for atheists, is that absence of evidence is responsible for their absence of belief. It's not the same thing as "a belief system."

... is what you attached this reply ...

Quoting piscivorous: Well if you expect to get the height and weight of God of course there is no evidence for your eyes to see. If you accept that life is a miracle, as most believers do, then there is evidence aplenty for both the existence of
God and the Devil to be seen.

... to, I will have to ask you to explain yourself a little further. Wait, maybe I see what you're doing. You've given up arguing that that atheists have "a belief system" because they don't believe in God (because they don't see any evidence) and now you're on to saying that, in fact, there is evidence. Is that it? If so, you've got another problem. You say, "If you accept that

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: We do not, in fact, need to talk about evolution using language that will make the religious feel good. We should be polite (at least when we're on the offensive, which is less common than Professor Roughgarden seems to imply), but our only real imperative is to discuss evolution honestly.

Frankly, I'm dismayed by your arrogant tone. "The religious" is a patent generalization. In the second Stanford lecture on Darwin's legacy, Eugenie Scott pointed out that what most laypersons view as Christianity in America evolved over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, and reached a crisis with the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in 1922. Scott in her lecture distinguished between philosophical and methodological materialism. Her model of methodological materialism is Gregor Mendel. Innumerable famous scientists managed to conduct scientific research and consider themselves religious. It's a matter of debate whether Darwin himself was a methodological or philosophical materialist. In that Stanford lecture, too, a Schleiermacher scholar also emphasizes the lines of debate between liberal theology and Darwinism. I think your line of argument, as much as it disregards the corrosive impact of the Fundamentalist-Modernist break, breaks lines of communication between both liberal - I don't

I agree I could take more of this feature, as long as it continues to find more interlocutors in ever varying combination. I was cringing in the beginning, though, because I though Roughgarden was hitting the "humility of science" rap a bit too pedantically. But then, she started tossing out counter-theses for various behaviors, and I felt as if I were in an undergrad classroom rediscovering science. If Wright does need to create these features, then perhaps he could do what Foreign Policy does with its blogs and have something like "Shadow Government". Or, maybe just a Science Wednesday?!

Quoting themightypuck: I thought this was a very interesting dv and I think it is great that Roughgarden is challenging the sexual selection orthodoxy. That said, I am surprised at how easily you are convinced she is correct. My own view is that the conventional wisdom about sexual selection is closer to the truth than her very interesting iconoclastic position. Positing an alternative theory isn't the same as proving it and given my lack of expertise in the matter, my money is on the dominant paradigm until we have truly convincing evidence otherwise.

I think this resonates with the science publishing thread. I applaud Roughgarden for not critiquing "on the fly". I thought her approach consistent with falsifiability and humility, and setting up communities to test hypotheses, not publishing books or getting tenure. I thought Wright here and in other places was trying to find salacious topics to attract an audience, and then Roughgarden would remind him she's not a shill or a mere pundit. Wonderful!

Penn Jillette had a similar argument for "This I Believe": http://www.thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?uid=34

Professor Roughgarden said the following (at approx. 64:10): "I think we need to talk about evolution and the discovery of nature in terms that aren't hostile and antagonistic to people of faith, because almost everybody I know who is a person of faith became that way for emotional rather than intellectual reasons; and they're not about to stop becoming people of faith if the logical inconsistencies of the position -- if one even tries to address it through logic and evidence, because this is essentially an emotional position." The point of my post was that I disagree with this statement. I don't think we "need to talk about evolution and the discovery of nature in terms that aren't hostile and antagonistic to people of faith." People of faith (to adopt your terminology) can be touchy. The only imperative we have when it comes to talking about this stuff to be honest. If religious people take honesty as hostility and antagonism, that's their problem. [EDIT: Something I didn't say earlier: I agree with Professor Roughgarden that religious faith often seems to derive from emotion rather than reason, but this doesn't mean that we should respect the outlandish factual and moral claims that almost always attend religious belief. Imagine a young man who converts to Islam because he's deeply depressed, and immediately begins to feel better once he's sure of God's existence. Well, I'm sympathetic; I've been depressed, too. And maybe there's nothing that I can say to disabuse him of his faith. But if he tells me that he knows that God considers pigs and dogs unclean, or that God wants women to dress in a certain manner, why should I treat these claims with deference? These are

There is a lot of confusion about the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I’m borrowing bjkeefe’s comment on this:

There are doubtless a few atheists who will say they are absolutely sure that God does not exist, and there are some more who will adopt a more rigid stance than they actually hold when in the middle of an argument, but generally speaking, you are sorely misguided in your impression of atheists. It's not so much that atheists believe in something, it's that they don't believe in something.

Remember your etymology. The prefix a- is simply a negator; i.e., an a-theist merely means "not [a] theist."

