Dan Jarvis And
Empirical Evidence Of God
Dave Jarvis
From: "Dave Jarvis"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Atheism Rocks
Date: Thursday, March 22, 2001 1:51 AM
Dear Mr. Walker,
I have read most of your extensive banter with Dan Jarvis (of whom I'm no [direct] relation), and found it quite enjoyable. Your arguments are well thought out, and your presentation impeccable. I'd like to start off on a light note, as I noticed three minor technical flubs:
I'm going to play a poor man's Devil's Advocate for a moment here, as Mr. Dan Jarvis seemed to be struggling with what he was trying to say about Faith and God. I'm not defending him or his ideas, merely presenting my interpretation (but not my opinion!) of issues he attempted to defend.
First, atheists want empirical evidence of God for proof that He exists. The problem here is the God that theists revere extends beyond the boundaries of the empirical (to my understanding). That is, we Scientists have--starting with Aristotle, continuing with Descartes and so forth--created a system of thought that governs how we derive truths. Then we want the "entity" that was responsible for giving us the environment in which we devised such tools to stoop down to our level so we can say, "Ah-ha! God must exists because he just made the dead walk, and we've got it on film this time!" So to speak.
However (and I told you I wasn't a good Devil's Advocate), this train of thought also presumes that God was responsible for the creation of the Universe, to which we have not a shred of evidence. In fact, as time goes by (long live Steven Hawking!), we're finding more evidence that everything has happened by chance (the Anthropic Principle). I find it extremely interesting to note that two of the 20th century's foremost theoretical physicists believe(d) in God: Einstein and Hawking.
The second issue has to deal with Faith. In the movie "Contact", based on Carl Sagan's book, there is a scene that always pops into my mind whenever a debate about Faith and God springs forth. The theist said to the woman scientist, "Do you love your father?" To which she replies, "Of course I did!" And he retorts, "Prove it." His love of God was based on Faith. The idea is that she loves her father and the idea that one can love God--on faith--are synonymous.
I once wrote that just because Science can neither prove nor disprove something does not mean you can use the "failure" of Science as fuel for your own argument's fire. I read many theists claiming that since Science can't disprove God that God must exist! I've also written an article you might find interesting. There are claims that God must exist because biologists and/or chemists state that the likelihood of life occurring spontaneously is highly improbable. It is available online at:
http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles/et.html
Finally, in support of atheist arguments, Occam's Razor can be used to support the notion that there is no God, simply because the Universe can get along just fine without Him (i.e., the Universe is more complex with the addition of a known physics-defying entity). You might enjoy the Skeptic's Dictionary, if you haven't already come across it.
With much respect,
Dave Jarvis
P.S.
The Positive Atheism homepage is too busy (IMHO) and takes quite a long time to load. Perhaps an "awards" page would let you simplify the main page for people who want to gnaw on content? Adding WIDTH and HEIGHT tags to images helps, if you haven't done so already.
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Dave Jarvis"
Subject: Re: Atheism Rocks
Date: Friday, March 23, 2001 5:11 PM
Saturday July 01, 2000. "... Directory (much to my chagrin ..." is missing a closing parenthesis.
and
Tuesday July 25, 2000. "How is atheism, the lack of a god belief, a matter of faith." Missing a question mark.
I have only so much time during a day that I can work, and this was particularly true when I did that one. Nowadays, medicine is allowing me to spend more time sitting at the terminal each day. Nevertheless, the workload for Positive Atheism today has still outgrown my meager abilities to get the work done.
So, the Jarvis letter was posted as a first draft, like almost all the other Letters section responses. You'll see many of the letters still have either the blue or tan background, and still use the Teletype monospace typeface for the letter writer. If I have changed the links at the top to Arial/Helvetica (all except 9812-9571), and given it a different background color, chances are slightly higher that I have given that letter at least a second read.
Thus, I always appreciate when someone points out a typo. These pointers usually go by with a simple "Thank you!" followed by an immediate correction. However, this seems like an ideal opportunity to thank, publicly, those readers who have taken a moment to help make this thing run more smoothly -- even if it's just one of those "Great Website" letters. You wouldn't believe how discouraging this gets sometimes.
You stated you read the bible "cover-to-cover" twelve times, then in a more recent message, only eleven times. Entropy doesn't allow this and you know it. ;-)
Ah! Without even knowing what you've read, I think I know what you've read, because I don't think this is a mistake I would make. When I say I read the Bible "eleven times," that's how many times I read the Bible cover-to-cover in a single sitting before renouncing my faith. I was quite proud of my accomplishment while I was in the Church, and these are figures I would never forget.
