I dismiss each and every one as ignorant and inferior, and carry on with my life.

Well done for bringing up the design complexity/simplicity aspect. One thing that the creationists always fail to do is speak to the people most qualified to talk about design. i.e. engineers.

Engineers are not scientists, but they are trained in design using scientific principles. A competent engineer will know that the best design is the simplest that can still perform all the required tasks. KISS principle – Keep It Simple, Stupid.

So while we have no means of determining whether something is designed or not, we can easily evaluate how good a design is. The human body is a terrible design for what it does. You don’t even have to think about the more philosophical questions such as what our purpose on Earth is. Just compared to other animals we have some deficiencies that need not be there. This is even worse if you suppose an omnipotent god who wouldn’t have to compromise due to lack of resources.

While we can’t use this to determine whether we were designed or not, we can say that the supposed designer was an inferior intelligence to humans. That brings me back to why creationists probably don’t talk to engineers. We end up telling them that their god was a fool.

I don’t think that ID would ever work as a truly scientific model or framework, but as an idea and a possibility it should be carefully considered if necessitated.

It has been considered. When Behe first came up with his concept of Irreducible Complexity, many biologists looked into it.

First, they found that something identical (but by a different name that I forget) had been predicted about 70 years ago.

Second, they found that the detection of IC depended on how one defined one’s “system” and “parts”.

Third, they found that all of Behe’s examples were not irreducible.

Fourth, they noticed that the use of IC (even if it were real) to conclude ID was both naive and illogical.

And this may indeed happen – if it’s determined to be mathematically or statistically improbable that random processes formed some cellular object,

Fortunate for us, then, that evolution is not a random process.

At the molecular scale, evolution depends on the laws of chemistry, with just a little bit of randomness thrown in.

then we should carefully consider the possibility that some intelligence formed it that way.

Actually, this is Paley’s argument all over again. People pointed out the logical flaws in this argument even before anyone had conceived evolutionary theory. The appearance of complexity in biology arises through the action of simple laws, so no intelligent intervening agent is needed to explain how life came to its present diversity.

In my mind, one of the weakest parts of ID is that complexity implies design. In real life, simplicity is something we find in things that we know to have been designed. If you found a perfectly spherical pebble on a beach, would you conclude that, because of its simplicity, it was a natural object, or would you wonder if it had been shaped thus by a person?

It is true that we humans build complicated assemblies of parts, but we build them from simple parts.

Assuming that an intelligence would always form something perfectly is a valid objection, but shouldn’t be considered absolute, and while we may not known the designer’s origin or whereabouts, we can at least tell it was designed.

How can we tell something is designed?

Billy Dembski has filled books with his ideas, and he has got us no closer to being able to detect design. What he detects is manufacture, or the aplpication of knowledge outside the object being evaluated. In other words, not one of his analogies leads us to a mechanism for detecting design in something of which we genuinely do not know the origin.

. . . even though she had no good evidence at all Ellie simply knew she went through the wormhole and saw her dad. She’s human and she could not deny the evidence of her senses and the enormous impact it made on her life.

But how could she ever know – for sure – that it was not an hallucination? This is where “personal religious experience” arguments fall short of convincing. How can one ever distinguish a genuine religious experience from an hallucination?

We cannot objectively prove or disprove the existence of any God/Gods, or anything supernatural for that matter.

This is wrong. In a way.

We can disprove the existence of telekinesis, for example, because it is easy to test. No-one who claims to have that power has ever been able to actually move anything by the power of their mind. Telekinesis is a parlour trick.

Other claims of similar such “psychic” tricks have also been shown to be fraudulent.

Therefore, psychic “powers” do not exist, despite my sincerest wish to the contrary.

I agree, however, that – to take another example – the Christian god has been given carefully-selected attributes that render disproof impossible. Thus, we have a need for some logical tools such as the principle of parsimony.

However, I believe that when looking for a natural, scientific explanation gives no satisfactory results consistently for a long period of time, we should be open to the possibility of other explanations

Well, yes, but any proposed explanation should meet two criteria before we give it serious consideration. First, it must not violate known facts. Second, it must make predictions that can be tested. Even if a god did influence the evolutionary history of life on Earth (for instance), assuming this to be so will yield no further knowledge. In fact, the invocation of the supernatural as an explanation for a phenomenon demands a cessation of investigation.

