Back in April I was browsing reviews of Victor J. Stenger’s book The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason when I came across a review written by someone named Julio whose criticisms seemed more directed at Stenger himself than his book, and someone whose criticisms seemed very uninformed. I decided to reply to a link the author gave in the comment section of the review to his website seemingly dedicated to refuting atheists, materialism, and skepticism in general. I’m not going to debunk all this guy’s arguments. Some are just ludicrous, such as his claim that “Materialism Violates the Energy Conservation Law and Neodarwinism.” Huh?! I think that single snip from his website can tell you about the rationality of the person I’m dealing with, which might put things in perspective as I expose this guy’s blatant dishonesty and shoddy and horribly amateurish attempt at refuting The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. The specific webpage to which I refer with the book review can be found here.
The reason I'm writing this post is because during the discussion in the comments section of his review I critiqued some of the author's arguments and I was met with an obviously confused individual because even though his website stated very clearly his view that “To a certain extent, atheism did play a part in the actions of communists” (emphasis in original), and when I presented a scathing counter-argument and exposed his lack of understanding of Dialectical Materialism the author confusingly backtracked and denied arguing that atheism influenced their actions, even though it was clearly stated on his website! On Amazon the guy told me flat out,
I will try to talk still today about this curious and heterodox exegesis from you of my writings that led you to conclude that I... "think Communists killed because of their atheism." I cannot imagine how and why would anyone on Earth think they did, and I am just amazed that you think I think so...
He continues,
What I said, as you correctly quoted me (but incorrectly understood me...), was that: "*To a certain extent*, atheism did *play a part* in the actions of communists." [emphasis mine now, highlighting the [sic] relevand modals). I did not even state if this *part* that atheism *to a certain* extent played was a decisive part, overwhelming part, minor part, very tiny part (though relevant), etc.
So now it is not surprising anymore to me that you ended up getting such a wrong impression of my ideas. But, misinterpretations exist to be dispelled.
After this second statement he flip-flops again and says he believes the Communists were inspired by atheism.
Clearly, when I read these sentences from him I was taken aback and wasn't sure what to think. This whole conversation can be found at the above link to the comments section so I won't waste time quoting any more of it. I'll just get to the reason I've set my sights on this individual.
I never did bother to respond to his last post which claims I misinterpreted what he had written but when I recently decided to write my own review of The New Atheism on Amazon and looked in on other reviews and found this review, which reminded me of my discussion, I saw this lie he wrote a month later claiming that I lied about him. Why I've been such a frequent target of concentrated smear campaigns and have dishonest things spread about me I have no idea, but it's highly frustrating and it angers me. It's mostly occurred on Amazon too. Maybe I ought to stay away from there from now on...
This obvious lie and blatant smear (which I've gotten very tired of...why do so many Christians feel they must lie about atheists?!) really pissed me off so I've decided to expose this guy's lies and demolish his pathetic “review” of Stenger’s book.
The link to this guy's review can be found above. Let's begin.
In the beginning the author writes,
While reading this book from Stenger, I listed more than 60 points that I would like to comment on or to criticize. Obviously I could not write all that, for it would be almost unreadable (and utmost unbearable). But it definitely shows how much dealing with Stenger's mistakes can be a true exercise of combinatorial explosion! Anyway, I ended up doing the longest review I ever did in www.amazon.com, if my memory serves me well. Almost 3,000 words. Still, I have left other important things to say about the book, and I will say them here.
Because this “review” seems to be a continuation of his review on Amazon.com let's take a look at that first.
Here is the review verbatim as it is found on Amazon.com as of 5-23-11, with breaks throughout where I will insert my comments.
[Zero Stars again to Mr. Stenger. Tsc, Tsc, Tsc]
Robert B. Zannelli, Brent Meeker, Yonatan Fishman. What do these guys have in common? The answer is that they all gave five stars to Victor Stenger's book "The New Atheism" in their review of it; and... they are all cited on page 263 of this book, acknowledgments' section...(to his credit, Meeker mentions this). They are hard-core members of Stenger's email discussion list, avoid-L. So this question comes to my mind: if they know so God dammed well the weaknesses in Stenger's work (and they surely do), how come they do not have a constructively critical stand towards his book? (actually, Fishman did present some critical outlook, though seemingly pretty much "restrained"...). I very much respect the works of parapsychological researcher Dean Radin. Yet, when reviewing his book "Entangled Minds," not only did I NOT give him five stars, but I showed problematic spots in the book as well (similarly with the book "Irreducible Mind," by other highly respectable authors).
So, where is the "Taking a Stand for Science and Reason" (as the subtitle of Vic's book falsely advertises) in this behaviour above? Nowhere. And, as a matter of fact, I just could not find either Science or Reason in this book. But I did find incorrect information, prejudicedly biased attitude, emotionally driven blind beliefs, and corrupt conduct. Smells like a new (bad) religion is born...
The book begins with "dedicated to..., no-one-ever-heard-of, Paul Kurtz, who has contributed more to the advance of science and reason than any other of his generation." (what an offense to those who were truly the ones who did the most to the advancement of science and reason!). What Stenger really means is that Kurtz crafted (together with other cunning fellows like Martin Gardner - religious man... - and James Randi - debunker and cheater) CSICOP, CFI, and Prometheus Books publishing company (also Skeptical Inquirer magazine), therefore publishing aplenty Stenger's dubious "works" (books). I also suspect Kurtz helped (directly or indirectly) Stenger get a position as... adjunct professor of philosophy (???!!!) at the University of Colorado, even though Stenger knows nothing of philosophy to qualify for that; when Stenger mistakenly used the word "epiphenomenon" to mean "side effect" instead of its true meaning in modern philosophy of the mind (which traces back at least to renowned psychologist William James, more than a century ago!), Stenger replied, at avoid-L, that his dictionary did not list it the way I said. I only replied asking him what his dictionary was (and by that I meant that Webster's Dictionary already has the definition that philosophers of mind use, epiphenomenon being roughly an effect that does not act back on its causal source). He did not reply.
This review opens up to a nice little rant which contains no substance at all and doesn't even discuss anything of relevance in the book, with a dash of ad hominem. This review isn't starting off very well at all.