Since then, I was struck with an infection which rendered me unable to hear very well at all for several months, and then my hearing slowly came back to where I can sort of hear what people are saying in a noisy room if they are speaking clearly into my good ear. At the same time, I had tumors growing under the soles of my feet, which made it feel as if I had a dozen dried peas and lima beans in each shoe -- very, very painful!
Needless to say, since this condition lasted at least a year and quickly rendered me homeless (having recently moved to a strange town), I supported myself for several months by shoplifting. Since I couldn't run very fast, I got caught several times (a felony if you get caught twice in the same store). When I eventually went to jail, I was disoriented and very incorrigible and was, within a day or so, thrown into solitary confinement. This is where they take away your reading material, but the law allows you to demand religious "scripture," so I demanded and obtained a Gideons. It was then, I must say, that I read the thing cover-to-cover at least once more.
So, when I say "twelve times," that's how many times I have read the Bible cover-to-cover in a single sitting thus far in my entire lifetime -- eleven times before renouncing my faith, and at least once since then.
I don't even go that far: I want a convincing reason for believing that a god exists (that is, that this whole religion thing is not just an elaborate fantasy) before I will assent to the claim "A God exists." Remember, we are dealing with existential claims -- claims that a thing exists.
Many people confuse abstraction with reality and reflections with perceptions. Liberal scientific method is designed to address these and other specific and universal weaknesses of human reason. Among other things, liberal scientific method prevents us from considering a claim to be true simply because someone tells us it's true.
Further, reason demands that we refrain from stating that a claim is true simply because we cannot come up with an alternate explanation. Just because we cannot explain why 16-year-old Brenda Spencer shot a couple dozen school children and killed two adults in San Diego at Cleveland Elementary School on Monday, January 29, 1979, doesn't automatically mean that demons entered her body and overrode her sensibilities or that "she must have been on drugs or something." Her own explanation was good enough for some: "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day." (The song by the Irish group Boomtown Rats is about Ms. Spencer, who has now been in prison for longer than she was alive before she went to prison.)
Most god claims are carefully designed to skirt any empirical testing, seemingly on the hope that the prospective convert does not know about the Burden of Proof. Without the Burden of Proof, the harder it is to refute a claim, the more likely it is to be true. However, the Burden of Proof eliminates this problem by showing that it is the person making the claim who is obligated to make the strong argument or to bring forth convincing evidence. The Burden of Proof also requires that a claim needs to be capable of being shot down at least in concept before we need to take it seriously as an existential claim. If you cannot think of a test we could perform to prove that your claim is false, then we really have no business taking your claim seriously: your claim is indistinguishable from those of the charlatans and hucksters.
The theist said to the woman scientist, "Do you love your father?" To which she replies, "Of course I did!" And he retorts, "Prove it." His love of God was based on Faith.
The woman's love for her father and the man's love for his god are virtually the same thing and are equally valid, because we're dealing with emotions and abstractions.
To anyone else, the woman's father was no different from any other man. But to this woman, her entire life had been built up around the abstraction of this man playing the role of her father -- she probably even called him "Dad" instead of calling him by his first name or by "Mr. Jones" (or whatever). She developed a very powerful, all-encompassing abstraction about this man which was shared by few if any other humans. To her, this man was special like no other man could be (although most men are special like this to someone). She and her siblings (if any) spent more of their formative moments under his guidance than anybody else did, and depended entirely upon him for sustenance like nobody else ever had. And they probably grew quite fond of him, and even if they didn't get along, likely grew attached to him.
In a similar sense, this man's "God" is an abstraction. The only difference is that we can show that the woman was fathered and perhaps raised by her father, but we cannot show that her associate's God exists. Nevertheless, the "God" has played an integral part of this man's life -- possibly his entire life past infancy -- and thus the "God" plays a complex and very powerful role in his life, just as the father plays holds a key position in the eyes of the woman. In fact, most of the attributes given to "God" are derived from attributes given to the father figure. The modern "God" is a "Dad," only bigger, and invisible.
And we all know that the role of "God" can be played by a "being" whose existence is limited to someone's imagination. Almost all theists will grant this about at least some other people's gods.
Even the abstraction "Dad" is not necessarily an accurate picture of the man who is that person's father, because Dad probably acts differently around his kids (and because of his kids) than he would ordinarily act if he had no kids or wasn't in their presence. For example, I never knew that my father was a connoisseur of salty humor until I became an adult and some of my friends went to work for him and gave me this report. He still, to this day, tends to hesitate with the salty humor when in my presence (possibly because Mom is usually there, too).