(when was just saying “we don’t know” ever a truly satisfactory answer for us relentlessly curious humans?)

Ever since we first realised that leaping to unsupported conclusions was a surefire way of deluding ourselves. In fact, the commonest answer to cutting-edge questions in modern science is “we don’t know yet,”.

You seem to be assuming that accepting we do not have an answer implies an expectation that we will never have an answer. In my understanding of science, the opposite is true, i.e. “we don’t know” prompts a lot more research, and fires up a lot more young people to go into science than “hey, we know nearly everything”.

@41 jaranath: now THAT is what I call a good response!! It is to the point, it is free of the not-so-subtle sanctimony and ad hominems that plague other responses, it’s humble and it is very respectable.

I have several issues with this.

First, having now read all the comments up to 43, I have not seen any ad hominem attacks. An argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy whereby a person claims that one can ignore every argument made by their opponent because of one particular failing that opponent has. It is a logical fallacy because, of course, an argument stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of who makes it.

Perhaps what you meant was a personal attack or some form of name-calling?

If so, your denunciation of such behaviour would be far more effective if you cite specific examples. To be frank, a limited amount of name-calling is fair play in my book, if the person being called unpleasant things has shown themselves to deserve a certain amount of ridicule or derision. Ridicule and derision are evolved social tools, and they survive for a reason.

Having said that, of course, I also note that if someone criticises you in an unpleasant way for making an egregious argument or statement, is your resultant feeling their fault for not being gentle, or your fault for making the statement in the first place? Here, I should point out, I refer to those arguments that either contain a blatant absence of logic or have been disproved many times in the past. Regarding evolution, I sometimes tire of having to refute the same tired objections time after time, despite those objections still having zero merit.

In other words, did you mistake a derisory comment about your argument for a personal attack on your self?

Additionally, why should a comment be presented humbly for you to pay attention to it?

And I have to ask:

‘“I’m not on board with your general opinions on aggression and tone”’
“I have noticed this.”

Aside from me telling you, how did you notice this?

[citation needed]

“you, who apparently seems to think that there is no such thing as people who don’t want to hear arguments opposed to their beliefs”

I never made that claim. Cf. above.

“I must be insulting ALL people who hold a conviction. It is also a blatant lie, and I still resent it, MA’AM.”

I never said you were. I would guess there are some people whom you do not insult. Given your behavior here I suspect that number is vanishingly low.

“you continue to rant and rave and fling personal attacks while in the same sentence accusing others who had not done any such thing of doing so.”

[citation needed]

“you have the temerity to get snippy in your superiority act when you get called out on your numerous mistaken inferences posing as ‘rational thinking’ and can’t take what you dish out.”

That you think argument is about “dishing it out” explains why no one listens to you.

“You act as if you have a monopoly on rational argumentation in debate”

I have no such monopoly and I was unaware that it was possible to corner that market. If you are experiencing a shortage of rational debate I suggest that you examine your own behavior for the cause.

“You can’t deny I merely invited other readers to compare that conclusion with their own experiences. How can anybody possibly have a problem with that?”

Because anecdote is not evidence. It does not follow from your own personal experience that your claim, that the cause of your failure is due to the other’s intransigence, must be true. It might be, but you cannot know it is. Since you cannot know it is the case it is best to assume that a different delivery, or tone, would effect different results. This seems highly reasonable to me.

“You don’t like anything you encounter which you decide doesn’t support your convictions, right?”

Nope, what I like or don’t like doesn’t matter. Personal preference simply does not enter into the question of what is the best way to go about convincing others of the rightness of one’s cause. It would seem to me that if the creation/evolution issue is really of such importance then one would do whatever it takes to achieve one’s goals. If you find that reaching your goals is being frustrated blaming others is unlikely to change that outcome.

“experience IS ALSO OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, however ‘anecdotal it may be”

That is true. Anecdotal evidence is evidence. It’s just not good evidence and does not justify the conclusion you have attempted to make.

“you fly off the handle and inflict people with ad hominem attacks”

[citation needed]

“in a way that very much resembles a deep-seated hatred reserved not only for certain individuals but for entire groups of people who do not see it your way.”

Mindreading fallacy.