This book is so intricately flawed that I will have to comment on it through sections:
1 - UNDUE OFFENSES TO RELIGIONS AS A WHOLE
On page 11, we get to know that the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, was the primary motivator for the birth of the so called New Atheism. Sam Harris was the crackpot mostly responsible for it (not for the attack on WTC, but for the birth of New Atheism), as it seems (Sam Harris is also known as Sammy the Nuker, and Harry Pothead, for his defense of obtaining confessions through torture and of preemptive nuclear attacks on weaker nations - typical atheist...). The untold history is that the Organized Skeptic Movement (the nest of Vic Stenger and Paul Kurtz, headquarters at CSICOP) needed new fresh air. They tried it, unsuccessfully, some years before with the Brights Movement, a silly idea endorsed by the silly Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (check it out on page 37). September 11 was the bell that got these guys back on their successful money-seeking path, and so they decided to harness all the hatred against Islam so that they could profit as much as they could. I see very little true idealism and social concern in their actions, Vic Stenger included. That is why I consider them, their actions, so despicable. They are like vultures feeding on corpses that should be respected. So, if religion was not responsible for September 11, what was the cause?
More ad hominem along with unsupported claims about the New Atheists' motivations. There isn't much to respond to here. The New Atheists have made it clear what their concerns are. The many harmful acts of religion and Stenger discusses these motivations in his book quite extensively.
To begin with, religion is not a monolith, and must not be treated as such. It is silly, it is irrational, it is unscientific, to treat religion this way. And, topmost, it is counterproductive to do so. And that is precisely what New Atheists do. The excesses of one subset of a specific creed did have some part in the attack on the WTC. It was not Islam as a whole: it was a subset of it. It was not all this subset: it was a group of people who embrace it. And this group of people was motivated by several reasons for attacking the WTC. Religion, i.e., their very specific way of embracing their religion, was only one ingredient of the explosive mixture. Trustworthy and enlightening insights into September 11 and its many facets can be garnered through authors like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. So, if a simple question is asked this way, "Was Religion Responsible for September 11"?, the answer would have to be a straightforward NO. That is why I think that the true motivation of these "New Atheists" is to twist facts to get money pumped into their pockets.
I'd actually agree that religion wasn't the only cause of Sept. 11th but to say that it wasn't a feature at all is obviously false. These hijackers killed themselves because of their belief that they would go to paradise. Even the author contradicts himself when he admits this, and yet immediately after says “NO” religion wasn't a factor at all. Hmmm... it seems there is a pattern of inconsistency and illogical thinking with this individual.
So the pumping goes on...: we are told, on page 15 (and also elsewhere) that faith is always foolish. Always. Also, that Judaism, Islam, and Christendom have done little (little) to alleviate the sufferings in the world (never built a single hospital, as it seems...). On page 22, we get to know that it is immoral (so Vic thinks) to be born of a virgin... (yes, he truly said that!). On page 51, not only do we get to know that "under the spell of the theocons, George W. Bush relied for eight years on faith rather than reason to make decisions, such as invading Iraq," we also learn that Bush was convinced by these guys (theocons) that he was doing God's work... Wow! Does Stenger really believe all this? Bush invaded Iraq based on faith, believing to be doing God's work? Question: where is Science in all this above? Where is Reason in all this above? I can only see Stenger's foolish beliefs, probably targeted at cashing in on easy money... Not satisfied with so much "trustworthy teaching," Stenger tells us, on page 115, that the popes during the Dark Ages (actually Mediaeval Times) were people "whose motives can surely be attributed, partly or wholly, to religion." This man is a mighty Historian! (popes' motivations were rather earthly greed and political ambitions). Last but not least, we read Stenger hallucinating these words on page 116: "Perhaps some insight into how killing in the name of God comes so easy to true believers can be gained by looking at" (blah blah blah). If you are a true believer, killing comes easy to you. Again, unscientific hasty generalizations.
Yes, having faith with no supportable evidence is always foolish. Why? Because logically evidence-based propositions are the only ones that are most likely true. Those who value truth (and I'm sure most people do; most people do not enjoy being deceived or holding false beliefs) must do this or else their beliefs are not standing on a firm foundation. Before I tackle the second claim by Julio allow me to quote Mr. Stenger,
[…] [O]ne of the major complaints that the new atheists have about society today, especially, in the United States, is that religion is given a special dispensation from the requirement of rationality that is applied in all other forms of human discourse. We are pilloried hurting people's deepest feelings when we cast doubt that somebody born of a virgin rose from the dead or when we question that some book contains all the truths that anyone need ever know. We not only regard such beliefs as wrong, we see them as immoral and dangerous to the future of society. [1]
What Stenger is referring to is the belief started by Sam Harris that faith is not only illogical but can be harmful. Case in point was 9/11 when people killed themselves because of their faith! They likely would not have flown the planes into the World Trade Center had they not had that belief about paradise. Or what about when a anti-abortion Christians kills an abortion doctor because of his faith in what the bible says is true? [2]
As far as George W. Bush saying that god told him to evade Iraq there are contradictory reports but many news outlets did report this story. [3]
Julio's final complaint in this section has him saying,
Last but not least, we read Stenger hallucinating these words on page 116: "Perhaps some insight into how killing in the name of God comes so easy to true believers can be gained by looking at" (blah blah blah). If you are a true believer, killing comes easy to you. Again, unscientific hasty generalizations.
This is a quote taken out of context. Here is the full quote in The New Atheism:
Perhaps some insight into how killing in the name of God comes so easy to true believers can be gained by looked at the newest of the large religions in the world, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), known as the Mormons. The noted author Jon Krakauer has written brilliantly about the church in his 2003 best seller, Under the Banner of Heaven. His story builds around a vicious murder carried out, according to the perpetrators, upon God's order. In what follows I will give a lengthy summary of Krakauer's book, which hardly does it justice, with some additional information from other sources. [4]
Stenger not only cites evidence (there is a court case you can even look up, no less) for this claim, but Julio cuts off the quote from the book so as to make it appear that Stenger is being dishonest and illogical. Well, the only one who is being dishonest is Julio.
2 - UNSOUND NAIVE OUTLOOK ON ATHEISM AND ON ATHEISTS
Surprisingly enough, the other side of the coin is not to be taken at face value. That is, believers err due to religion (or strongly influenced by it), whereas atheists might err, but they do so *despite* the beneficial influence of atheism, as it seems...
Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot committed atrocities *despite* being atheists. Also, the aggressiveness of Diderot is, I believe, justified, when quoted by Stenger as having said (page 107): "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest." Could at least have been a little more merciful and have them all smashed (leveled actually) under Stenger's "light" weight... Then we have a quote (page 159) from Thomas Edison: "Nature made us...not the gods...religion is all bunk..."; so nice from the maniac inventor (and enthusiast...) of the electric chair who would fry countless animals alive, including an elephant, testing his invention. All this to win his private war against Westinghouse... All *despite* atheism.
And it just gets worse: Victor Stenger and his fellows at avoid-L email discussion list have...condoned racism! Where the hell is Science and Reason in this? Telling the story: first, James Watson (non avoid-L member) said all scientific studies show black people are less intelligent than whites (which is a lie, to begin with, for not ALL studies show it), and that bosses should promote whites instead of blacks other things being equal... This assertion from this atheist was neither scientific nor ethical. Then comes Richard Dawkins. He says Watson may be wrong scientifically (MAY be... - that is a lie to begin with, because Watson IS wrong. Not ALL tests show blacks to be less intelligent than whites!), but Watson is not wrong ethically (it seems Dawkins finds it ok to prefer whites being promoted, other things being equal). Then come the avoid-L fellows. Not a single one of them agreed with me that Dawkins was endorsing racist views with his assertions. Instead, some of them even mocked me! Where is Science in all this? Where is Reason? All the while, Victor Stenger himself remained...silent! Why didn't they just say Dawkins was wrong? Well, because of corrupted reasons. They were to have a meeting with him and other new atheists in the near future (NYC Conference on Secularism; November 9, 2007). Imagine if Dawkins heard one of them had said Dawkins' assertions amounted to endorsement of racist attitude...
So just as in Religion (Yes) and in Politics (Yes), New Atheism is prone to corruption. So what is the source of our social problems? Religion itself? It doesn't seem like. Politics per se, or money? I guess not. Atheism, old or new? I do not believe it. The problem lies elsewhere, in many different places. And silly oversimplifications are only sure to make things worse.
Once again Julio starts off with more ad hominem and he bitches and moans about something that allegedly happened in this forum discussion, which has no place in this review in the first place. Even more, it seems that Julio didn't do any research about what actually took place. The media seems to have taken Wilson out of context and it all got blown out of proportion. [5]
Because the next section is so long I will again intersperse my comments throughout between breaks.
3 - SLOPPY SCIENCE AND FAULTY INFORMATION
I have been saying for years now that Stenger simply does not read what he cites. As a consequence, he often cites things wrongly. But...no one cares! And I ask: is this Science? Is this Reason? Let me now comment on some mistakes from him in this book.
On page 21, Stenger says that technically atheist is someone who is not a theist. The name of this mistake that he is committing is "Folk Etymology." If one was to follow Stenger's "technical" assumptions, one would conclude that "theist" and "deist" are perfect synonyms (both terms trace back to Greek, though the latter through Latin).
Julio gets all bent out of shape over definitions of theism and deism but he is wrong anyway. Deism is a form of god belief, therefore it is a form of theism, ie. a religion that contains belief in gods. This is often done when trying to pin down the definition of atheism. I've given my reasons both evidential and logical about why I believe this is the best definition for atheism and hence why any form of god belief would be considered theism. [6]
Worse still, on page 23, Stenger decides to equate "nonreligious" with "nonbeliever." That is because he did not read the source that he cited. He's been doing it often, over the last years. And no one cares. (Science and Reason...). His source is Adherents.com. Had Stenger read his source, he would not be surprised that half of his supposed "nonbelievers" would say YES to the question "Do you believe in God?" (last phrase of the second paragraph in "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" from adherents.com religions by adherents). What a philosopher...
Julio seems to be pointing out the fact that the chart Stenger cites depicting the number of adherents to a particular “belief” system groups together the Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist designations. Julio makes the correct observation that one cannot assume each of these categories are all atheists and Stenger doesn't even try to do this. The paragraph after this discussion Julio either glossed over or ignored, making this another (potentially) dishonest omission by Julio. This is the paragraph,
The table does not break down the nonbelievers. Martin quotes an estimate from the 2002 New York Times Almanac that 4 percent of the world's population are professed atheists. With an estimated world population at this writing of 6.7 billion, this gives 268 million current admitted atheists, while there are no doubt many more who keep their nonbelief to themselves. [7]
Julio's “review” continues,
Even worse still (!), on pages 69 and 75 Stenger mentions the article by Larson (1998), which I had demonstrated to him and to his fellows at avoid-L (back in 2007! - readers can check it out on my review of "God the Failed Hypothesis," on amazon.com) to be a highly faulty article. Stenger says of it, wrongly, again, that "Only 7 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal God, with the remainder either nonbelievers or agnostics." (page 69). Then, wrongly too, he says "on a survey of the 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences." The correct statement that can be made based on Larson study is that "At least 10% of NAS Members do not believe in a God in *intellectual* and *affective* communication with humanity." NAS does not have 517 members; it has more than 2000 (at the time Larson made his study, in 1998). 517 were polled, but only about 50% replied! And the question they were asked was: "Do you believe in a God in *intellectual* and affective communication with humankind"? (emphasis mine). Stenger disregarded all my meticulous and painstaking analysis and presentation to him at his own turf (avoid-L) and keeps bringing in highly faulty information (and his fellows know it!). Is this Science? Is this Reason?
Again more pointless stories about what allegedly happened in this forum discussion. In The New Atheism Stenger clearly pointed out that the study asked whether or not the scientists believed in a “personal god” so it's not as if Julio has revealed some form of deception. His complaints are ludicrous. He also complains about the fact that only a little over half of those sent questionnaires responded to the survey. So? There are several other studies that come to the same conclusions and they all come back with the same result: the majority of scientists are nonreligious. [8]
Continuing, on page 81, Stenger decides to cremate Popper and falsificationism by declaring that Einstein's Relativity has not proved Newton's Mechanics wrong (philosopher, at Colorado...).
I'm not even sure what he's referring to when he says Stenger is trying to “cremate” Popper. Popper isn't even mentioned on the page (or the page before that) and all Stenger is explaining (using some of Newton's laws as examples) is how the process of science works and how something is 'proved' in science, and that in certain situations special relativity replaces Newtonian mechanics. Julio doesn't seem to even grasp what Stenger is discussing.
Then, on pages 146/147, Stenger concludes that "reincarnation is falsified beyond a reasonable doubt" because no one "remembers something from her previous life that she could not possible (misspelling of possibly) have known and that is verified as correct by other, objective means." He forgets completely about the works of Ian Stevenson and followers (acknowledged even by Carl Sagan as early back as 1995), instead of beginning a true scientific investigation of the subject by, for example, reading the following recent high quality citation: "Children Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives: Past, Present, and Future Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 543-552, 2007. Jim B. Tucker." Again, where is Science? Where is Reason?