I will point out that even Richard Dawkins does not profess absolute certainty about the non-existence of God. If you talk to any atheist who is not just someone trying to get your goat, the odds are very strong that he or she will tell you, for example, that of course non-existence is impossible to prove, so therefore, the logical possibility of existence remains. What any at least semi-thoughtful atheist will tell you is just that he or she sees no good reason to believe in

For me the question is if you don't apply a scientific, that is to say an empirical, sieve to the information that you choose to believe, then what epistemic standard can you claim to have? What empiricism gives you is a track record, a concrete history of telling us true things, and further it makes no ontological claims at all. So much humbler than religion, which merely lists things it asserts are true, and whose epistemology ultimately resides in the single assertion: "It's in the book." The differences between empirical methods and religious methods are firstly that empiricism is a process whereas religion is a list based on scripture (a "book"). Secondly if empiricism uncovers a contradiction, the process incorporates that organically, it generally leads to more knowledge rather than less. Religion has no such mechanism. The picture of the world provided by science is a constantly changing pageant of increasing beauty and understanding. I do not know of any religious worldview that can substantively revise itself based on new information, simply because all the information needed is "in the book." The question for me isn't how did someone come

Quoting AemJeff: For me the question is if you don't apply a scientific, that is to say an empirical, sieve to the information that you choose to believe, then what epistemic standard can you claim to have? What empiricism gives you is a track record, a concrete history of telling us true things, and further it makes no ontological claims at all. So much humbler than religion, which merely lists things it asserts are true, and whose epistemology ultimately resides in the single assertion: "It's in the book."

First, you don't have to convince me. In principle I agree with you. Although, I must say I emphasize that small space between hypothesis and testing. That is to me the basis for curiosity, but perhaps it has a common root with religious belief. I don't know. It's just an interesting thought. Secondly, in my above comment I wasn't referring to religion as what is contained in a book. I should have said theism, as it refers specifically to belief in God or something supernatural, and not a particular story about specific gods.

The differences between empirical methods and religious methods are firstly that empiricism is a process whereas religion a list based on scripture

Quoting AemJeff: constantly changing pageant of increasing beauty and understanding. I do not know of any religious worldview that can substantively revise itself based on new information, simply because all the information needed is "in the book."

The Latter-day Saints have new revelations all the time. No, really.

Quoting Ocean: First, you don't have to convince me. In principle I agree with you. Although, I must say I emphasize that small space between hypothesis and testing. That is to me the basis for curiosity, but perhaps it has a common root with religious belief. I don't know. It's just an interesting thought.

Secondly, in my above comment I wasn't referring to religion as what is contained in a book. I should have said theism, as it refers specifically to belief in God or something supernatural, and not a particular story about specific gods.

I commented on the "book" already. Again, I was referring to the psychological process by which people come to hold a belief that can't be scientifically proven or tested. I also referred to revelation, intuition and faith, more than "the book". You seem to address mostly religious dogma.

Here you are reiterating the dogma of the book. You add the interesting aspect of appreciation of beauty and understanding. I don't think this aspect pertains exclusively to science or religion. It seems to be independent of both. It's a separate process.

I am interested in how someone comes to their view. Understanding that process, as a potentially dynamic one, which can change and be revised as new evidence or

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: [...]

Well said again, WB.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Penn Jillette had a similar argument for "This I Believe":

http://www.thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?uid=34

Thanks for the link. That is a good example, perhaps, of what pisc meant when he claimed that atheists have a "belief system" regarding the supernatural. It could also be, I suppose, a good example of what I meant when I said some atheists will adopt a more rigid stance for purposes of provocation.

Question: Why has Joan, who seems to feel comfortable critiquing evolutioniary explanations of human nature, not encountered or familiarized herself with the jealousy issues, which appear in every book I've ever read on the subject? I've read probably 8 to 10 EP books. One must either conclude that a) she hasn't read much, and is therefore unqualified to critique the field, or B) she has read about this multiple times, but didn't have any critique and would've been forced to admit that it seems obvious that evolutionary explanations explain this data better than anything else.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: IE- me, and everyone I know, and every animal we've observed seems pretty obsessed with activities that lead to procreation. With no real home-run alternative theories out there, I would hesitate to write off sexual selection.

She is not saying that the urge to procreate is less overwhelming than other scientists (and you and I) think. She is saying that the idea that Female mate choice is a large driver of male traits may be in need of a second look. I want to read about the peacock's tale! That has always been the prime example of sexual selection, if she really has compelling evidence of an alternative explanation it would also cast a lot of other things into doubt. I tend to think she may have a point, but that we will find sexual selection is also operative in some cases, but perhaps far fewer than evolutionary psychologists currently suggest.

atheism requires belief. belief in the null hypothesis instead of belief in the hypothesis, belief none the less. agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position for someone that is basing their world view on empiricism (assuming they have not had a personal revelation about god, in which case empiricism would lead to belief in god). but you keep pounding your drum, and i'll pound mine : ) -pk

Quoting Swamymaximus: Question: Why has Joan, who seems to feel comfortable critiquing evolutioniary explanations of human nature, not encountered or familiarized herself with the jealousy issues, which appear in every book I've ever read on the subject? I've read probably 8 to 10 EP books.

I though that was a bit jaw-dropping also. It is hard to imagine that she doesn't have a pretty good basic grasp of this idea.

Quoting popcorn_karate: atheism requires belief. belief in the null hypothesis instead of belief in the hypothesis, belief none the less.

agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position for someone that is basing their world view on empiricism (assuming they have not had a personal revelation about god, in which case empiricism would lead to belief in god).

but you keep pounding your drum, and i'll pound mine : )

-pk

That's exactly the point I'm trying to drive home. I'm not talking about an affirmative belief in anything. It isn't required that an athiest say, in effect, "I have a belief that there is no God." All the Atheist has to do is say "I have no such belief." Those are not examples of the same thing. What distinguishes an atheist from an agnostic is the agnostic's belief that God and no God are equivalent hypotheses deserving of equal weight. An atheist treats the God hypothesis the same way he treats every other unfounded assertion. e.g. that it's not worth serious consideration until some good, evidence based reason is raised to justify serious consideration.

