Outstanding exposure in a major publication for reason.  Hopefully, It might make a difference to a few and cause some thinking..

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I do not see that a comment about Santa or God being logical. In fact I see it as a manipulation of the psychological sense, as a means to put a false label on a false story. I neither see much relevance to the rest of the story for the same reason.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I was fortunate, not long ago, to exchange email conversations with Ken Miller.  It was a pleasure, and we parted friends I think.
  Sadly though, Ken Miller, and those like him, believe there exists room within the world of reason to plant the flag of belief.  It can never be so.
  I do look forward eagerly to the debate on Science v. Witchcraft, or Science v. Garden Fairies; delightful.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Good story that will spark reason in more people…I’m hoping.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The disparity between religion and science is an artificially created one. Study of the human body and brain was banned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages in order to prevent people from discovering a hidden secret about the Church who promoted science as opposite dogma. See: BRAINMAN-HOW ANCIENT MAN USED FORBIDDEN BRAIN SCIENCE TO CONTACT TRUE GOD & INVENT THE HOLY GRAIL” at Amazon.com. Additionally, science can indeed explain God and the Bible as well. (Bible writers were scientists.)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Nice article.  Of course, scientists are always debating witchcraft in the venue of mind-body medicine and integrative medicine.  If one takes an absolute approach to establishing “rational” or “factual” science, there would be little room for kindness, prayer or energy work.  Yet, I don’t believe that rational atheists intend to promote an absolutist view.  Many of us who don’t accept religious dogma are also unwilling to accept scientific dogma (which changes daily).  We understand that humans are primates and not prone to more than brief spurts of “rationality,” witness the recent spate of US Governors plunging off the deep end of their egos.

Lest we replace failed religious dogma with failed scientific dogma, we need to find a place in-between where humans can create rational, sustainable culture without deifying either imaginary gods or our imaginary omniscience as a species.  http://www.divineprimates.com

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I refuse to accept that self-styled scientists do not recognize that they are functioning within the
learned behavior patterns of the natural belief process of the brain and remain unaware of the separation of that virtual reality from the objective natural world. Atheism is a belief as much as any deism. The signs of belief include emotional responses to ideas that contradict a belief, feelings of certainty, security, and safety in a comfort zone of self identification.
There has been no example here that anyone has discussed science in a way that is comfortable with degrees of probability or uncertainty without the necessity of emotional defense of an opinion.
The need to discuss religious beliefs rather than understanding the neurology of the belief process is a game played in virtual reality.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Why on earth is it an “either-or” situation??  Why, the need to think that millions of us who believe in a universal thread that ties us all together, somehow believe in Organized Religion?? Why, always, are the debates between Scientists and Catholic Theologians, for example?  Many scientists (Dr. Deepak Chopra, endocrinologist, AND metaphysician) believe that “God” is simply a name for this thread.  There’s a whole world outside of the US’s narrow view and religious fundamentalists of all stripes do not represent those of us who are both “spiritual” and “scientific” in our beliefs.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I personally don’t see the issue. I recently saw a video where the guy proved the existence of god because the “order of things” and the 3rd law of thermal dynamics and conservation of energy… I patiently waited of the when he would bring in Biblical God… He didn’t. That God is dead. However if you were to define God as energy… like the suff that resulted from the big bang and theorize that since we all were seed out of something pretty close to a singularity… the order we see is that energy trying to coalesce into its original state… and that order we see, tied to the id of our left hemisphere is the culprit responsible for God. What the underlying science for super symmetry? No scientist can tell you… whats the “particle” nature of gravity?  Dont know that either… Show me a predicable outcome in evolution… we cant. But science say we should or its not science. God, I believe,  lies within that realm.  It bewilders me why we hang on to words written by people ignorant of reality. God is as much embedding in science as life is embedded the universe. We are the consciousness of the universe wakening to know itself.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

No way to mix God and science: When science advances, God moves off. Any way God is the answer to our own ignorance.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@mtroutDOTcom

I am sorry but I could not disagree more. Your way of defining god, the god of the gaps, is no different in any way to how ancient man invented god to explain lightning, sickness or any other event or occurance which was not yet understood. This is true circular reasoning as is the basis of anything within religion; if you allow yourself to make up the answers then your argument will live forever. Once science answers the unknowns you mention then you will just shift your questions to wherever the boundries of science are at that time. This is not rational and cannot be taken seriously.