“You see, what Caledonian and I and Jaranath have said is more than sufficiently demonstrated based only on your own behavior”

All that you have done is to make unsupported claims. You have not advanced a single reason to support them or given a rational justification for your beliefs about me or anyone else. In short, you have yet to even attempt rational discourse. If this is how you behave in science/religion debates then it is little wonder no one pays much attention to you and your arguments, such as they are, have been utter failures. Good luck with that.

“if you are unsuccessful in achieving your goal of convincing others it is most likely there is something wrong with your approach rather than with the other person.””

This, your quotation of me immediately above, is not the same as this following quote which I objected to:

“I can’t agree with your stance that if B fails to listen to reason, it’s necessarily and exclusively A’s fault. That’s a very strange position.”

There are host of problems with this, not the least of which is that you seem to be equating yourself with the voice of reason. I strongly suspect you are not. But primarily, I did not attach necessity or exclusivity to my proposition “If A fails to convince B it is most likely due to A’s tone”. I most certainly did not say that if A fails to convince B it is “necessarily and exclusively A’s fault”.

There are indeed people who cannot be dissuaded from their beliefs. I think that is a small number but the point is that you cannot know in any particular case that B rejected A’s argument for the reasons you have given because you cannot know someone’s private motives. Ever. (unless you ask)

“I’m not on board with your general opinions on aggression and tone”

I have noticed this.

“A could be arguing that B should accept global warming is science because Big Oil is evil. “

If you like I will stipulate that A’s arguments are flawless. It is still the case that how A goes about making them determines to a large extent how B will receive them. A flawed delivery (being a dick) will negate a good argument every time. I would think this obvious but… there you go.

“You cannot seriously be suggesting that if B is wrong about something, A is to blame because A didn’t explain the facts to B the right way…right?”

Not at all. Yes, you are right, it is B’s responsibility to seek the truth. It is also A’s responsibility “not to be a dick”. Both and not either or. Your example of the doctor is a good one because bedside manner is a serious issue. A physician with a poor bedside manner can lose patients and yes his review board would lay the responsibility at his feet. The character “House” would not last long or do very well in today’s clinical environment. At the same time it is also the patients responsibility to understand their illness and be a partner in their treatment program. Both and, not either or.

Do not seek to attach blame. There is no hook on which it can be fixed. Events occur. They occur by reason of their antecedent causes. There are no uncaused events. Therefore, if you keep getting the same results the universe is operating as it should be! B is a part of the universe (as are you) so why would you blame the universe (B) for doing what it is supposed to do?

I find that it is often impossible to persuade someone in a public forum precisely because it is a public forum. Being in the limelight leads some people to the conclusion that they must prove themselves right, as opposed to finding out what is right.* But, being public, a lot of people can watch the conversation unfold, and not being in the limelight, can find it’s easier to change their mind about a topic. For them, sound logic and reasoning will be the most persuasive.

But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for stentorian rhetoric. In times of crisis, or a lack of time, or, in unfortunate cases, in the face of obstinate obstruction by those with a vested interest in disagreeing with the findings of science (The owner of a coal mine creating a PAC against global warming maybe), you may need to use other tactics. I would like for us to be able to take the time to discuss things rationally with irrational people (and stop caring so much about the tone of a persons words and more about their content), but that may not always be a viable option. Add to that, some people pay more attention when you insult them. The thing to do is to get them angry enough to reply, but not so angry that they don’t think about what they say.

The way we engage people in these discussions certainly does influence the outcome. But we can’t assume, a priori, that sweet reason is the best option. I try and make it my favored option, but not everything is idle conversation with another. Sometimes it’s not about convincing someone of your point, but about managing the society we all live in. Some of the debates about science in congress are ridiculous, and in order to get anything done you have play the game by their rules, even if that particular congress person doesn’t view it as a game. There should some balance, some mix of approaches, not just one single one. I don’t know which mix is best, but I think it’s best to have a mix.

*Which leads to an interesting contradiction between scientific debate and general public discussion. For a scientist, being proven wrong can be more exciting then being proven right.

Really?  What is this, then, if NOT an absolution of B because A’s being a dick:

“if you are unsuccessful in achieving your goal of convincing others it is most likely there is something wrong with your approach rather than with the other person.”

“it is not incumbent on B to accept A’s argument regardless of how much of a dick A is.”