In his footnotes Stenger does cite one of his books that briefly discusses a case of fraud and a false report of a woman who allegedly had experienced past life regression and when you research all of the alleged cases of past-lives they all have serious problems. Take one of the people Julio mentions, Ian Stevenson. Stevenson believes (on very shaky evidence) that reincarnation is true because he believes there is a “correspondence between birth marks on living individuals and wounds or other markings on the bodies of deceased persons, and [he and his colleagues] claim the similarity of these marks is too strong to result from chance alone.” The problem is that these cases were not examined thoroughly enough and are based not on close inspection of a body or photographs but anecdotal evidence. [9] It also seems that a lot of Stevenson's research is badly done and is even criticized by other paranormal researchers. [10] I unfortunately couldn't find any detailed information about Tucker's paper so I cannot comment due to lack of information about him and his research.
Similarly, Stenger does not present any feedback whatsoever about the best studies (and the best results) from the parapsychological research, including the results from "telepathy" studies using the Ganzfeld protocol. These have been published somewhat regularly on prestigious mainstream scientific journals.
There also seems to be several problems with
On page 212, Stenger tells us that "(Fritjof) Capra does not tell us to turn inside," even though, at the very first paragraph of the epilogue of "The Tao of Physics," Capra explicitly talks about it...
Irrelevant and is a major example of what I like to call nitpicking.
On page 107, Stenger decides to believe that polytheism is good, while monotheism is bad (???).
Stenger is discussing the book God Against the Gods and how the author argues that even when polytheistic tribes overtook another civilization they would continue to allow the conquered village to worship their own gods, but this all changed when monotheism became the dominant belief. Stenger wasn't saying anything of the kind that Julio attributes to him.
And on page 152, he desperately tries to belittle the "Love Thy Enemy" breakthrough in true humanism from Jesus (or "Jesus," if you will...) by saying it is similar to the Taoism concept he mentioned a little above it, when actually it is very different! (they mention something like "Love the Bad Guys" and not "Love the Bad Guys who Bully You" - that is very different).
This next criticism seems very confused and hard to understand. All Stenger is talking about are the different forms of the “Golden Rule” but emphasizes that in the bible the “Love thy neighbor” passage is actually only directed towards a fellow member of your tribe. According to Hebrew scholar Harry M. Orlinsky, the Hebrew term re 'eka, which is translated as “your neighbor,” is best understood to mean “your fellow Israelite.” [12] Stenger isn't trying to ridicule anything. He's simply explaining what most scholars already know.
Finally, on page 183, Stenger, again, refuses to acknowledge the discussions that took place in his own email list (avoid-L), by saying that "experts in statistics uncovered a number of errors in Radin's (Dean Radin) analysis, rendering his conclusions useless." He cites for that Stokes and I.J.Good. Since 2005 I have been telling Stenger that this is wrong information. First, Radin has incorporated Stokes criticism in his analysis, and found his results still robust. Second, Radin replied to Good in Nature scientific journal, correcting the wrong numbers Good had worked with. We had a heated discussion over that in the avoid-L email list. Main contenders in this instance were William Jefferys and Brent Meeker. The former, a renowned statistician, referred to Radin's works as "*shiHhHhHhnonsense*." I asked him to indicate two scientific articles by Radin with problems. He never presented any... As to Meeker, he told me "Interesting that data in a sixty year old book (Rhine's) which is supposedly at the foundation of a whole field of research is not available in the public domain. Why don't you just buy the book and tell the list exactly what these results are that Radin says imply odds of 10^21 or 10^2000"? And so I did exactly this. I bought the book by Rhine (U$ 50,00) and gave it for free to both Meeker and Jefferys. Can you believe what they did? Absolutely nothing whatsoever! All the while I had been in contact with Dean Radin, who was always offering to help in the analysis if and when Meeker and Jefferys did their part or seemed willing to. Jefferys decided to close his email account to me (!?). And Meeker...fled. Vic Stenger saw all that. And did, and said, nothing. Now, he just...forgets (reminds me of Ronald Reagan on the Contras affair...).
More pointless drivel and another case of including personal, unconfirmed stories about this forum that do not belong in a review. For all his nonsense towards Stenger about not relying on the scientific method and presenting evidence most of this review was nitpicking and Julio failing to back up his assertions, relying instead on hearsay about discussions that may or not have taken place on an internet forum, email mailing list, or whatever it is.
So this is all that the New Atheism is about: lies and deceit. Where are the scientific studies that show that *religion* (or *faith*) is evil? Nowhere. Where are the scientific studies that show that *atheism* is beneficial? Nowhere. Similarly, where is Science and Reason in the New Atheism movement?
Needless to answer...
If anything, mostly what I've uncovered is Julio's obvious personal dislike of Stenger which seems to be tarnishing his objectivity and he is the one who was found to be dishonest several times in this review, often taking Stenger out of context or misrepresenting what he said. So I guess I can ask Julio the same thing: where is Science and Reason in this review? It's nowhere to be found.
I will now begin my debunking of the continuation of Julio's “review” on his website at the aforementioned address.
Julio begins his critique with the following argument:
Page 14, Stenger says: "The gods most people worship purportedly play an active role in the universe and in human lives. This activity should result in observable phenomena"... Then on page 159 we have: "We have seen that science is fully capable of detecting the presence of a benevolent god who plays an active role in the universe. So far, it has not done so. Furthermore, a strong case can be made that such a god should have been detected by now, so that absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence."
Basically, Stenger is right. But we should be cautious, though; and by that I mean that Stenger ended up going much farther than the "basic safe area," so to speak, with these assertions above (and similar assertions from him are to be found widespread [sic] thoughout his book).
Further, if the reader looks carefully, his second assertion (from page 159) is rather contradictory. First Stenger says science is fully capable of detecting the presence of a benevolent god who plays an active role in the universe; let's call him Bgwpaaritu. Then he says that Bgwpaaritu should have been detected by now. Well, if science is fully capable of detecting Him, then Bgwpaaritu simply had to have been detected by now, and not simply should have been detected!