And on top of that the statement ‘that god is dead’ is equally unacceptable and a perfect example of how, as long as you’re irrational. the god concept can be modified to fit whatever framework you would like it to fit.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Krause got this in the Wall Street journal? Now that’s he’s associated with the reason Project I wonder how long that will continue!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The only quarrel I would have with the premise of this whole debate is that it seems to make science the antidote to religious conviction. One doesn’t need science to realize that religion is bunk.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

In logic, a single counterexample disposes of a general principle, which must then either be abandoned or revised to include the exceptional case.  In religion, “The religious discourse, for example, is replete with contradictions.  There seems to be something in the religious experience which necessitates its articulation in statements which appears contradictory to the rational intellect.” (Daya Krishna, Religious Experience, Language, and Truth)  So if religion is any example, the human mind denies error.  International relations is another example, with no less serious consequences.  See Robert Jervis’s “Perception and Misperception in International Politics,” Princeton University Press, 1976, and how the psychological phenomenon of premature closure led to them.  This is similar to Herbert Simon’s “satisficing,” a word-blend of “satisfy” and “suffice.”  Simon calls this bounded rationality, which suggests that rationality, like perfection, is never to be attained in human affairs   And unless the universal human faculty of cognitive dissonance can be removed, there appears to be little hope for pure reason generally.  But what may be likely of success is the good ol’ economic doctrine of substitution.  As Paul Weiss put it in “Thank God, God’s Not Impossible,” ” ... men should open themselves to the transcending reality by using symbols those objects which least distort its known nature.”
  So let us then set about creating a new religion, consistent with modern knowledge, human history, and answering to the needs and universals of the human condition.  (Symmetry?)  If indeed it does, then faith in human rationality says that in time such a new belief system appropriate to our times would be generally adopted in place of the old error-filled ways.  Indeed this is how Christianity came to be, both in Rome and in England.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“13. Laurie
The only quarrel I would have with the premise of this whole debate is that it seems to make science the antidote to religious conviction. One doesn’t need science to realize that religion is bunk.”  Yeah, actually one DOES need science to realize that, Laurie.  Religion, for all its bunk, seeks to explain the origin of everything that is.  Science, too, seeks the same goal but, in contrast to religion, has proven itself to be the most successful approach we have in the quest so far.  So, yes, science IS the antidote to religious conviction.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

To maintain that this universe exists without a God or Primal Force is just as preposterous as the beliefs of the koran and Bible thumpers.  The ultimate truth is that we do not know.  An intellectually honest person is an agnostic.  Any other position is hubris.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with saying, “I do not know.”  When in fact I do not know.  Sam Harris cannot prove that there is no God and the Pope can’t prove there is one.  We should all join the ranks of the happy agnostics.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It is very simple .... religion and science are, and have always been, at WAR.  The two do not mix!!  Why is this so hard to understand!!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

15.  Ian—there might be non-scientists, and people who have never studied science who are naturally inclined to reject religion, but don’t do so due to social pressure, going with the flow, etc. Unfortunately, science does not spend the big bucks on brainwashing propaganda campaigns, with tax-free operating budgets to promulgate its legitimacy as effectively.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What should be obvious is that all of the advancements to the human conditions to now in history have a basis in our imaginations, creativity and resulting inventions and innovations the same as resulting from religious beliefs no matter how ridiculous, easily disproven and unbelievable the religious beliefs may seem to be to many today. What makes us all different than robots and computers that depend upon O’s and 1’s at arriving at answers, we, as humans, are capable of going far beyond by the use of our evolving imaginations thanks to being able to believe in a super-human (God) that approves and disapproves of our actions and behaviors.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Also, agnostics are merely people who either can’t be bothered to make up their mind or don’t have the balls to disappoint one side or the other. Agnosticism is the direct result of intellectual laziness.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Agnostics may be as lazy as the next guy, but they are at least willing to freely admit when the topic is beyond his or her ken.  If all of the fundamentalists and atheists would just concede that they are discussing beliefs rather than facts the world would be a better place.  It is just two sides of the same coin.  Rabid atheism is as much a religion as any other.  It is a belief, an opinion, a conjecture, a supposition.  The non-existence of a supreme being is not something that can be proved.  It is an extreme position that ultimately fails the logic test.  Bible thumping is also illogical.  People can argue about it all they want, but they should acknowlege that they are discussing opinions and not provable facts.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“activist god” ... well put.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@21. Peter Brown

Personally I’m getting a bit tired of the old tactic of trying to claim atheism is also a bliefsystem and therefore has no superior position in the debate.
Atheism by definition is a lack of a belief. There are actually very few atheists that would straight out claim there is no god. Even Dawkins showed with his 7 step scale that he’s not a strong atheist, as believers in no gods are called. It is just very cumbersome as an atheist to explain every time that there is no evidence of a god, but that against all odds it is technically possible for a god to exist. Atheists know this and assume this knowledge when discussing their beliefs. Most intellectual theists know, or should know, this as well.

But aside from this point, the atheism-is-a-belief concept gets dragged up to try to level the playing field. Even if atheism was just a belief, it still has a lot going for it. The problem is that you can’t prove a negative, but that doesn’t mean that both sides are equally likely. Every failed attempt to prove theism is evidence against it. Every failed prophecy, every unanswered prayer, every claim that has to be taken metaphorical instead of literal is evidence that theism is wrong, and as a consequence evidence that atheism is right. If one would use scales for evidence instead of only looking for an all out proof the atheism side would be overwhelmingly superior to the theism side.