Seriously, how else do I interpret that?

If you’re trying to assert that A can make mistakes, sure!  I’m not on board with your general opinions on aggression and tone, but sure, those absolutely CAN be problems.  Or something else entirely. A could be arguing that B should accept global warming is science because Big Oil is evil. I don’t really care. My point isn’t that when B is wrong, everything is B’s fault. My point is that B shares a certain amount of responsibility in any effort to seek the truth.  You cannot seriously be suggesting that if B is wrong about something, A is to blame because A didn’t explain the facts to B the right way…right?  If I refuse to believe I have cancer because my doctor was a jerk, is my painful death entirely his fault?

Maybe that isn’t what you meant. Maybe you agree with me.  But that’s the implication of both your statements and your attitude toward other commenters.  And I’m sorry, but your tone’s been anything but flat in that regard, sarcasm being the most obvious example.  I don’t MIND snark, depending on implementation, but then I’ve already explained I disagree with your general position on tone.  What I do mind is hypocritical tone-trolling.

Read my original post (#52) again, with the quoted items from Phil’s posting and from Caledonian (#1), then read the response you offered (#54) chock full of faulty interpretations and blatant mischaracterizations and a fusilade of personal attacks. My original post contained nothing anywhere that could in the slightest be construed as a personal attack, except by you, who apparently seems to think that there is no such thing as people who don’t want to hear arguments opposed to their beliefs…but if there WERE, why then, by golly, I must be insulting ALL people who hold a conviction. It is also a blatant lie, and I still resent it, MA’AM.

Even after I explained that YOU were the sole source of that utterly false inference, you continue to rant and rave and fling personal attacks while in the same sentence accusing others who had not done any such thing of doing so. THEN you have the temerity to get snippy in your superiority act when you get called out on your numerous mistaken inferences posing as ‘rational thinking’ and can’t take what you dish out. You act as if you have a monopoly on rational argumentation in debate; too bad you don’t practice it. Instead you do precisely what you accuse others of.

I feel rather sorry for you…but you do splendidly make my case for me, even without the conclusion I have drawn from my ‘anecdotal’ experience. You can’t deny I merely invited other readers to compare that conclusion with their own experiences. How can anybody possibly have a problem with that?

You have a problem with it. You don’t like something. Fine. Most people don’t like lots of things. You don’t like anything you encounter which you decide doesn’t support your convictions, right? But extending the same liberty to others who do not share your convictions is something different, isn’t it? So whenever anybody makes an innocent general statement that in fact CAN be justified on the basis of evidence (and make no mistake, experience IS ALSO OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, however ‘anecdotal it may be) you fly off the handle and inflict people with ad hominem attacks in a way that very much resembles a deep-seated hatred reserved not only for certain individuals but for entire groups of people who do not see it your way.

My conclusion – based on the ‘anecdotal’ reading of your posts which I again remind others they can judge for themselves – is that your lack of integrity precludes any chance of rational debate. You see, what Caledonian and I and Jaranath have said is more than sufficiently demonstrated based only on your own behavior. Now I’m done with this pointless exercise.

Fortunately I never made such a claim.

” In the context of poor argumentation on A’s part, certainly that’s a factor, and I know that you’re including “aggression” and “prickishness” in that category. But even when that’s the case, that doesn’t absolve B.”

That is not how things work in the real world. In the real world it is not incumbent on B to accept A’s argument regardless of how much of a dick A is. People don’t work like that.

“Now, that aside: For someone ostensibly concerned with civility, emotion, tone and smugness, you do seem to have your fair share.”

My tone here has been very flat and I have consciously removed as much ‘tone’ as I can. I have made flat statements ordered into what I hope is a rational defense of my position.

“You’re a little too one-note in your comments, to the point of making everyone into a nail you can hammer.”

When atheists complain that they are being ill received and that people are not listening to them it is true that I do typically point out that it is the manner in which they engage their opponents that is most likely to blame and not their opponents. I don’t see the problem with that.

Glad to have spoken with you.  If I’d emphasize anything for you to ponder, it’d be the point Nigel articulated much better than I:  That “possibilities that step outside this framework” are inherently very problematic, and in fact I suspect impossible, at least for a coherent, consistent universe.  If you spend time trying to think of those possibilities, I think you’ll find they inherently cannot simultaneously be untestable and exert significant influence upon reality.  The latter necessitates the former.

noen:

I agree that any given individual cannot be considered an absolute write-off. I said as much. Perhaps you should read it again.  