But getting back to my "being cautious"...: it is commonplace in science that ubiquitous (sometimes even omnipresent) phenomena and entities go on undetected for centuries. Bacteria; electromagnetism; and now... Dark Energy! Dark Energy is currently believed to amount to 72% of everything that there is. And it was discovered just around ten years ago...!!! So when Stenger says fully capable, maybe we should read pretty handicapped... Another interesting instance would be consciousness (subjective experience, the so called Hard Problem as stated by philosopher David Chalmers). Subjective Experience is believed to be ubiquitous among human beings. Yet, the causal connection between subjective experience and the brain (consciousness -> brain) is as yet undetected (and it has been this way for millenia...). A science that is fully capable of detecting Bgwpaaritu should be more than fully capable of detecting this causal connection from consciousness to brain. Another interesting related issue is the detection of advanced aliens among us (in UFO or whatever). Stenger says that absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence when the evidence should be there but is not; we see an interesting element of probability implicit to Stenger's approach. The late Carl Sagan used to say the opposite, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Both statements are right, to a certain extent and if observed with discretion. However, whenever I think about the alleged evidence for highly advanced aliens among us, I a similar, though utterly opposed, assertion dawns on me: evidence of evidence is evidence of absence! This is so when the evidence is there but should not be there! (or could not be there at all). That has to do with Clarke's Third Law, that states: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." This "law" was not issued by a scientist, but by a science fiction writer instead, Arthur C. Clarke. It seems pretty ingenious, though. And accordingly, I always thought "How come we can detect such highly advanced civilizations? If we are really detecting aliens and UFOs, then we must be being visited by the most stupid civilizations in the whole universe"! So, the god that Stenger renders fully detectable (Bgwpaaritu) must be a pretty dumb god indeed. Surely not mine (or yours, I guess...)... [emphasis in original]
First of all, there was no contradiction between the two statements Julio cited. In both Stenger was arguing how a god, such as the traditional Christian god, should be detectable since “he” is claimed to intervene in the world and in the lives of humans in particular. There are many prayer studies that have been done and none have turned up anything. [13] There is no sign of any design or fine-tuning in the universe either (see Stenger's books, even the current one under “review”).
Second, making up your own imaginary god and saying “he” should be detected by now is entirely illogical and adds nothing to the argument.
Stenger's argument is entirely rational. If there were such a thing as a personal god who fiddled with the universe, answered prayer, and interacted with the world in numerous other ways surely our senses and highly sensitive scientific instruments should have detected it by now, but we haven't. Therefore, the evidence that should be there for such a personal god isn't there and counts as evidence against the Christian god.
On page 19, Stenger "quotes" Heraclitus...: "Religion is a disease." Note the full stop after disease. Well, I didn't buy it. So I went to look it up on the internet. Look what I found... Heraclitus' true quoting should have been: "Religion is a disease, but it is a noble disease." Note the comma after disease, instead of the full stop. Stenger, again, lied. Using Google and inputting the string heraclitus religion is a disease, the seven first results explicitly mention the phrase this way above, with the comma followed by the noble comment. I did not find the quote the way Stenger used it, with a full stop after disease.
The link below provides the following quotes from Heraclitus (chosen by me for having some relation with religious issues):
http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Ancient_Philosophers/Heraclitus.htm
Human nature has no insight, but divine nature has it.
- A man is called infantile by a divinity as a child is by a man.
- Disease makes health pleasant and good, hunger satiety, weariness rest.
- God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, satiety and hunger, but changes the waywhen mingled with perfumes, is named according to the scent of each.
- Nature loves to hide.
- The Lord whose oracle is at Delphi neither speaks nor conceals, but gives a sign.
- To God all things are beautiful and good and just, but humans have supposed some unjust and others just.
- It is not good for men to get all that they want. Sickness makes health sweet and good, hunger plenty, weariness rest.
And an interesting reflection on this issue can be found in the link below:
http://www.luc.edu/dccirp/pdfs/adomenas1.pdf
So, we can safely conclude that, Victor Stenger IS a disease.
I brought up this 'lie” to Julio on Amazon.com and I find it just as idiotic now as I did then. Stenger did not lie. Heraclitus did indeed say religion is a disease! No, Stenger did not quote the final part, that it is a “noble disease,” but to any rational person Stenger didn't lie! He quoted Heraclitus correctly!
And more ad hominem, and a pretty nasty one too.
On page 22, Vic says: "We love life even more than the believer, because that is all we have." Ridiculous. Stenger should not be using absolutes when talking about the unknown. Again, he is being unscientific. I agree that it may be that the average atheist-materialist is more attached to life (or even love life more) than the average religious man. But to state that as a fact is stupid. Just as it is stupid to say that "We religious people love life more than the atheists because it is a gift given to us by the Lord Almighty." In my humble opinion, it is never wise to say that our love is greater or bigger than someone else's love...
This is a pointless criticism. The fact is that most atheists do love life more than a believer simply, as Stenger said, because it's the only one we have. There is no belief in an afterlife for atheists so we cannot focus on that. Perhaps if the men who committed suicide on 9/11 believed, like atheists believe, that there is no afterlife, they would have been more reluctant to kill themselves? Regardless, this is more nitpicking and isn't even a main theme, let alone an argument, in the book. It's simply Stenger presenting an atheists' point of view.
On page 29, we see an interesting report of atheists disagreeing among themselves. It seems that the New Atheists are a small and despised subset among atheists. Stenger talks about a meeting called Beyond Belief at the Salk Institute in San Diego, in November, 2006. He says "The videos of the entire conference were still on the Web as of this writing"... Top scientists, mostly atheists, attended the event. Stenger continues: "I was somewhat taken aback by the benign view of religion presented by the atheistic scientists other than Harris and Dawkins." And further on: "Other atheist speakers came down hard on Harris and Dawkins, arguing that their approach will not earn any converts to atheism and asking what right do atheists have to deny believers the comforts of faith." More recently, these kind of tensions have helped ouster Paul Kurtz from his position of chairman of the Center for Inquiry (this link). So we can see that being an atheist does not equal being a lunatic. New Atheists are lunatics. But they are a tiny minority among atheists.
More nitpicking. There is nothing wrong with disagreements between atheists, particularity on such a topic as the harmfulness of religion, which has its share of supporters and detractors. Here Julio spouts off with more ad hominem. Of course, the fact is that religion does cause much harm as Stenger discusses in his New Atheism book.