Quoting popcorn_karate: atheism requires belief. belief in the null hypothesis instead of belief in the hypothesis, belief none the less.

agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position for someone that is basing their world view on empiricism (assuming they have not had a personal revelation about god, in which case empiricism would lead to belief in god).

but you keep pounding your drum, and i'll pound mine : )

-pk

This sounds like a debate you and I have had in the past, pk. It boils down to different definitions of agnostic. If one defines the term to include everyone who does not insist "I am absolutely convinced that there is no God," then you can call me, and most other self-identified atheists, agnositics. However, I take the word similarly to the way that Jeff does. To me agnostic (from a-gnostic), means "I just don't know," with the implication that both possibilities {God exists | God does not exist} are more or less equally likely. I don't hold anything near to that view.

Here's a hypothetical. If I created a fully functioning android that is identical in every way to a real human being. Let's call him Bob. I even managed to write a code that allowed Bob to be sentient. However when I got to the religion portion of the program I forgot to write anything. If you ask Bob whether he believes in God he answers "No." Is Bob an atheist or agnostic? Does he have a "belief system" on the existence of God? If Bob believes that Ann Coulter is stalking him, is he a Paranoid Android? (sorry I couldn't resist a little Radiohead humor) PS- I also have a cat that hasn't expressed any belief in God (or anything else) is she an Atheist? What about my drum (snare)? (yes, I'm just being silly)

Thanks, BJK.

Quoting AemJeff: That's exactly the point I'm trying to drive home. I'm not talking about an affirmative belief in anything. It isn't required that an athest say, in effect, "I have a belief that there is no God." All the Atheist has to do is say "I have no such belief." Those are not examples of the same thing. What distinguishes an atheist from an agnostic is the agnostic's belief that God and no God are equivalent hypotheses deserving of equal weight. An atheist treats the God hypothesis the same way he treats every other unfounded assertion. e.g. that it's not worth serious consideration until some good, evidence based reason is raised to justify serious consideration.

wiki:
Atheism is the position that deities do not exist etymology
ancient greek: The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" english:In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[13] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[14] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571 there seems to be

I don't think I am going to win the lottery today. the odds are infinitesimal. but i certainly do not say that it is impossible. (ok, since i don't buy lottery tickets it might be impossible - but leave that aside for know)

Quoting popcorn_karate: [...]

We have a wide spectrum of views with a myriad of nuanced differences between one end and the other, and all of two words that are supposed to describe everyone whose beliefs lie anywhere along that spectrum. Obviously, these two words are not sufficient. So I ask, again, why is it so important to you to jam everyone into one pigeonhole or the other, and further, why is it so important to you that we all use the labels as you define them?

Quoting popcorn_karate: I don't think I am going to win the lottery today.

the odds are infinitesimal.

but i certainly do not say that it is impossible.

(ok, since i don't buy lottery tickets it might be impossible - but leave that aside for know)

Sounds exactly like what I'm saying about the existence of God. I do not say it is impossible that God exists, any more than I'd say just about anything is impossible, strictly speaking. So I will ask in return, would you say you are "agnostic" about your chances of winning the lottery if you buy one ticket? If so, then let me ask this: Suppose that instead of having to match six numbers randomly drawn from the interval (0-100) in order to win, you had to match six thousand numbers randomly drawn from the interval (0-100,000)? Would you still describe yourself as being "agnostic" about your chances of winning by buying one ticket? What about having to match six million separate numbers drawn from the interval (0-100,000,000)? And so on. Are you always "agnostic," no matter how long I make the odds? Or at some point do you say "Yeah, it's conceivable that I could win, but really, this is

Quoting popcorn_karate: wiki:
Atheism is the position that deities do not exist

etymology
ancient greek: The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly"

english:In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[13] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[14] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571

there seems to be a big attempt to redefine the word atheism to mean something different than it has meant since the 5th century BCE. In all of these definitions and usages over the last couple thousand years it seems to indicate an active denial rather than a passive - "let me see the evidence" attitude.

now there is a politically motivated agenda to change the word's meaning into something more like "strongly agnostic". why redefine the meaning of a word when we have something handy like "agnostic" already available?

if you deny the existence of god (an active position) you are an atheist, if you are unconvinced but not a believer in

An atheist, in this sense of the word, makes no claim that there is no God. He asks the person making the existence claim to show why it is true. The current usage of the terms "athiest" and "atheism" are deeply tied up in this idea.

I'm a little different. I assert very confidently that there is no God in the traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense of the term. He is no more credible than the tooth fairy, and it seems ridiculous to even entertain His existence as a scientific or empirical possibility. The claim has no plausibility whatsoever. On the other hand (and there will be three hands), I'm not very passionate about my objections and see no particular reason to dispute theism unless religious people want to govern or violate separation between church and state (in which case I oppose them). Many of their political arguments, however, can be made in secular terms (opposition to abortion, assisted suicide, death penalty or pornography, for example), so they rise or fall on secular terms. I like theists and get along fine with them. My spouse is a practicing theist and we've been happily together for 26 years. Finally, many religious

I agreed with you till your last sentence:

Quoting Wonderment: In some sense militant atheists (like Dawkins and Hitchens) do seem to be the ideological counterparts of Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and literalist Muslims. Both sides make mountains out of molehills.

This seems like the worst form of false equivalence, or mealy-mouthed can't we all just get along?-ism, especially in light of your opening statement:

Quoting Wonderment: I'm a little different. I assert very confidently that there is no God in the traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense of the term. He is no more credible than the tooth fairy, and it seems ridiculous to even entertain His existence as a scientific or empirical possibility. The claim has no plausibility whatsoever.