I can’t agree with your stance that if B fails to listen to reason, it’s necessarily and exclusively A’s fault. That’s a very strange position.  In the context of poor argumentation on A’s part, certainly that’s a factor, and I know that you’re including “aggression” and “prickishness” in that category. But even when that’s the case, that doesn’t absolve B.

Now, that aside:  For someone ostensibly concerned with civility, emotion, tone and smugness, you do seem to have your fair share.  You also have a tendency to apply your own questionable interpretations to people’s statements.

I don’t care how obsessed you are with tone; don’t put words in my mouth. If I thought you were engaging in personal attack, I’d have said so.  If you can’t interpret figures of speech, go brush up on them.  You’re a little too one-note in your comments, to the point of making everyone into a nail you can hammer.  Trust me, I’m perfectly capable of being an emotional, aggressive, confrontational smug prick. I don’t need your help.  

Exhibit A

“I construct no strawman, entertain no falacy, engaged in no ‘mind-reading’ and I made no “sweeping generalizations”. YOU put all of that junk there and I resent it, sir. “

It’s ma’am and I fail to see any attempt at rational debate here. Rational debate does not consist in making claims not backed by evidence. What is your evidence for your claim that those who do not agree with you have no desire for rational argument?

“I said, “I humbly submit that “the person to whom we’re talking” won’t hear “how we convey” the facts either.” Get it? I wasn’t talking about ‘everyone’ (nice strawman there). I was talking about people who won’t listen to arguments that contain facts or evidence – the ones that Phil was refering to.”

What is your evidence that people who don’t listen to your arguments are turned off by the facts and not the presentation of those facts?

“Based on my 4+decades of experience of conversing with countless people (which you judge to be “limited experience”, demonstrating at once your own penchant for “Mindreading”) I’ve noted that people who do not listen to arguments based on evidence do not, in fact, listen, no matter “HOW” those arguments are conveyed.”

Yes, your personal anecdotes, even four decades of them, do not amount to evidence. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. You do not in fact know that it would not matter how your arguments were conveyed. You have not performed the experiment. Real clinical studies have in fact shown that the manner in which information is presented strongly effects how it is received.

I will even accept as a stipulation that some people are not interested in hearing things that conflict with their received views. Still, you have not shown and do not know that those you have failed to convince remained unconvinced because they refused to accept the facts. It is most likely they did not listen to you because you were being aggressive and brow beating as you are here.

“They don’t want to listen to anything that contradicts their cherished beliefs.”

You do not know this. Your claim to posses such knowledge counts as mindreading because neither you nor I can read minds. The only way to know the motives a person has for why they don’t accept a proposition is to ask them. You have not asked them. Therefore you cannot know their subjective motivation.

“Anybody is perfectly free to consult their own personal “limited experience” (not as unlimited as yours I’m sure) to judge whether or not what I’ve said coincides with their experience.”

Again, anecdote is not evidence.

“I simply echoed Caledonian’s point that since such persuasion doesn’t work with those who simply will not consider any argument they consider contrary to their views, no matter how rational, how well they are substantiated by evidence or how well they may be presented, there can be no point to the FUTILE exercise of attempting to persuade THEM.”

Sorry but your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Your premise — “such persuasion doesn’t work”
2nd premise — They “will not consider any argument they consider contrary to their views”
Your conclusion — “there can be no point to the FUTILE exercise of attempting to persuade THEM”

Or in other words: “I keep doing the same thing and getting the same undesirable results therefore it is not my fault.”

The argument is not valid because the premises are false. You do not in fact know that ANY form of argument would necessarily fail and you do not know the private motives that people have for not listening to you. I suspect the reason is because they find the messenger unpalatable, not the message.

“Understand now? Or are those subtleties a little hard to digest? If so, try reading that again. It might come to you eventually.”

Exhibit B

“You say, “Because rational debate has as it’s object to persuade one’s opponent on the basis of reason alone.”

Hmmm, I certainly hope you can cite at least SOME evidence for the ‘reasoning’ you employ.”

None is needed. The statement is analytic. I know that rational debate is debate through reason the same way that I know all unmarried men are bachelors.