On page 35, Stenger mentions Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995, where Dennett advances the notion that darwinian mechanism may account for what happens elsewhere besides the living organisms' world. Interestingly, the same idea was advanced the same year (1995) by Gary Cziko in his book Without Miracles. This book from Cziko is a must, and it is available (through the author's own courtesy) online for free. I believe it is better than Dennett's, though I cannot guarantee it because I did not read Dennett's. [I didn't bother to include any links. Didn't feel the need in this case.]
This isn't even any form of objection. Moving on...
On page 244, Vic hallucinates: "The message of New Atheism... ...Religion is an intellectual and moral sickness that cannot endure forever if we believe at all in human progress." So this is the message of the New Atheism? Religion is a moral sickness. When reading such "phrase," one could not be said to be overreacting if he/she says that Stenger is Sick...
More pointless ad hominem. In many cases religion can be a moral sickness, especially when so many theists try to defend horrible atrocities, such as Paul Copan [14] and those who defend similar atrocities, such as William Lane Craig, who in a recent debate with Sam Harris (Is Good From God?, April 7, 2011), held up Copan's book approvingly.
On pages 114 and 116, we witness Stenger trying to acquit atheism of all charges. Let's hear it from the old man. Page 114: "So chalk up at least six million twentieth-century deaths to religion (Stenger here is talking about the Jews killed by Hitler - Stenger's logic is that Jews were being slaughtered because of their religion, and if they had no religion they would not have been slaughtered; this all despite some claims that Hitler himself was an atheist..., which, according to Richard Dawkins, is something debatable, whereas for Stenger it has already been proved to be false...). Now, what about Stalin and other communist dictators? (Vox) Day (a libertarian writer) and other anti-atheists refuse to accept the new atheist argument that the communists did not commit their murders in the name of atheism. As Dawkins put it, 'What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. That is not the smallest evidence that it does.' (The God Delusion, page 273)" Then, page 116: "In his 2005 book, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, Iowa State Religious Studies Professor Hector Avalos reports on his examination of archival materials released after the fall of the Soviet Union. He found no evidence that Stalin killed because of atheism. Rather, the data indicate that Stalin's genocide was driven by the politics of forced collectivization." (Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. pages 326-331, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books).
What is wrong with all this logic, from a scientific point of view? Stenger and Dawkins (and buddies) are committing one of the most serious mistakes a scientist can commit: They are taking for granted the word of their subjects of investigation... They are being gullibly deluded (or they are pretending to be..., so as to dishonestly advance an idea that they themselves know to be a lie) by the face value of their object of inquiry. If Charles Darwin had fallen prey to this amateur pitfall, he would never have gone past Intelligent Design. Freud would never have dreamed of the unconscious. And Einstein would have thrown away the results that showed the speed of light to be the same regardless of the reference point (for, at first sight, the "face value" of these results spelled: faulty experiment). People may say "We are doing this in the name of God." But we, as scientists, are not supposed to believe it. We are supposed to go deeper. People may also not say that they are doing something because of atheism. Again, we are not supposed to believe it. Rather, we ought to go deeper.
To a certain extent, atheism did play a part in the actions of communists. The source of communism is the notion of Dialectical Materialism. This is a very ingenious and pretty much scientific view of how human history evolves and of how human societies develop. It was mostly crafted by Karl Marx. Basically, it evolved out of (and in opposition to) previous idealism (especially Hegel's), and idealistic views of history. Marx rejected idealism. Human society, groups of people, nations, the wheel of history, are not driven by ideas. It is all driven by matter, by the material world, by the ways that we relate to and articulate with the material world, especially through labour (i.e. the basic modes of production and maintenance of the human existence) and all the organization and social structures that are built upon it, and further on through the clashes of the different social classes and different social interests. This view of history, Dialectical Materialism, was a breakthrough in understanding, just as much as was the evolution of life through natural selection or the human unconscious mind. And, similarly, it intrinsically...leaves God aside. So we can indeed call this a Dialectical Atheist-Materialism.
Now, from this primeval notion, several tentative "practical applications" have spawned. After all, if we understand how societies work, then we can act on them to our desire and change them to our will, perhaps creating social systems that are more just and abolishing the atrocities of capitalism, right? Well, not really quite so. Marxists and communists did believe they already could change society. But just as evolutionary biologists and psychoanalysts were soon to find out (and also nuclear physicists...), to understand something is not quite the same as to be able to manipulate something. As Morpheus would have it: "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." (The Matrix, 1999. © Warner Bros.). Atomic bombs were hard to develop and fusion reactors are still to come; DNA was hard to discover and for further decades hard to manipulate; the diseases and sufferings of the unconscious are hard, perhaps impossible, to cure; and social revolutions are very hard to carry out. Nevertheless, the recipes for revolution abounded. And they all traced down to... Dialectical (Atheist)-Materialism. If God were in the prime equation, the actions of communists would have been different. I am not saying that they would act better. I am saying that they would act differently. Sometimes "better"; sometimes "worse." Sometimes more successfully; sometimes less successfully. And what I am saying and concluding is that our actions trace down to all of our prime ideologies; and the complete ideology behind communism entailed the leaving out of God; for good, just well as for bad. (emphasis in original)
This is the section that I tried to discuss with Julio on Amazon.com. I think it's very obvious he was bullshitting me. I've had experience with Christians, such as David Marshall, who use similar tactics when their arguments are exposed as vacuous: they simply claim that you misread them or “can't understand the English language” to quote the asshole David Marshall. Similarly, this theist of sorts (he is somewhat vague even on the issue of his beliefs when I asked him about it on Amazon) claimed I lied about him, posting a large piece in the comments section under his crappy review of The New Atheism. As can be clearly seen, I did no such thing. For whatever reason, he is the one who is lying. To be blunt I can't believe how stupid the guy is. I mean, if you're going to lie about something your own website says at least have the brains to change what you claim you didn't say! But that's good news for me since I have irrefutable proof of this guy's dishonesty. Not only about me but about the argument he made.
Because I've already addressed Julio's mistake about Communism and Dialectical materialism on Amazon I'll just copy my response from there.
Julio clearly doesn't understand Marxism or Communism since he wrongfully believes that this “ Dialectical materialism” has anything to do with atheism. It does not. It was simply a belief that:
1. Nothing but the material world exists, which doesn't even imply atheism anyway since atheism is only the absence of god belief, not the immaterial world. If it were true that atheism was synonymous with materialism we wouldn't see any atheistic religions, such as animsim, that also contain beliefs about an immaterial realm. This early religion doesn't contain beliefs in gods (theism) but does contain a belief in an immaterial dimension. Some atheists even believe in the supernatural, disproving the notion that atheism and materialism are one and the same. They are separate issues.
and,
2. Historical change takes place based upon the tension between thesis and antithesis, which results in an advanced synthesis. This belief about history doesn't even need to be materialistic, but for Marx it was. In other words, atheism doesn't even logically follow from dialectical materialism.