In other words, you start out by indicating that you more or less share their views on the fundamental question, and you end up by saying they're no different from people who (claim to) believe in -- and worse, preach -- the most dumbed-down version of the very thing you say has "no plausibility whatsoever." That's quite a leap. There are good reasons for people like Dawkins and Hitchens to act as they do. One is the huge inertia of the

Quoting Wonderment: I'm a little different. I assert very confidently that there is no God in the traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense of the term. He is no more credible than the tooth fairy, and it seems ridiculous to even entertain His existence as a scientific or empirical possibility. The claim has no plausibility whatsoever.

On the other hand (and there will be three hands), I'm not very passionate about my objections and see no particular reason to dispute theism unless religious people want to govern or violate separation between church and state (in which case I oppose them). Many of their political arguments, however, can be made in secular terms (opposition to abortion, assisted suicide, death penalty or pornography, for example), so they rise or fall on secular terms. I like theists and get along fine with them. My spouse is a practicing theist and we've been happily together for 26 years.

Finally, many religious people now have beliefs so close to atheism and agnosticism that the line between them blurs a lot. Some of these people are quite comfortable in the pulpit of liberal churches and Reform synagogues (perhaps in Islam, as well). A lot of what

Quoting Ocean: ...
in my above comment I wasn't referring to religion as what is contained in a book. I should have said theism, as it refers specifically to belief in God or something supernatural, and not a particular story about specific gods.

I'm not sure how you come to more than a vague notion, without the "book." It doesn't seem to matter which particular story you choose, there's always seems to be a book. If I had to guess, the idea of God is probably rooted in our first perceptions of our caregivers as infants, deeply wrapped up with parental relationships. All wise and powerful beings who provide us with food and comfort and whom we generally love and against whom we often rebel. That must be one of the deepest imprints on virtually every personality. But without the book, that is without the written encapsulation of particular cultural elaboration of that basic instinct, how much there is there - beyond a strong feeling and the vague notion I started with, here? I don't think I'm really adressing dogma, as such - rather it's the mostly static nature of a dogmatic belief that I try to highlight, and contrast

What I think you really object to is their manner in dealing with religiosity, which is something I could accept if not agree with. But to say that Dawkins and Hitchens are "the ideological counterparts" of the worst forms of religious fundamentalism goes way too far.

__________________ Yeah, I didn't really know how to phrase that. I find them both obnoxious and polemical (picking fights for no good reason). Hitchens, for example, has written books slamming Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama. I guess he feels that's an important intellectual labor. I don't.

I have to say I think you do Dawkins an injustice. Hitchens' schtick is to be an asshole (and I love him for that, I'll admit) but Dawkins is generally polite and respectful (assuming he's not himself being assaulted by someone who disagrees), even if his message is often a strong one.

Yes, I probably shouldn't have lumped them together. Dawkins is a genius (it seems to me) and a great scientist who's made serious contributions to our understanding of biology. Hitchens is -- well -- a celebrity.

Quoting Wonderment: __________________

Yeah, I didn't really know how to phrase that. I find them both obnoxious and polemical (picking fights for no good reason).

As I said earlier, I can accept that you would hold that view, although I do not agree with it. Seems to me that they picked a very good fight to have when they took on religion, and it seems to me they've picked, far more often than not, good battles to have within that context. To this ...

Hitchens, for example, has written books slamming Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama. I guess he feels that's an important intellectual labor. I don't.

... and this, from your other recent post:

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, I probably shouldn't have lumped them together. Dawkins is a genius (it seems to me) and a great scientist who's made serious contributions to our understanding of biology. Hitchens is -- well -- a celebrity.

... I'd say again that I can see why you'd hold these views, but I don't really share them. I grant the scientist/non-scientist distinction, although to me, Hitchens's life as a public intellectual (for lack of a better term) has not been without contributions. I don't at all know what he said about the Dalai Lama, but I do know some of what he has said about Mother

Having re-read your original post and now the subsequent one:

My point is this: The feelings of religious people (of whatever stripe) shouldn't be a factor in how we talk about evolution. That doesn't mean I think we should be rude (as I said in my original post: I think we ought to be polite), nor does it mean that I think all religious people will be offended by honest discussion. Some won't be offended. Some will be offended. But we are under no obligation to worry about it either way.

You can't please everyone. Might as well try to tell the truth.

I still think there is much arrogance here. It doesn't help to claim one can ascertain "the truth" better than one's opponents. Both John Wilkins and Diandra Leslie-Pelecky have pointed out the same pedagogical problems in science. I would add that religious practitioners rarely stress how a certain lifestyle is conducive to the results they also proclaim with as little support as scientists do with theirs. This is becoming a debate about conclusions, when it should be about practices. That's another reason I was so dismayed by Wright's view of science publishing. I think Roughgarden's

Quoting Baltimoron: ...
Both sides, science and religion, have failed, in my opinion, to do anything more than encourage the worst excesses of their own disciplines.

I'd love to hear you elaborate on this. I think the side I've chosen is pretty obvious, but I wouldn't assert that about either side, even figuratively. Having read a number of your posts here, I have a hard time thinking that you really believe this.

I see people actively twisting the meanings and connotations of words for their political ends all the time (liberal, for example). I think you do a similar thing with atheism. yes, you could stretch the word to mean "very agnostic", but why? Its current meaning is specific and makes an obvious distinction between those who are atheists (believers in the absence of god) believers (those who believe in god), and agnostics (those who are not willing to make a positive assertion either way). it seems the way you want to use the term atheist makes these distinctions less clear, and i suspect this muddying of the language has a political agenda.