But to ask whether someone loves her father or his god is not the same as asking if the god exists or if the father is still alive (she loves him in memory only), if the woman ever knew her father (she can only guess as to what he was like -- but he's still her father), if the father figure was the actual biological father or was pretending (this happens), or if there even was a father figure, real or abstract.
Finally, in support of atheist arguments, Occam's Razor can be used to support the notion that there is no God, simply because the Universe can get along just fine without Him (i.e., the Universe is more complex with the addition of a known physics-defying entity).
Occam's Razor can show the god claim to be insufficient to warrant assent to some god claims, but it still does not show that no gods exist. This is because the "ineffability" idea is used to describe "God" as somehow "beyond our grasp" as humans -- thus conveniently evading empirical verification.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "Dave Jarvis"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Atheism Rocks
Date: Saturday, March 24, 2001 10:39 AM
Positive Atheism Magazine wrote:
Nevertheless, the workload for Positive Atheism today has still outgrown my meager abilities to get the work done.
I can imagine! It's a wonderful site, though I must say I'm rather biased towards the content therein. ;-)
those readers who have taken a moment to help make this thing run more smoothly -- even if it's just one of those "Great Website" letters. You wouldn't believe how discouraging this gets sometimes.
Oh, I do know the feeling of discouragement -- at least in the form of lack of support. Hard to say which is worse, discouragement from getting no response, or discouragement from a negative response.
When I say I read the Bible "eleven times," that's how many times I read the Bible cover-to-cover in a single sitting before renouncing my faith. I was quite proud of my
I've tried reading it, but can't seem to make it past Genesis 1:1, first page, without chuckling so much I have to put the book down.
growing under the soles of my feet, which made if feel as if I had a dozen dried peas and lima beans in my shoes -- very, very painful!
Pain isn't good! I've been fortunate enough to have both kidney stones and a dreadfully painful ear infection. You would think that the human race would have evolved to the point where pain wouldn't be so ... painful. I'm certain there must be a better for the body to say, "Hey, brain, there's something wrong here."
(a felony if you get caught twice in the same store).
Life certainly seems to be full of irony at times, doesn't it? Law, certainly, is a prime example. I can't understand why it isn't considered a felony if you are caught twice period.
Among other things, liberal scientific method prevents us from considering a claim to be true simply because someone tells us it's true.
Much like the ancient oriental game of Go. If a group of stones are captured, it is up to the opponent to prove that the stones are captured (typically it's rather obvious). As you say, the Burden of Proof concept.
Further, reason demands that we refrain from stating that a claim is true simply because we cannot come up with an alternate explanation. Just because
This hits on what I like to tell people when they talk about what God can do. I simply tell them that the ancient Egyptians believed a god named Ra rode about the planet on his chariot of fire, dragging the Sun around us from dawn until dusk. A lot of religion is based on giving a primitive explanation to something that defies current understanding of the known universe.
Her own explanation was good enough for some: "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day."
And a new law is born: mandatory field trips to exotic places on Mondays.
The modern "God" is a "Dad," only bigger, and invisible.
His beard is longer, too, but don't ask how I know. ;-)
I never knew that my father was a connoisseur of salty humor until I became an adult and some of my friends went to work for him and gave me this report.
<laugh> My father was quite the unique individual. I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that who he was with me was who he was with everyone else; save for the time he and his girlfriend spent together, I'm sure. His language coarse, his whole state of being was basic and unrefined. Moreover, he had a sharp wit and wasn't afraid to use it. :-)
He still, to this day, tends to hesitate with the salty humor when in my presence (possibly because Mom is usually there, too).
Almost takes you back to the good ol' days when it was considered rude to curse in front of a woman.
Finally, in support of atheist arguments, Occam's Razor can be used to support the notion that there is no God
Occam's Razor can show the god claim to be insufficient to warrant assent to some god claims, but it still does not show that no gods exist. This is
Very true, thus my words "support the notion" and not "absolutely declare". <grin> Conversely, Occam's Razor can also be used by theists to support their belief that God does exist, as without God the Universe itself becomes an unnecessary plurality.
I didn't expect a minor novel in return; it's nice to see! Thank you for your time, and I hope life is treating you kindly these days.
Sincerely,
Dave
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Dave Jarvis"
Subject: Re: Atheism Rocks
Date: Saturday, March 24, 2001 5:23 PM
I've tried reading it, but can't seem to make it past Genesis 1:1, first page, without chuckling so much I have to put the book down.
When it's all you have, you tend to get very creative with it. Scrawling degrading messages in a dialogue balloon on the door, pointing to the little window that the guard peeks through, is a very limited form of entertainment.