It's funny how Julio makes use of Vox Day as a source, especially since I just recently finished a very detailed refutation of The Irrational Atheist. Not only is Julio wildly incorrect about Marxism and dialectical materialism, but even Vox Day doesn't help Julio's case as much as he thinks since Vox said the following in The Irrational Atheist,
The reason Communism has so habitually devolved into violence is because it is an impressively stupid vision that violates both basic human nature in the form of the individual’s desire for material betterment as well as the economic law of supply and demand. Its early institution was such a disaster that Lenin was quickly forced to revise some of his more dysfunctional policies, but he was the first in a long, lethal line of Communist leaders who made a practice of always attempting to force their populations to fit the Communist mold instead of adjusting the utopian vision to fit humanity. (emphasis mine) [15]
Of course, I am well aware that Vox tries to make the same case Julio is, but Vox's argument is nothing more than an enormous case of a logical fallacy: cum hoc ergo propter hoc; correlation does not imply causation. So, in reality, Vox pinpointed precisely why the Communists committed the atrocities they did and it wasn't because of atheism, but their Communist ideology. I go into more detail on this subject in my refutation of The Irrational Atheist.
As a final exibit for necropsy, I show below a rather long extract from pages 128/129:
I have noted that the New Atheism movement was most likely triggered by the events of September 11, 2001. Sam Harris admits this was his motivation for writing The End of Faith. Its market success, and that of the other best sellers by new atheists, was probably also a product of that horrendous day. Although President Bush and other leaders tried to gloss over the religious significance, insisting Islam was "a religion of peace," most Americans were struck by the sheer religious nature of the attacks. Only the most muddle-headed academics, such as Noam Chomsky (see chapter 1), blamed the violence on American oppression of Muslim nations.
Still, many critics accused the new atheists, and Harris in particular, of not having a sufficient understanding of Islam to draw the strong conclusion that Islam is an inherently violent religion whose members are driven to fanaticism by their faith. One such critic was my personal friend and colleague, physicist Taner Edis of Truman State University. Edis grew up in a secular family in Turkey and has studied Islam extensively. His book An Illusion of Harmony is an invaluable reference on science and Islam.
In his commentary on Harris in Free Inquiry magazine, Edis objects to Islam being portrayed as a violence-obsessed religion based on quoting "verses of the Qur'an that promise sadistic punishments for unbelievers in the afterlife, urge fighting against infidels, and otherwise show an unhealthy preoccupation with vengeance and violence." Edis explains that "Ordinary Muslims depend heavily on their local religious scholars, Sufi orders and similar brotherhoods, officially sanctioned clergy, and other mediating institutions. They hold the Qur'an sacred, but their understanding of what Islam demands comes through their local religious culture."
Whether murderous Muslims influenced by their own reading of the Qur'an or by religious leaders, they still commit their murders in the name of Allah. Neither Harris nor any of the other new atheists condemns the great majority of Muslims as terrorists. But we hold them responsible nonetheless for the undeniable fact that their religion played an important role in the terror of September 11 and in the continuing warfare against modernity waged by Muslim extremists worldwide. The fact that the majority of Muslims do not read the Qur'an but learn their religion from their mullahs just demonstrates a fact about all religions, including Christianity. Christians do not read the Bible, either. If they did, they wouldn't be Christians. They listen to the selected verses read from the pulpit and taught in so-called "Bible study" sessions.
Bruce Lincoln, a professor of Divinity at the University of Chicago, has written about the religious implications of September 11 in Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 21, He concludes: "It was religion that persuaded Mohamed Atta and eighteen others that the carnage perpetrated was not just an ethical act, but a sacred duty."
Lincoln offers convincing evidence that the attacks were deeply rooted in Islamic thinking. That evidence is provided in appendix A of Holy Terrors, which presents the final instructions Mohamed Atta gave to the other hijackers, three copies of which have survived.
No one reading these can possibly view Atta, at least, as a "freedom fighter" seeking to right injustices perpetrated on his people by the United States. The hijackers are urged to think of the Prophet, pray continuously, and read select suras from the Qur'an on what God has promised martyrs. They are to shower, shave excess hair, and wear cologne so they will be clean when they enter heaven.
They are to purify their souls from all unclean things and completely forget something called "this world" or "this life." [Yes, I double checked to make sure he quoted Stenger accurately. He did.]
Well, there is so much to comment on this above. But I will try to be as concise as possible. First, it was not only Noam Chomsky that was wise, informed, and honest enough to name the true culprits in the September 11 affair. Journalist Michael Moore did a splendid job with his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004). Also, some years before it, he did the same with Bowling for Columbine (2002). Had Stenger watched the latter, he would know about the millions of people worldwide that have died because of USA capitalism (if I recall correctly, more than 4 million deaths in the last 50 years). And perhaps then he would start accepting the possibility (possibility...) that all this too might (might...) have played a part (a part...) in the September 11 affair. Then Stenger talks about his friend, Edis. The man (Edis) did bring enlightening and robust insights to this debate. Yet, Stenger was not wise enough, or honest enough, to understand these insights and to accept them. So typical... Stenger tries to sell his nut-brained view that all Christians and Jews and Muslims should be seen as if they were following the "same God." (perhaps Bgwpaaritu...). However, we as scientists have to go deeper and understand that although this is what they say, this is not what they do or what they are (i.e. this is not the way they behave). And, naturally, it just had to be so. The holy texts that these believers "follow" are filled with contradictions. In some passages, "Kill Thy Enemy." In other passages, "Love Thy Enemy." In some passages, "Stone the Adulterous Women." In other passages, "Forgive the Adulterous Women." What is one to make of this? And why is this this way to begin with? The "holy texts" have been created during a considerably long span of time, thus reflecting different times and ideas and peoples. Further, they have been to a certain extent "tampered with." And so they were "created." After this, during the centuries that followed, religions (i.e. the various sects of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) have changed the way they interpret these texts in light of the changes of society, including the advent of science and its changing views. Religion, or better, religions, are far less irrational than Stenger seems to think. They adapt. They interpret and re-interpret their own texts. So, what Stenger and his Gang are doing is to get the religious guy who lives according to the "Live and Let Live" motto and condemn him as the guy who lives according to the anthem "Live and Let Die." This is not rational. This is not scientific. And above all, this is not fair.