Quoting popcorn_karate: I see people actively twisting the meanings and connotations of words for their political ends all the time (liberal, for example).

I think you do a similar thing with atheism. yes, you could stretch the word to mean "very agnostic", but why? Its current meaning is specific and makes an obvious distinction between those who are atheists (believers in the absence of god) believers (those who believe in god), and agnostics (those who are not willing to make a positive assertion either way).

it seems the way you want to use the term atheist makes these distinctions less clear, and i suspect this muddying of the language has a political agenda.

Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? This is the highest authority I acknowledge.

and a more emotional (and probably real) reason, is the following: when i see rational people, people that i consider to be "on my side" of.... culture?, starting to be less inclusive, more judgmental and actively demeaning towards others (haha flying pasgetti monster wink wink), it just irritates me on a really deep level. I guess because i thought "my side" was better than that.

Quoting popcorn_karate: I see people actively twisting the meanings and connotations of words for their political ends all the time (liberal, for example).

I think you do a similar thing with atheism. yes, you could stretch the word to mean "very agnostic", but why? Its current meaning is specific and makes an obvious distinction between those who are atheists (believers in the absence of god) believers (those who believe in god), and agnostics (those who are not willing to make a positive assertion either way).

it seems the way you want to use the term atheist makes these distinctions less clear, and i suspect this muddying of the language has a political agenda.

As I said the last time we talked about this, pk, it doesn't matter to me what you call me, as long as you understand what I actually believe. You're also free to suspect some hidden political agenda, although I'm mystified as to what you think mine might be. I don't know what to tell you to convince you otherwise, so I'll just say again what I've said before. To me, agnostic connotes fence-sitting, the idea that either possibility is equally likely. This is not how

good link, jeff. as a rationalist, i have seen little evidence for or against my vague notions of an intentional, possibly consiousness-based direction to life, the universe, and everything. so I am agnostic. I am utterly convinced that the various "books" or dogmas are largely untrue, though they may have bits and pieces of "truth" in them. so yes, most christians/muslims/jews would call me an atheist. on the other hand, I believe that intention effects the world. most believers call this prayer.

Quoting AemJeff: Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

This is the highest authority I acknowledge.

Thanks for that link, Jeff. @pk: What Russell says there about the ag/ath distinction works for me, if my other answers don't do it for you. I don't know what more there is to be said.

Quoting Baltimoron: I still think there is much arrogance here. It doesn't help to claim one can ascertain "the truth" better than one's opponents.

My point was not that my team has a monopoly on access to "the truth." It was that scientists' duty to engage in truth-seeking trumps whatever duty that they may have to molify people of faith (if any such duty exists). This argument does not rest on the assumption that science has all the answers -- let alone the assumption that I personally have all the answers. Rather, it derives from my belief that the search for truth should be prioritized over diplomacy, at least where diplomacy requires sophistry.

Quoting Baltimoron: I would add that religious practitioners rarely stress how a certain lifestyle is conducive to the results they also proclaim with as little support as scientists do with theirs.

This is a confusing sentence, and you should correct me if I'm reading it incorrectly, but here's what I think you're trying to say: To the extent that religious believers argue that certain behavior is morally or religiously mandated, they generally do so using evidence that is stronger than that

Quoting bjkeefe: Actually, if anyone here has a political agenda on this, it would seem to be you, with your incessant demands that those of us who call ourselves atheists either meet your ridiculous criteria or recant our use of the term.

re-read the thread, BJ. this debate was going on and I jumped in with my point of view and offered evidence for why i believe those words mean what they mean. why not call out Jeff, for incessantly arguing his point of view? oh because he agrees with you? ok. that's rational. If people didn't incessantly talk about this stuff, i would not incessantly offer my opinion.

Quoting bjkeefe: Is it your desire to abolish the word atheist? To identify the most dangerous in society? What?

don't get all pisc-y on me now, BJ. it is unbecoming.

Quoting popcorn_karate: don't get all pisc-y on me now, BJ. it is unbecoming.

We probably should have dropped this long ago.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Here's a hypothetical. If I created a fully functioning android that is identical in every way to a real human being. Let's call him Bob. I even managed to write a code that allowed Bob to be sentient. However when I got to the religion portion of the program I forgot to write anything. If you ask Bob whether he believes in God he answers "No." Is Bob an atheist or agnostic? Does he have a "belief system" on the existence of God?

If Bob believes that Ann Coulter is stalking him, is he a Paranoid Android? (sorry I couldn't resist a little Radiohead humor)

PS- I also have a cat that hasn't expressed any belief in God (or anything else) is she an Atheist? What about my drum (snare)? (yes, I'm just being silly)

I guess we'd have to ask Bob. I assume that even without the "religion program" the word "God" is still in his dictionary. My guess is that Bob is extremely rational, so I'd bet he would claim to be an atheist.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm not sure how you come to more than a vague notion, without the "book." It doesn't seem to matter which particular story you choose, there's always seems to be a book. If I had to guess, the idea of God is probably rooted in our first perceptions of our caregivers as infants, deeply wrapped up with parental relationships. All wise and powerful beings who provide us with food and comfort and whom we generally love and against whom we often rebel. That must be one of the deepest imprints on virtually every personality. But without the book, that is without the written encapsulation of particular cultural elaboration of that basic instinct, how much there is there - beyond a strong feeling and the vague notion I started with, here?