But I can see how someone would have a tough time with this book in light of how seriously many Americans take it.
I didn't expect a minor novel in return; it's nice to see! Thank you for your time, and I hope life is treating you kindly these days.
Sometimes this is just to limber the fingers (and the mind), and other times I am developing some themes and find wonderful opportunity to practice them in a real-life philosophical dialogue. Occasionally, I will be so impressed with the way a dialogue went that I will publish it in the print edition.
Ultimately, though, those who visit will see our strengths and weaknesses and will note our brilliancy and our failure and will learn thereby. A lot of our focus here is unprecedented, at least in the West and as it applies to atheism. The big thing I'm working on is not the defense of atheism against theism but the ability to present atheism with the goal of reducing the stigma against atheists. This is where the "De-Conversion Stories" section comes to play: by reading the tales of others, and by reading our own tales at a later point in time, we can chart our progress and learn from the mistakes of ourselves and our fellow-atheists. The exchange called "Looking At Some De-Conversion Stories" with Brian Marchand shows most vividly my goals with that section.
I also caught a lot of flack for the Rich Zawadzki exchange, and have learned a lot since then (though I still like the way I handled Zawadzki). I even deliberately left it linked from the front page longer than I ordinarily would have just to increase the likelihood that I'd catch more flack from sporadic readers and first-time visitors, and thereby learn to do this just a little better. For example, one guy who's currently giving me the big runaround writes, and then I begin my response by saying, "I told you that I don't want to hear from liars any more!" Then, when I've finished I delete the first sentence, and end up with a more cordial sounding piece, because I've got it out of my system with that first sentence. There's got to be a way to shine a light without seeming like a Madalyn Murray O'Hair or a James Hervey Johnson, but I suspect that the person who discovers that method will get the Nobel Prize.
In this sense, I see my role not as that of an example to follow, but an experimenter whose data is displayed for all to see.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "Dave Jarvis"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Atheism Rocks
Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:06 PM
When it's all you have, you tend to get very creative with it.
Did paper aeroplanes cross your mind?
But I can see how someone would have a tough time with this book in light of how seriously many Americans take it.
I suppose if everybody treated the Bible like they did Watership Down, then I could probably read it without stumbling into fits of hysterics.
The big thing I'm working on is not the defense of atheism against theism but the ability to present atheism with the goal of reducing the stigma against atheists. This is where the "De-Conversion Stories"
The Martin Luther King of Freedom from Religion.;-)
I also caught a lot of flack for the Rich Zawadzki exchange
Not that you asked for it, but I'll give you my two cents -- an attempt to be in keeping with what you have told me is the goal of your [online] efforts.
First, and foremost, I found your arguments cunning. I was going to add more here, but since this reply has gotten way out of hand, I'll not add anything else to this paragraph.
Let me tell you about a pet article that's been floating around in my head for some time now. I call it, "The Meredith Feeling" -- or "The Meredith Affect". To give you a bit of context, at the time that I dated her, Meredith was a 5'11" Amazonian goddess. However, the men in her life (up until meeting yours truly) had coloured her opinion of males (in general) unfavourably. She was as close to being a radical feminist as one can get without actually being extremely bitter and angry at all males (after all, she dated them, and is now married to one). We were young when we dated, 17 or 18 years old. I'll add that she's bright, quite quick witted and good with words.
Background given, Meredith had a way of interpreting things that I had said in a light that seemed to be completely tangental to what I thought I had meant. For example, last year I asked her if she had ever done drugs. We both grew up completely drug-free and rather proud of that fact. As it turns out (I'm re-reading the e-mail now) this was a single-question reply to a fairly lengthy e-conversation (!) we had been having -- I mentioned to her that I would reply to the rest later, then dropped the question of whether she had ever been drunk or done drugs.
Well! The reply I got back nearly stunned me. It started off:
"Is this, like, something that determines whether you'll continue talking to me?"
Immediately my back was up and that familiar feeling of my stomach dropping to the floor gripped me. It was as though I said something horribly wrong, unjustified, and unwarranted. The problem is that she was immediately reading more into something I've said than I meant. As you've gathered, this sort of feeling overcame me many times during our relationship. I would say something and immediately be put on the defensive. Every single time I never meant what she had unjustly assumed I meant, and only after much arguing would we finally come to a middle-ground.