As I said above, I agree that religion wasn't the only motivator, but the fact that the hijackers committed suicide (and did so in accordance with their religious beliefs, and “knowing” they would be going to paradise) it's more than clear that religion was a factor. I'm not even sure of the relevance of his other comments. Whether or not the “holy” texts have changed doesn't mean people do not follow them. As I noted earlier Paul Hill certainly did when he not only committed murder himself, but condoned another murder of an abortion provider as well. The hijackers on 9/11 certainly did when they flew the planes into the twin towers.
I think this picture is fitting to drive my point, and that of Stenger's, home...
In order to emphasis something completely ridiculous Julio said above,
So, what Stenger and his Gang are doing is to get the religious guy who lives according to the "Live and Let Live" motto and condemn him as the guy who lives according to the anthem "Live and Let Die." This is not rational. This is not scientific. And above all, this is not fair.
What planet does he think he's living on?! It's the religious right who are trying to insert religion unconstitutionally into the government, and foist it on others. It is religious fundamentalists and creationists who are trying to, again unconstitutionally, force religious dogma on children in school. Now, just who lives by the motto of “Live and Let Live?” Certainly not these theists who do such things. After all, it was because of the fundamentalist Christians and Islamists who did not (and do not) allow others to “Live and Let Live” and caused the New Atheists to write their books in protest and to amass fellow secularists and nonbelievers to say, “Enough is enough!” Sorry, Julio, but in many cases it's actually the other way around.
Julio continues and sums up,
In the bottom of the above excerpt, we see an unwise Lincoln tying Atta solely to religion. Yet, there seems to be a somewhat little detail slightly incorrect in all this. Atta and friends have attacked the...wrong country! They should not have attacked the USA. If indeed they had been driven solely or mostly by religion, they should instead have attacked Brazil! My country. Not the USA. We (Brazil) are the biggest Catholic nation in the world. We (Catholics - I myself am not a Catholic, but that is of no consequence in this matter) have been the greatest foes of Muslims of all times. Further, during carnival, this country of mine seems, at least in some places, to go Sodom-Gomorrah! Shouldn't the Muslims be pouring rains of fire and brimstone upon us then? Instead, they live here, side by side with us, like ebony and ivory, in harmony. No fight. No overt criticism to each other. How come, Mr. Professor of Philosopher at Colorado Vic Stenger?
Unfortunately, Stenger and friends do not seem to follow honesty wherever it leads. His "friends" include the avoid-L members, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, countless of the so called new atheists, and seemingly too new atheist John W. Loftus (aka the cowboy who chickened out). The actions of these people on this matter is an utter disgrace to our world. They are helping make the world a worse place. I do not believe they really have sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, or even anyone else they really care about in this world. Worse. They may have (and, shockingly enough, some do!). But they act as if they do not...
This is the last time ever I write about Victor Stenger. I tried to talk some sense of social responsibility into his mind. For the last five years. I failed miserably. You can count that as one more piece of evidence suggesting that God does not exist...
Julio Siqueira - This text above was finished and revised on January 14, 2011.
His opening “argument,” and I use that term loosely, is plain ridiculous. Suicide bombers have attacked countries all over the world, from America to Russia to Somalia to Pakistan.
As he's done throughout his reviews he cannot seem to help but throw out more insults, this time at John Loftus. As I've shown repeatedly, the dishonest one is him. He lied about me. Lied about what his argument was. Misrepresented Stenger in several instances throughout his review. Need I say more? I don't think so.
Now that I've written this piece and effectively refuted his silly arguments, I have to wonder if perhaps it was a communication issue since English may not be his best language, though he seems to understand it well enough. His writing isn't too bad. However, I doubt this is the case. He stated his view about Communism and atheism quite clearly and he still denied it even after I quoted it back to him, so I don't think that was the case.
This is just another wannabe Christian apologist who cannot argue effectively so they must resort to insults and dishonesty. Shame on him.
References
1. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2009; 22
2. On the Army of God website they host writings of Paul Hill's and he explains that it was the bible's sixth commandment which caused him to kill in a piece he wrote titled Defending the Defenseless. Hill writes,
“During the Nightline broadcast, I defended the shooting [of abortion provider Dr. David Gunn by Michael Griffin] on the basis of the Sixth Commandment (which not only forbids murder, but also requires the means necessary to prevent murder). It is not enough to refrain from committing murder; innocent people must also be protected.”
3. At The Guardian, an Oct. 7, 2005 report titled George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq': President told Palestinians God also talked to him about Middle East peace reported this. This is just one example. (accessed 5-23-11)
4. The New Atheism; 116
5. http://www.atlassociety.org/james-watson-dna-charlotte-hunt-grubbe (accessed 5-23-11)
6. The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Atheism
7. The New Atheism; 23
8. Two examples are the following: Scientists and Belief and Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame (accessed 5-23-11)
9. The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (Vol. 1), edited by Michael Shermer, ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2002; 205-206
10. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, by Terence Hines, Prometheus Books, 2003; 108-109
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment (accessed 5-23-11)
12. Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, by Hector Avalos, Prometheus Books, 2005; 140
13. Evidence Against the Supernatural
14. http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-god-moral-compromiser-by-thom-stark.html
15. The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, by Vox Day, BenBella Books, Inc., 2008; 247
Update – 7-7-11
It's a real shame when so many of my critics must feel the need to lie about me instead of engaging with my arguments, and Julio is unfortunately no exception.
On Amazon.com Julio responded to my review of Victor J. Stenger's The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us with a similar lie and smear that I'm all too familiar with. The smear that I post under multiple names. Not that this does anything to show how I'm wrong about anything, but the fact is that these names Julio mentions I've never even heard of. The only names I've ever used on the internet in connection with my blog are The Gifted Writer (on Amazon.com), Arizona Atheist, PrimeTruth (on Amazon currently), and I believe that's it.
It's a real shame that yet another detractor has felt the need to smear me rather than deal up front with my arguments. It seems to me that my arguments are too good to argue against and so many Christians (who are supposed to be more moral, remember!?) resort to smear campaigns and lies about me. I sure as shit hope Julio's smears don't last three or four years like my three other critics.
Posts