I don't think I'm really adressing dogma, as such - rather it's the mostly static nature of a dogmatic belief that I try to highlight, and contrast with what I claim is the self-evidently dynamic nature of scientific belief - which is also why I mentioned the ideas of beauty and increasing understanding, to draw as sharp a contrast as I can between the two worldviews.

I'm

Quoting Baltimoron: Both sides, science and religion, have failed, in my opinion, to do anything more than encourage the worst excesses of their own disciplines.

Any time I hear someone drawn an equivalence like that, my mind can only leap to figuring out which side benefits more from having the equal signs drawn between opposing views. I think we all know that the faithful *want* to believe that both sides have equally failed. I'm not so sure that history bears that out.

AemJeff:

I'd love to hear you elaborate on this. I think the side I've chosen is pretty obvious, but I wouldn't assert that about either side, even figuratively. Having read a number of your posts here, I have a hard time thinking that you really believe this.

I should probably blog this instead of commenting here, because what I've thought of for the past few hours is enough material for a personal essay. Admittedly, I started from a contrary intuition, that some of WB's orginal arguments were straw men. But, frankly the Stanford lectures on Darwin, whose clips I have left here and in other threads and on my blog, have really stoked thoughts from surprising angles, including religion, as well as debates in evolution. Frankly, I don't see any problem with thinking about evolution and religion together. Wm. Blaxton:

To the extent that religious believers argue that certain behavior is morally or religiously mandated, they generally do so using evidence that is stronger than that adduced by scientists in making scientific claims.

I think you've misunderstood the distinguishing feature of religion. Walter A. Kaufmann, in Critique of Religion and Philosophy argues the "truth" of religion is "kindness...and goodness". I'm not looking for fossils in Genesis. DoctorMoney:

I think we

Quoting Baltimoron: I think you've misunderstood the distinguishing feature of religion. Walter A. Kaufmann, in Critique of Religion and Philosophy, argues the "truth" of religion is "kindness ... and goodness". I'm not looking for fossils in Genesis.

You should stick to defending your own religion and stop defending religion generally. The majority of believers think that their faith is more than a vague philosophy that counsels kindness to others. Almost every religion (save a few tiny sects -- perhaps, e.g., Unitarianism and certain forms of Buddhism) makes extravagant and unsupported claims about God's existence and opinions, human nature, and natural history. This is not limited to wacky fundamentalists. (An example: Most theologically liberal Christians presumably think that God wants us to love our enemies. Leaving aside the question of whether this is a good teaching, how do they know that God wants this? And on what ground would one accept this teaching and question, say, the existence of hell?) Have you ever read the Koran or the Bible? These are not fuzzy self-help books; they are not extended ruminations on the Golden Rule; and they do not come with a warning label saying that certain parts might be very dangerous if

Quoting Ocean: I'm just reading your comment now. I think I may have misunderstood your initial comment, but I'm not sure your response is making it much clearer. I certainly was talking about a very abstract understanding of religious belief and not organized or structured religion. Perhaps this idea originates in the notion that religious belief does change or evolve parallel to our own evolution, and that overtime it becomes more abstract and inclusive.

Yeah, it's also obvious to me reading back what I wrote there, that it needed a little more thought and and at least another pass through the language before it should have been posted. In any case, I'm getting the feeling that our points of view (though I think we agree broadly) in this particular conversation are pretty obliquely related.

Sorry I'm late to the party on this great diavlog, but I just had to give my 2 cents -- basically, I agree with Bloggin' Noggin. Bob is being confronted with ideas that really do shake his worldview if he can just 'hear' them. Dare I say paradigm shift? Speaking as a theoretical scientist myself, I'd recommend a three step program that I learned from my mentors that tends to work in these situations: "slow down, calm down, listen." The ideas about teamwork and cooperation of genes and individuals have the potential to enrich our explanations beyond the false dichotomies of individual vs. group selection and selfishness vs. altruism. While it is still early days, this could be a major paradigm shift in evolutionary biology thinking -- someone like Bob who likes to speculate and apply and popularize evolutionary ideas could benefit greatly from being one of the first to champion and explore them. In the least, it'd be a lot of fun to think about how these ideas apply to morality and politics, so listen up Bob!

Wow, I kept listening to 45:00. This is getting frustrating. Bob sounds like someone who is really invested in a set of ideas and is trying to defend them against an outsider. Of course, this is more than a little ironic because Joan is a professional evolutionary biologist -- albeit, one who is carefully challenging the dogma of her field based on her 30 years of experience and understanding of hundreds of empirical studies -- while Bob is more familiar with evolutionary psychology-style arguments than actual biological evidence. Don't get me wrong, I respect Bob's understanding of these issues, but I think Bob should consider the fact that she has something to teach him. Bob, I humbly ask you: please, please, please -- slow down, calm down, and actually listen to what she has to say. It is possible that evolutionary psychology is based on quicksand, and in 10 years we'll be looking back and wondering how we could have ever been so taken with a set of selfish-gene ideas that are only part of the story. Just in case my humble plea isn't getting through, let me put this in more instrumental/selfish language: this could be really good for

The lesson of The Selfish Gene has to be that using deliberately ambiguous and clever word-play in your title is going to cause a lot of confusion in the long run.

Quoting bhf: Wow, I kept listening to 45:00. This is getting frustrating. Bob sounds like someone who is really invested in a set of ideas and is trying to defend them against an outsider.

What would you rather have had him do? Just say, "Okay, you dispute the mainstream view. Therefore, I instantly agree: it's wrong. Let's abandon it."?