Later on in the message, after answering, she ranted about how she thought it funny that I couldn't take the time to reply to her entire message, amongst a few other related rants. Well, since we've been 3000 kms away from each other for almost 3 and a half years now, she made another assumption that when I sit down to write a reply, I always have time to do a full reply, or that nothing else is ever on my mind. I'm far too scatter-brained for that sort of thing.;-)
What I didn't like about the "Meredith" feeling was that I believed 100% in what I was saying, and I understood _exactly_ what I meant. She would then turn my words around on me, misinterpret, and blatantly assume things that fit her perspective (without acknowledging even for a moment that maybe I didn't fully understand the words I was using, as one possibility for my [poor?] choice in words). I wrote her back stating that instead of jumping to conclusions I would have felt much less "defensive" had she simply asked what I meant before hand. Then, if my answer fit with her assumption, she could jump down my throat all she wanted. :-) I hope I've expressed the notions behind this "Meredith" feeling to you sufficiently that you understand the point I'm about to make with regards to your "correspondence" with Zawadzki.
I'm fairly certain that Zawadzki honestly believes, to the core of his brain stem, that he was being polite, non-presumptuous, and making a whole-hearted attempt at being friendly and wanting to understand. I do not believe it was his intention to seem hoity-toity, arrogant, or "above you" -- and yes, I'm aware that this is one of the points you raise in your argument.
One problem is that not everybody picks their words as carefully as they should, nor give a great deal of thought into how their words could be misunderstood. Meredith once pointed out that for nearly every situation, the English language has one word perfectly suited to describe it. She might have been off her rocker a bit, but the idea is quite intriguing.
At any rate, you lashed out at him. I'm almost certain that while reading your reply his stomach dropped to the floor -- the Meredith Affect. You took his words, added hordes of meaning (that he hadn't seen, or conscious intended) and then rammed them down his throat -- the vision that comes to my mind is of a deer staring down the headlights of an oncoming truck. In this case, perhaps the deer was looking the other way! <grin>
You're bright, you're quick, you're insightful, yet you're also cutting. In Canada, in my life, I have not experienced any of the ridicule, condemnation, insolence, or arrogance that you, most unfortunately, have had knock on your door as regularly as the paper boy. Which means I cannot sympathize with your feelings in this matter, though I think I can understand them.
I'm getting to my point, honest!
You've told him, via direct insinuation, that he is an arrogant man. "It's this arrogance, more than anything else, which prevents me from giving lip-service to Christianty..." Nobody I have ever met likes being called arrogant -- or even having it insinuated about them (or their words) -- it immediately puts people on the defensive.
In my opinion, this isn't a good way to get people to listen to (read) what you have to say. It's akin to the gradeschool bully. He's big and tough and strong and can bash your head in. He's unapprochable, rude, and frightening. Instead of brawn, you're bullying with brains, when I believe that some order of tact would drive your message home. Instead of trying to smack a first grader around for his peanut butter and jelly, you might consider bringing something to school you can trade. I realize you don't care to make friends with Christians, however I believe nothing Positive can come about by making enemies.
Rather than throwing mud (as far as Zawatzski is concerned) in his face, do you think it might be beneficial to both if you were to try and illuminate what he has said -- more specifically, your interpretation of what he has said -- in a kinder fashion? I quite realize that Christians have not been kind to you (and I also realize that's a gross understatement), however "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." If you do not want Christians to set the example for you to follow, then perhaps you may consider setting a Positive example for them? (I know this isn't what you're intensions are with your words.)
Rather than saying things like, "And what's so bad about living like a heathen?" I would try and express it in a gentler, more approchable manner. Something like, "Rich, you're may not be aware of this ... the word heathen has strong connotations of 'socially unacceptable' -- that is unacceptable to not believe in God (uncultured, unrefined). So when you say that you "live like a heathen" I interpret your words to mean there is something wrong with being a heathen. Since this probably isn't what you mean, would you mind clarifying what you mean when you use the word 'heathen'?"
This way you don't immediately get his back up, and possibly get yours down a bit.;-)
It reminds me of trying to teach the ancient board game Go (told you I was scatter-brained). I tried to teach a friend how to play on The Big Board (a 19 by 19 line grid). These games can take an hour or so with a good friend. Professionals take 6 hours a piece, sometimes days, to complete a single game. Trying to teach the "basics" shouldn't be done on a 19 line board. There's just too much. So you use a 9×9 board instead, where the concepts are similar, but the games can take no more than half an hour and there isn't so much confusion.
I've lost potential Go players because I started them on the 19×19. In the same way, you've lost a potential supporter (if not believer) of the equality for atheists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Positive Atheism is about opening eyes, not shutting them with mudslinging?
and have learned a lot since then (though I still like the way I handled [it]
I like your arguments, and I have to admit that a part of me goes "YES! You tell him!!" when reading it. The larger part of my brain, though, does not like the way you handled it. :-)
There's got to be a way to shine a light without seeming like a Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but I suspect that the person who discovers that method will get the Nobel Prize.