“You say, “And if your objective in your debate is not rational then you are, by definition, behaving irrationally.”

No kidding? Another strawman.”

You seem confused on the meaning of the word strawman. My claim that behavior that is not rational is irrational is not a strawman argument. It is in fact a deductively logical conclusion. The prefix ir means ‘not’. Therefore my claim that if you are not arguing rationally you are being irrational is a logically necessary conclusion.

“You say, “Being the highly rational person you claim to be I expect you will promptly make the requisite changes in your approach.”

Oh, I do not think my remarks carried any such graceless personal ad hominem and innuendo, least of all toward you”

The quote of me is not an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem would be if I claimed that because you are a disagreeable person therefore your argument is false. I made no such claim. My claim is that many do not accept your arguments because you (third person, the atheist side in such debates) are being disagreeable.

‘Chalk those up along with your other finely-honed debating skills, together with your faulty powers of reasoning and reading comprehension.”

I do not believe it is I whose powers of reasoning are deficient here.

“one moment one is peacefully strolling down the street, and the next moment one is shot down like a dog”

You are not a victim, as much as you might wish others to believe you are. This is a public blog and comments are open to all. That you perceive disagreement as somehow like being violently gunned down goes to my point that anger and aggression are signals of a weak character and not strength. One wonders how you manage to leave your home with skin as thin as yours.

Your contortionist skills are stunning.

noen#54:”Since the most prominent atheists continue being self absorbed pricks even though it hurts their cause I conclude that being a self absorbed prick is the whole point of their being atheists.”

Wow, you really DO have a problem, don’t you? Let nobody DARE take your commentary to task and Pass Judgement, since those priviledges are obviously reserved exclusively for you. We must keep silent to ponder the mystery: YOUR cause ISN’T hurt for being a monumentally champion-grade [that word you use], because?

Allow me to guess the answer: because you are “right” – God thinks just like you do, doesn’t He? That proves it, doesn’t it?

Columbus thought the world was much smaller than did everyone else. It has been known since about 300 BC that the world is round (IIRC, a fellow named Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the world, and came within 10% of what we now consider to be the right answer).

I should add that he was wrong, and everyone else was right. That is why no one wanted to fund him, they knew that there wasn’t enough food to make the trip. He got lucky with an unknown continent in the way.

As well, even if theology is very complex and subjective it is still applicable to the debate, so his “courtier’s reply” is really not much more than a sorry, not-so-subtle excuse for ignorance.

You apparently didn’t read too closely if you think “the courtier’s reply” is from Dawkins. It isn’t, it is from PZ Myers.

You also completely missed the point of the courtier’s reply. The point is this: it doesn’t matter how complex the subject is if it is based on a flawed or unsupported premise. Theologians have done massive work debating the intricacies and opinions of God, but it is all based on the premise that God exists in the first place. All those quibbles are irrelevant if God doesn’t exist.

So rather than endlessly debating whether God has this trait or that trait, or what God thinks of this action or that action, we should focus on the core issue: does God exist? That is the point of the courtier’s reply, that all the talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether Adam and Eve had navels (those are real, long-standing theological debates) are irrelevant to the question of whether God actually exists or not.

It also doesn’t directly address, but alludes to the asymmetry in the debate. All the people who accepted the emperor’s clothes (the believers) don’t need to know any theology or be up on the latest theological debates. But anyone who questions the clothes (Dawkins) are required to be experts in theology before they are allowed to have an opinion.

Re 28, well, perhaps the entire earth hadn’t been made at the same time- didn’t the Europeans before Columbus fear they would fall over the edge of the world if they ventured out too far to sea? Maybe they were right

No, that’s a common myth.

Columbus thought the world was much smaller than did everyone else. It has been known since about 300 BC that the world is round (IIRC, a fellow named Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the world, and came within 10% of what we now consider to be the right answer).

But there is one thing we can do: NEVER even TRY to pretend that performing science and learning about the universe isn’t a spiritual experience,

I suppose this depends on what you mean by “spiritual”. If you mean “emotionally uplifting”, then I agree.