Quoting claymisher: The lesson of The Selfish Gene has to be that using deliberately ambiguous and clever word-play in your title is going to cause a lot of confusion in the long run.

I wonder if Ramesh Ponnuru would agree with you.

Quoting bjkeefe: I wonder if Ramesh Ponnuru would agree with you.

I know! I thought that book was about actual parties! I used it to plan a baby shower. What a fiasco that was!

BHF, I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of Bob's performance. He was entirely genial toward Joan throughout. And to be honest some of her criticisms against EP people did take on a rather snarky "those people don't know anything" attitude and I think it was fair for Bob to point out that she might not have as much knowledge of the actual work (and consideration) that the EP'ologists do. That was the only time Bob seemed to be getting a little emotional in his response. The short version of this diavlog was that Joan criticizes EP as not being scientific enough (hardly an original charge), and that there are studies that call into question some of it's premises. I don't think even Bob would argue with that. But she didn't propose a solid alternative theory that convinced me that EP is so completely useless as she and the John Horgan's of the world like to treat it. Anyways, I thought Bob was fine, I thought Joan was fine, it was a great diavlog and EP is always going to be something we will all have different opinions on.

I guess I would have had him actually consider her argument, ask or talk about teamwork and cooperation (the unique thing she actually brings to the diavlog), rather than simply repeat the sexual selection position. Agreement obviously isn't necessary. I'm willing to cut Bob some slack in the moment since it seemed like hadn't really heard of these ideas -- "Wouldn't some just call this group selection?" What i'm really asking for is for him to consider them post-diavlog.

Quoting bhf: Bob sounds like someone who is really invested in a set of ideas and is trying to defend them against an outsider. Of course, this is more than a little ironic because Joan is a professional evolutionary biologist -- albeit, one who is carefully challenging the dogma of her field based on her 30 years of experience and understanding of hundreds of empirical studies -- while Bob is more familiar with evolutionary psychology-style arguments than actual biological evidence.

You point out that Roughgarden is an experienced scientist. This is not an argument. Her views on sexual selection have been criticized by evolutionary biologists who have equally impressive credentials and equal familiarity with the relevant empirical studies. This needs to be debated on the merits; it can't be a debate from authority. You dismiss Roughgarden's critics as dogmatists, but fail to explain where they've gone wrong. Isn't it nice for Roughgarden that her empirical findings dovetail so neatly with the normative agenda that inspired her to begin studying sexual selection to begin with.

Quoting bhf: I guess I would have had him actually consider her argument, ask or talk about teamwork and cooperation (the unique thing she actually brings to the diavlog), rather than simply repeat the sexual selection position. Agreement obviously isn't necessary. I'm willing to cut Bob some slack in the moment since it seemed like hadn't really heard of these ideas -- "Wouldn't some just call this group selection?" What i'm really asking for is for him to consider them post-diavlog.

Well ... it seems to me that by debating, he is actually considering her argument. Especially from the perspective of a desire to inform viewers less up to speed than you, it's worth making clear that there is good reason to believe in the theory that she is questioning. It also seemed to me that Bob was more than willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of several of her criticisms. The way to see this diavlog, I think, is that it was not so much an interview of someone who holds a contrary-to-the-mainstream viewpoint; it was more of a debate. What you seem to be doing here is bordering on taking what

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: BHF, I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of Bob's performance. He was entirely genial toward Joan throughout. And to be honest some of her criticisms against EP people did take on a rather snarky "those people don't know anything" attitude and I think it was fair for Bob to point out that she might not have as much knowledge of the actual work (and consideration) that the EP'ologists do. That was the only time Bob seemed to be getting a little emotional in his response.

The short version of this diavlog was that Joan criticizes EP as not being scientific enough (hardly an original charge), and that there are studies that call into question some of it's premises. I don't think even Bob would argue with that. But she didn't propose a solid alternative theory that convinced me that EP is so completely useless as she and the John Horgan's of the world like to treat it.

Anyways, I thought Bob was fine, I thought Joan was fine, it was a great diavlog and EP is always going to be something we will all have different opinions on.

Hey Uncle Eb...big fan of your

Quoting Wm. Blaxton: You point out that Roughgarden is an experienced scientist. This is not an argument. Her views on sexual selection have been criticized by evolutionary biologists who have equally impressive credentials and equal familiarity with the relevant empirical studies. This needs to be debated on the merits; it can't be a debate from authority. You dismiss Roughgarden's critics as dogmatists, but fail to explain where they've gone wrong.

Isn't it nice for Roughgarden that her empirical findings dovetail so neatly with the normative agenda that inspired her to begin studying sexual selection to begin with.

I never argued we should accept her arguments because of her status. I'm just asking Bob to listen...especially considering her background as an evolutionary biologist, she may have something to teach him and us. Unfortunately, we could never get to an argument about the merits because Bob just kept repeating his endorsement of EP and not really engaging with her arguments against sexual selection. For example, as I suggested to Uncle Eb: she did give two alternatives to sexual selection views of sexual dimorphism of peacocks (around 30:00) and other alternatives to parental jealousy (starts

Quoting bjkeefe: Well ... it seems to me that by debating, he is actually considering her argument. Especially from the perspective of a desire to inform viewers less up to speed than you, it's worth making clear that there is good reason to believe in the theory that she is questioning. It also seemed to me that Bob was more than willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of several of her criticisms.

The way to see this diavlog, I think, is that it was not so much an interview of someone who holds a contrary-to-the-mainstream viewpoint; it was more of a debate.