I haven't heard of Madalyn. When I'm trying to shine a light on an issue, I like to use what I consider "tact and openness."
In this sense, I see my role not as that of an example to follow, but an experimenter whose data is displayed for all to see.
Even if your experiments produce results contrary to bringing (more) acceptance to atheism? Additionally, though you might not see yourself in the "example role", I'm quite certain that a vast number of people do. If atheists cut Christians down with no tact or resourcefulness (as you've shown), I think the North America will see a whole lot of damned Christians before it sees a light dawning in their eyes. Kind of a backwards step, no?
Kindest regards,
Dave
P.S.
My Oxford English Dictionary does not use the word "acknowledge" in regards to the word heathen.
P.P.S.
Name calling, no matter how fun, should be left out of arguments. "bullyragging rigorist" indeed! <heh heh heh>
[Some portions of this dialogue are missing.]
From: "Dave Jarvis"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Atheism Rocks
Date: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:18 AM
I have just finished reading a few of your latest replies to Christians. I want you to know that I am quite pleased with how you are handling your replies. For a moment there, I was about to rewrite that, lest I sound belittling or arrogant ... and I'll explain why I didn't (even though I believe you can read some implications that just aren't intentional).
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine (a Texan). She's also quite a Christian (not to mention quite intelligent) and said she was "sorry" for me because I don't believe in God -- or at least that I believe everything around us has happened by chance, and chance alone (no divine inspiration, so to speak). The difficulty I had in defending my (dis)beliefs was that I don't have your arguing prowess (an ability I'd like to develop!), and she managed to twist some of my words around, leaving me backpedaling and rephrasing what I had previously said so as to explain to her what I had in fact meant the first time. (I'm actually starting to think that that's an interesting debate tactic, but definitely an unsettling one.)
It was Very Frustrating. I hate having to explain myself, and I simply despise people misinterpreting my words to use them against me. It's irksome. Heh heh. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle such situations with tact? (I realize this might be too general a question, since you haven't the foggiest of what was said, but given all the conversations you've had (online and in person, I'm sure), I'm fairly certain you can guess the good parts.) <grin>
I suppose I'm here looking for an understanding voice of reason, Mr. Walker, and you're one of the few people I know who happens to be a steadfast, integrity filled, atheist. :-) (I also want to apologize if my previous e-mail came off sounding head-strong or arrogant, it certainly wasn't my intention, I'm genuinely concerned that people gain something positive [for lack of a less appropriate word] from your web site.)
There are a couple other things I'd like to tell you, especially with respect to your dictionary quips. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines atheism as follows: "the theory or belief that God does not exist." I had a sudden urge to look up "theism" just now. It reads: "belief in the existence of gods or a god; specifically, belief in a God who is supernaturally revealed to humankind, who created and intervenes in the universe, and who sustains a personal relation to living creatures." (Same punctuation and capitalization as found in the book.) Perhaps it's time we trashed Merriam-Webster in favour of a better (read: more impartial) dictionary? <grin> Of course, my dictionary spells "colour" with a 'u'.
The second thing is something I think I forgot to mention about the math the Rich Zawadzki used in your "conversation." I have a quote similar to the one Rich made on my page (with respect to his 10 ** 67 "factorial" <snicker> blunder) and, in my opinion, my article tears it to shreds quite nicely. I would greatly enjoy reading any comments you may have to make on the article (improvement, fixing numbers, and such). Please find it online at:
http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles/et.html
Sincerely yours,
Dave Jarvis
P.S.
If you want to snag the article for your site, you're more than welcome, just let me know the URL so I can float my ego a bit. <grin>
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Dave Jarvis"
Subject: Re: Atheism Rocks
Date: Monday, April 16, 2001 5:17 PM
I walked completely around Zawadzki's "factorial" blunder by waiting a paragraph or two and simply listing a factorial equation among several examples of what I mean when I say, "fact" -- omitting mention that the very equation I used is a factorial equation! This is easily my favorite subtlety in the whole Forum, even though I'm not sure if anybody else even saw what I was doing with it. (I used to write comedy bits for a morning drive radio show, and tried to take a gut-level slapstick bit that everybody got and work in an oblique angle that perhaps 50 listeners in all of Southern California could appreciate -- if that many.) I was hoping that one or two readers would have picked up on it, but if they have, nobody's informed me about it.