If you mean that those emotions imply the existence of some realm beyond what we can readily perceive or measure, no matter how good the instruments, then I most emphatically do not.

which it so obviously is – why else is NASA spending billions of dollars on telescopes hunting for alien earths that won’t benefit the population in any conceivable practical way for the foreseeable future? Why else are we doing the same on spacecraft that will tell us how our planet and the rest of the universe formed? Why else are we listening to the stars almost hopelessly in search of a few tell-all intelligible, tell all blips buried in the static?

Why must knowledge have a definite and immediate application?

Every honest atheist/agnostic on this blog and elsewhere will know that the preceding paragraph is, in some way, true for them.

As I said, the validity of this depends on exactly how you meant your use of the word “spiritual”.

If I am wrong about the existence of a spirit realm, then may Thor strike me down with a thunderbolt.

Oh. I’m still here.

And while not all are the “religious” type, nobody is free of a void that we’re looking to fill with something – some people are just better at hiding it and/or ignoring it. “People will learn to live without religion” – riiiight, Richard. It is truly sad that such a smart man could be nigh ignoring what is perhaps the core of all human nature.

The core of human nature is the desire to belong to a tribe.

This is what religions – all of them – tap into. So this void to which you refer is nothing intrinsically to do with religion. It can equally well be applied to followers of a football team as to followers of a religion.

And you seem to ignore the truth that many people do quite happily live without religion.

I don’t think we should present evolution as totally ironclad – there are gaps in the hypothesis that must be stated, even if the rest of it works.

Such as what?

Every criticism I have read that is levelled at evolutionary theory is one or more of the following:
1. Vague (as in the comment of SamH);
2. A logical fallacy (such as an argument from ignorance or an argument from personal incredulity);
3. Just plain wrong.

To make my position as clear as I can:

a. Gaps in the fossil record are not evidence against evolutionary theory (absence of evidence is not evidence for something else).
b. Biology’s failure – thus far – to understand the origin of any one specific feature is not evidence against evolutionary theory.
c. Evolutionary theory is readily testable.
d. Even if special creation has occurred in Earth’s past, evolution of those created forms would occur unless something prevents evolution from occurring.
e. No creationist has ever proposed any mechanism to prevent small changes from accruing into larger changes.
f. The construction of a detailed evolutionary history of any specific lineage is a possible outcome of the theory, not a part of the theory.
g. Any criticism of evolutionary theory should – to be a part of an intellectually honest debate – also include a detailed proposal of what should replace the criticised component of the theory, including how to test the new proposal.
h. It is overwhelmingly likely that any theory that supplants evolutionary theory will show that evolutionary theory is a special case of a more general theory.
i. The origin of life has no direct bearing on the validity or otherwise of evolution. Darwin himself would quite readily have accepted that life on Earth began with one or a few creation events. Indeed, if you had read On the Origin of Species you would know that this is what he assumed.

@ 60. jaranath said
“At the risk stepping into a crossfire”

It is interesting how across the internet peo0ple equate disagreement with personal attack. Odd. I usually try to make simple declarative statements organized into what I hope is a rational argument.

“Though I caution against ever completely writing off any individual, some people really can’t be reached, and there’s a point where you should move on.”

And it is my contention that no one is really beyond reach. Second, that if you are unsuccessful in achieving your goal of convincing others it is most likely there is something wrong with your approach rather than with the other person. There are African Americans who have befriended Klansmen and have had some, albeit limited success in changing hearts and minds. They did not achieve that result through aggressive confrontation.

“We shouldn’t weaken our presentation and defense of science in an effort to convince those hardcore holdouts, but rather try to educate people on “how to know things””

I am not suggesting you should present a weak defense. I am suggesting that an aggressive confrontational debate, which is typical of many atheist/theist debates I have seen, IS a weak defense. Aggression is not strength. It is a form of weakness.

“And maybe it’s a nitpick, but I’d suggest the purpose of most public (and maybe even private) debate is NOT to change the mind of one’s debating partner.”

Sure, the goal of most debate is to convince the passive onlooker. By that measure most atheists loose their debates. Watch some William Lane Craig videos. By this measure he easily wins most of his debates. The reason why should be obvious. I have never seen Craig be the kind of smug, self absorbed prick that Dawkins et all can be. Since the most prominent atheists continue being self absorbed pricks even though it hurts their cause I conclude that being a self absorbed prick is the whole point of their being atheists.