I'd agree with you on this: if we view this as merely a "debate" then there is really no responsibility to understand or explore new arguments or evidence. A debate is about winning, which puts a premium on rhetoric. It isn't necessarily about exploring and explaining, the typical methods of a scientific discussion. Indeed, I don't think either Bob or Joan viewed this as a debate, but rather a discussion of scientific ideas. I actually thought each of them did a good job in not resorting to below-the-belt rhetoric. My gripe was elsewhere:

What you seem to

Quoting bhf: It's not surprising or illegimate to me that her empirical findings might be consistent with a more cooperative view of genetics. The history of science contains multiple stories of outsiders being driven by moral impulses to challenge existing scientific dogma. If the facts are on her side, so be it.

I didn't say it was "surprising or illegitimate" that her empirical findings might be consistent with "a more cooperative view of genetics." I said it's nice for her that her strong normative (moral / political) opinions happen to square so neatly with her subsequent factual conclusions regarding sexual selection. Here's what I mean: Roughgarden evidently concluded prior to beginning her study of sexual diversity in nature that the theory of sexual selection endorsed by most evolutionary biologists and psychologists pathologizes sexual diversity and stigmatizes sexual minorities. After developing this theory, she undertook a study of sexual selection, and concluded that the theory of sexual selection is not supported by empirical data (a conclusion that has been extensively criticized by other scientists working in the field). And she wasn't coy about the political implications of her findings: "The time

Quoting bhf: [...]

Okay, fair enough. It's not as though I thought there was no merit to your critique from the beginning. I just wanted to offer my own, different take. For what it's worth, I do not consider debates to be only about winning, at least not the best of them. Rather, I see them as a way for opposing views to be argued, for the benefit of giving the audience a broader perspective on the issues. I saw this diavlog as an example of that spirit. Maybe we need another word.

Thanks BHF, I actually don't think we're very far apart on this one. I agree that deeper discussions into Joan's theories, would be welcomed by me. But I didn't feel like it failed to get there because of any attempt by Bob to change the subject or anything like that. Bob said it himself, that these topics need another full hour, and I think that really nails it. Joan was at times meandering a bit with what she was trying to say, and Bob often felt the need to clarify where he thought Joan misunderstands EP and it's devotees. All of these are honest occurrences that happen in diavlogs. It almost felt more like an awkward date when the rythym of the converstaion just never really gets locked in (I know of what I speak in this regard) or where both people are sorta talking around each other, although not intentionally. Perhaps a true EP scientist like some that Bob and you mentioned would have been a better to match up with Joan because they would be quicker to get into the nuts and bolts, and wouldn't feel so obligated to be the

Oh, I see what you're saying. I agree that the normative statement doesn't seem to follow obviously from sexual selection theory being valid or invalid, so its weird if she tried to make a strong link between them. Seems to me that the normative statement could be right in either case -- in fact, I seem to recall both Gould and Pinker have spoken eloquently about the fact that evolution doesn't imply anything about what we should do. Anyhow, thanks for clarifying.

Agreed. Overall, the diavlog was quite interesting and left me wanting more...clearly a topic that should be discussed further, perhaps with new participants. Maybe Carl Zimmer? Or John Horgan? Or another evolutionary biologist?

Quoting bjkeefe: Okay, fair enough. It's not as though I thought there was no merit to your critique from the beginning. I just wanted to offer my own, different take.

For what it's worth, I do not consider debates to be only about winning, at least not the best of them. Rather, I see them as a way for opposing views to be argued, for the benefit of giving the audience a broader perspective on the issues. I saw this diavlog as an example of that spirit. Maybe we need another word.

Right. From what I hear, a diavlog with Dawkins would be more of an all out debate. There is a place for that sort of thing too...maybe Bob could be convinced to host a debate, or series of debates on opposing theories. Might become too technical for most of us too quickly, but might be an interesting experiment...

Here's another thing I thought of the other day. Joan's examples that counter the importance of the sexual selection were very specific examples, like the peacock tail. While listening to that Daniel Dennett lecture at Stanford he made the great point that we share a common ancestor with chimps (and Bonobos) but reminded us that the chimps we say today have also evolved just as much (temporally) as we have from that common ancestor, so the notion that we descended from chimps is very mis-guided. This got me back to thinking about Joan's example, and evolutionary theory in general. Though there are obviously over-arching rules for evolution that seem to apply to everything, alot of it is very situation specific. Joan mentioned the species whose female coat gets selected for more dull appearance so that it may avoid predation. But that only carries implications if the predator has good eyesight. If an animal's main predator was say dogs, natural selection would push that species in ways towards olfactory subterfuge due to the fact that it's predator is smelling for it rather than looking for it. I don't

Anyone who has read Bob's books knows that he has a massive arsenal of behavioral and morphological data he could cite, an alternative explanation for which would confound Roughgarden. He ventured into it twice, then backed off when it was clear that Joan was not able to offer anything meaningful to the discussion. She essentially had no alternative explanation for sexual dimorphism in primates, nor for sexual jealousy. Her example of a professional basketball team as evidence of social selection was poor - yes, you have to cooperate in order to win and bring home a salary, but she neglected to carry the thought further. It is not the desire to cooperate that spurs people to cooperate, nor is it the desire to achieve gains for someone else that spurs people to cooperate - it is the desire to gain resources (broadly defined) for one's self. Cooperation is simply one of several means of achieving this, competition is another. And even in a cooperative group like a professional basketball team, there is competition. The best players are paid far more than the others. If the goal of cooperation was

Excellent points and great links. Thanx--