As for working with people, it's one thing to do it in person and it's another thing altogether to do it in writing. While I think just as quickly either way, people do not interrupt me when I'm writing. Also, on this Forum, I'm not dealing with anyone whose friendship means anything to me, so I can get away with more than I would if I were discussing these topics over the Easter meal. Also, on this Forum, for a third party to shush me would be inappropriate. But most of all, I need to keep certain relationships intact, so I reserve my discussions for this Forum. It's one thing to know what you do and do not believe, and that ought to suffice for most of us. It's another thing altogether to prevail in a discussion with another person. The only discussion that really matters, though, is the one with yourself, in the privacy of your own mind.
Your best defense is to be grounded in logical fallacies, and to be able to identify one coming your way before your opponent even finishes unraveling it. Our collection of "Clues" is a great resource for this, and part of my skill in this respect is having put together the "Sophistry" section of "Introduction to Activistic Atheism." This works both ways: by formulating your argument so as to avoid these mistakes, you do well; also, by when you catch your opponent relying too heavily on these dishonest rhetorical techniques, chances are that they do not have much of a case.
As for tact, how tactful can it be to catch someone in a lie? to catch someone using falsehood to make the case that theirs is an outlook of truthfulness? In the marketplace of ideas, you'd better be selling good product.
I don't know how to carry the "business" end of this situation over into my personal life, so I try to avoid religious discussions amongst friends. In California, I might more easily get away with this because nobody ever asked me, "What do you do?" But in Oregon, where the fact that you're working for it in a "legitimate" "job" is more important than whether or not you have it, I've learned to become very clever -- ranging from, "I work in an office" (I do work in an office! -- my office), to, "I write" (which always raises the question, "What do you write?"), to, "I'm a social activist" (very respected work in very neo-Liberal Oregon: no further questions), to, "I publish an atheist magazine" (at which point the newly formed friendship usually ends -- even if the person who is interrogating me is himself an atheist -- go figure).
We have two powerfully important tools: the "weak" definition for atheism and the fact that the theist is making a claim.
The first tool is the "weak" definition for the word, atheist: anyone who lacks a god belief -- including those who hold the opinion that no gods exist. Someone wishing to inflict the Roman Catholic definition for atheism on me is usurping my right to self-definition as an atheist. However, I'll let them get away with calling me a "nontheist" if that makes them comfortable; if Michael Shermer has his way, this term might eventually prevail -- which is fine with me: I'd change the magazine to "Positive Nontheism" and take a dive with Web Trends for a couple of years with having to register two domains instead of one.
The second tool is to realize for yourself (and to keep reminding your opponent, 'cause they'll try to wiggle out of this one if they can) that the theist is claiming that gods exist and that the atheist, until that point, was minding her own business. The importance of this cannot be understated: they will always call on you to prove your case. "What case!? No! You're the only one talking about gods, here, not me!" If you can make a case that I should assent to your claim, I'll go for it. Until then, just as some men are "girl watchers" and others avidly watch sporting events and still others call themselves "bird watchers," I enjoy observing the mental habits people use to preserve cherished religious beliefs, vanquishing every disquieting fact, impervious to any contrary line of reasoning. I find this much more entertaining that watching a bunch of goons chase a football.
I am not an agnostic in either sense of the word:
1) I am not undecided, capable of going either way and seeing merits in both sides of the argument. Rather, I have yet to hear any argument worthy of my assent. Agnosticism presupposes that atheism even has an argument. As I understand atheism, we are not necessarily offering any argument at all (although some atheists do make a very strong case that no gods exist).
2) I do not assert that we cannot have answers to this question (for example, the God of Christianity could reveal Himself in Blazing Glory on Mount Cyanide, and then we'd know -- so to say we cannot know is to go much further than I feel is right). We could also discover that the Big Bang is a unique event, and that there is no "super-universe" within which countless "Big Bang-like" occurrences continually take place. If that's the case, then were is your god? We could so convincingly rule out the notion of the supernatural that metaphysical materialism is as obvious as the sphericity of the Earth. Then where is your god?
But it doesn't matter what word I use or what that word means to me or to my opponent: I lack a god belief. It's not like I'm undecided. No. I do not believe in gods. I do not go so far as to say that I can empirically prove that no gods exist, and I don't bother with the old line, "Well, we've searched the entire house and cannot find your glasses, so I think we can safely say that your glasses are not in the house." I don't need to go that far.
With atheism, as I understand atheism, I am minding my own business as a human, and someone comes along and insists that gods exist. "Oh, really? That's interesting! Tell me more!" If they can make a convincing case that gods exist, I'll go along with the idea. Unless and until they do that, I continue with business as usual. Agnosticism says, "I don't know and you don't either," or "I can't know and you can't either"; atheism says, "You have not given me a convincing reason to believe your claim, so I remain an atheist -- I remain a person without theistic faith." In fact, atheism calls agnosticism a subset of atheism, because if they don't know, they lack a belief (unless they're that somewhat rare breed of agnostic known as the theistic agnostic, who thinks there's a god but knows nothing else on the subject).