But to clear up a few things: yes I have read The God Delusion, and in retrospect I must say that while many parts of the book were very well argued and beautifully written, others really seemed to be borderline polemical childishness. As well, even if theology is very complex and subjective it is still applicable to the debate, so his “courtier’s reply” is really not much more than a sorry, not-so-subtle excuse for ignorance.

Thanks for correcting me on methodological naturalism. When I get on the roll with an idea I usually run with it without much error correcting, and I didn’t really have the time anyway, but methodological naturalism is what I meant.

Anyway, I’m getting a little tired of this thread so I’ll just say that I know how well the system works, and I know that we don’t really have anything better. But we have to remember that the system is dependent on and committed to a naturalistic framework that, while necessary, can occasionally get wrapped up in this commitment and may ignore possibilities that step outside this framework. These possibilities are not meant to be scientifically investigated, but philosophically and rationally considered as possibilities and nothing more. ID is not science and should not be taught as such, but science MAY be able to detect the POSSIBILITY of design. It’s sketchy, yes, but it is possible and should not be dismissed as a distinct possibility. And while I may seem ignorant in saying it, I don’t think it’s impossible to find positive (non-GotG) evidence that suggests purpose – hard to suggest and impossible to absolutely confirm, but NOT impossible.

I construct no strawman, entertain no falacy, engaged in no ‘mind-reading’ and I made no “sweeping generalizations”. YOU put all of that junk there and I resent it, sir.

I said, “I humbly submit that “the person to whom we’re talking” won’t hear “how we convey” the facts either.” Get it? I wasn’t talking about ‘everyone’ (nice strawman there). I was talking about people who won’t listen to arguments that contain facts or evidence – the ones that Phil was refering to. We’re talking about people who don’t listen, not talking about ‘everybody’ or even ‘all those who harbor a particular opinion or belief’.

Based on my 4+decades of experience of conversing with countless people (which you judge to be “limited experience”, demonstrating at once your own penchant for “Mindreading”) I’ve noted that people who do not listen to arguments based on evidence do not, in fact, listen, no matter “HOW” those arguments are conveyed. No gimmick or fancy dressing works. They don’t want to listen to anything that contradicts their cherished beliefs. Anybody is perfectly free to consult their own personal “limited experience” (not as unlimited as yours I’m sure) to judge whether or not what I’ve said coincides with their experience. They are also free to note how your interpretation of my remarks constitues a “Sweeping Generalization” in spades.

You say, “If persuading people isn’t your objective then you are not engaged in rational intellectual debate.” Oh dear. Nobody suggests that persuasion by rational arguments in debate IN GENERAL isn’t a perfectly legitimate or worthy objective. What’s the matter with you? I simply echoed Caledonian’s point that since such persuasion doesn’t work with those who simply will not consider any argument they consider contrary to their views, no matter how rational, how well they are substantiated by evidence or how well they may be presented, there can be no point to the FUTILE exercise of attempting to persuade THEM. Yet it remains perfectly commendable to persuade undecided members of an audience, especially young people who have not yet been irretrievably infected by the inflexible tyrrany of absolute conviction.

Understand now? Or are those subtleties a little hard to digest? If so, try reading that again. It might come to you eventually.

You say, “Because rational debate has as it’s object to persuade one’s opponent on the basis of reason alone.”

Hmmm, I certainly hope you can cite at least SOME evidence for the ‘reasoning’ you employ.

You say, “And if your objective in your debate is not rational then you are, by definition, behaving irrationally.”

No kidding? Another strawman. Why, I feel like breaking out with a round of “We’re off to see the Wizard!”.

You say, “Again it would seem that you are the problem.”

Fascinating. Yes, I suppose it would indeed “seem” I’m a “problem”…specifically just for you. (Bows deeply).

You say, “Being the highly rational person you claim to be I expect you will promptly make the requisite changes in your approach.”

Oh, I do not think my remarks carried any such graceless personal ad hominem and innuendo, least of all toward you, buster. Chalk those up along with your other finely-honed debating skills, together with your faulty powers of reasoning and reading comprehension. With all those and the talent of spinning them as accusations to the unwary as a camouflage technique, you, sir, win hands down. I am genuinely impressed.

[@jaranath #60: I appreciate for the vote of confidence. It's a dangerous world out thar: one moment one is peacefully strolling down the street, and the next moment one is shot down like a dog...]