Whatever you want to call that (and I call it atheism), that's my position: I have no reason to believe, so I don't believe.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "Dave Jarvis"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Atheism Rocks
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 12:41 PM
I walked completely around Zawadzki's "factorial" blunder by waiting a paragraph or two and simply listing a factorial equation among several examples of what I mean when I say, "fact" -- omitting mention that the very equation I used is a factorial equation!
I'm quite familiar with factorials -- I'm a computer scientist by trade, and have programmed a computer to compute factorials many times in the past. I caught Zawadzki's blunder without your emphasis, although I did find your reference to it to be on the jovial side. ;-)
I was hoping that one or two readers would have picked up on it, but if they have, nobody's informed me about it.
They just don't want to float your ego.;-) <grin>
it's another thing altogether to do it in writing. While I think just as quickly either way, people do not interrupt me when I'm writing. Also, on this Forum, I'm not
Yes. The more I think about the talk she and I had (I live in British Columbia, if I wave I think you might be able to see me) on the phone, the more I feel like I should send her an e-mail letting her know I felt after the conversation ... ignorant, thoughtless, unintelligent, and unenlightened, for starters -- simply because I choose to believe in chance, as opposed to a divine source.
The only discussion that really matters, though, is the one with yourself, in the privacy of your own mind.
I read this last paragraph to an agnostic friend of mine, he quite appreciates your insight.
These are stupendous; when I get more time on my hands I'll give them a detailed reading.
This works both ways: by formulating your argument so as to avoid these mistakes, you do well; also, by when you catch your opponent relying too heavily on these dishonest rhetorical techniques, chances are that they do not have much of a case.
There are manipulation techniques, too, which throw me off guard. For example, at one point she said, "For the record, I think you're a good person." I replied, "Thank you, I think I'm a nice person." To which she retorted, "So my opinion doesn't count?" Just one example of her twisting my words around ... I used to think I was a difficult person to cheese off, but man, twisting my words will do it nearly every time. The manipulative Meredith Affect all over again.
As for tact, how tactful can it be to catch someone in a lie? to catch someone using falsehood to make the case that theirs is an outlook of truthfulness? In the marketplace of ideas, you'd better be selling good product.
It's not the act of catching someone in a lie through which one should be tactful (presuming, of course, they don't believe or realize it's a lie). It's how you make them aware of how their lies are falling on your ears is where tact comes into play. Name calling (either directly or by insinuation) is not tactful. Stating facts and supporting your case/ideas in a logical, easy-to-understand manner, without (intentionally) putting the other person on the defensive is what I consider being tactful.
[I tell them] publish an atheist magazine" (at which point the newly formed friendship usually ends -- even if the person who is interrogating me is himself an atheist -- go figure).
That's a riot -- not that a newfound friend would enter the Cold Shoulder Zone, but that a fellow atheist would want nothing to do with someone who published an atheist magazine. People are quite silly.
[You're] the only one talking about gods, here, not me!" If you can make a case that I should assent to your claim, I'll go for it. Until then, just as some men
Here's one I had difficulty answering. "Why do we have emotions?" The question comes in a myriad of forms, "Why do you smile when you see a sunset?" "What biological role does laughter play?" and such. I'd like to read your answer to this question.
Actually, what I'd really like to do is send off an e-mail to her, reaffirming my (non-)beliefs, informing her of my feelings, coming up with some nifty arguments, getting her reply, then have you take a look at it -- postulating some of your own beautiful arguments. However, I realize you're quite busy and I must fight my own battles. An passing fancy.;-)
But it doesn't matter what word I use or what that word means to me or to my opponent: I lack a god belief. It's not like I'm undecided. No. I do not believe in gods. I do not go so far as to say that I can empirically prove
And, for example, if you believe that everything happened by chance, luck of the draw (the anthropic principle?), that doesn't mean you have to say "Chance is my God", or the world came about due to "beneficial chance" (she didn't use the word "beneficial" but one fairly similar which has subtle implications of divine intervention). We are here without design, without purpose, and when we die ... we rot. :-)
Thanks muchly for the pep talk, Cliff (sorry about the name-switch in the last message, your folder is right below my friend Christina's, so I can only blame my fingers for keying in your name without my brain noticing; I type around 100 wpm, and think around 50 ... heh heh heh).
Dave
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.