There are facts, lots of them even, and every one of them points in the direction of a universe without a god.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Krause’s succinct piece is the first (and apparently last) rational statement in this debate.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Dear Sander - - You cannot actually be arguing with an agnostic, can you?  I do not know if there is a god or not.  This is not because I am lazy, nor am I a groundsman trying to level anyone’s field.  I am just saying that an opinion is not a fact.  Whether you like it or not, most of the people on this planet do believe in some sort of God.  You and I have every right to keep them out of our classrooms, but we have no reason to antaginize people with statements for which we have no logical excuse.  Maybe, we could acheive our goals more effectively if we all just said, “I don’t know.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Well, Lawrence you certainly are an obvious adherent of the Harrisian sect of the New Atheist denomination of atheism.

Firstly, atheism has nothing to do with science nor science with atheism.

The methods and fields of science upon which some atheists claim to rely was largely established by theists. It was not until some pseudo-clever atheists decided that God and science don’t mix that those greatest scientists of all time where posthumously informed of this new “fact.”

Let us say “presupposing”: presupposing that God exists it follows that God created the material realm in which time allows material causes to produce material effects—why should a theist be surprised that there are material causes to produce material effects? It is only expected.

Moreover, those atheists who, claim to, base their views on science (a multi-faceted fallacy) are purposefully restricting their thinking by exclusively considering the results brought about though methods that are purposefully and necessarily materialistic.

Atheist have their heads in the little box of the material and claim that there is nothing more because they choose to not remove their heads.

Theists can employ science for the tool that it is and also recognize that there is more to the world, life and reality than matter in motion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Peter Brown,

It seems obvious that the fact that we can’t disprove the existence of magical elves doesn’t automatically mean belief in them is equal to disbelief. So why do the rules suddenly change when it comes to the existence of God? At least magical elves don’t have a problem of evil counting against them.

All an atheist is doing is being consistent with the rules of burden of proof.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

God and science can exist together in the same sense that perceived reality and reality can exist together. The two are not the same, but both are necessary if we are to make sense of our world.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

God and science do not dwell together because they were divorced . Initially religion as well as primitive science were used to explain the workings of the world. But after some time science have developed a different methid of understanding reality. Religion
has adapted as its tool magic and does not require evidence. After several millenia most of the humans learned how to practice both kinds of thinking despite t fundamental differences between them
. I would call religions not delusions but a frozen residual from the early barbaric era of human developmenmt.
Now being a believer is like trying to wear baby clothes being an adult. We can not escape the responsibility of being less ignorant than our early predecessors. What was acceptable to ancient Jews writing The Old Testament is ridiculous in the 21 Century.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

From Baal to Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda we humans have been awash in superstitious nonsense since time immemorial.

There’s a sucker born every minute.

It’s nice, I guess, that some scientists can turn off the rational parts of their brains and go to church, but irrelevant.

Deist based religious practice (as opposed to Buddhism for example) does not bear up to scrutiny. Intelligent, rational people are increasingly choosing to free themselves from its yoke and embrace science and the associated morality of secular humanism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Atheism isn’t a belief system, any more than not believing in astrology or Santa Claus reflects belief systems. Not believing that something exists is not the opposite of believing something does exist. I don’t believe in little green men. I don’t have to prove that little green men don’t exist. But if someone claims something does exist, the onus is on that person to prove what they are saying. Especially if what they claim to exist has is allowed to have such enormous influence on human experience. And unfortunately, beliefs in gods of various sorts has some awful consequences. If we could just acknowlege that those beliefs reflect the human wish for the existance of someone or thing similar to the good parent, someone who knows why things happen the way they do, even if we humans don’t understand, then we could stop allowing the belief to have such influence on human experience. Just because you really want something to be true doesn’t make it so- and that’s basically why people believe in a great parent in the sky. It’s a psychological remnent of being small, helpless, vulnerable children.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Two days ago I twittered this:

Some cardiopulmonary doctors smoke. Of course they ‘know’ better. Some scientists like the way religion makes them feel. Why argue? @dongilmore

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The whole “religious scientist” talking does not originate with atheists.  It is repeatedly injected into various discussions by religionists seeking to wrap themselves in the cloak of rational respectability inferred by an association with science or scientists.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is not intended as a criticism of Mr. Krauss’ article, which I found quite interesting.
He states close to the end: “The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.”  When you actually dig into he details (where the DEVIL is, you know) the Iranian system of government is not all about religious dogma.  The Ayatollahs, or clerics, who run the country do have the religious education but you will find that their basic efforts are more towards protecting their positions and fortunes than the religious welfare of the population.
They are much like the 14th century abbots of England.  They did not participate in the daily monastic life and even though they had a religious education they were CEO’s more involved with economic, social and political issues.  They usually became involved in religious issues only when it impacted the “bottom line.” 
As for the Ayatollahs, The Grand Ayatollah who sided with the protestors, for example, is quite wealthy and his holdings include a section of one of the major highways out of Tehran.  Not much of a holding except that it is now a toll road. 
My personal opinion is that no “world” built by humans can be built on either reason or religious dogma.  There will be elements of pure reason and pure religion but the human factor introduces a “herding cats” element into both.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There are two major classes of believers:

1) Some hold that “God” (Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, or whoever) created the universe just a few thousand years ago. These are ignoramuses and could be dismissed if their numbers were not so large.

2) Others accept sciences’s findings that the universe came into being about 13.7 billion years ago. They maintain that the purpose of “God"s creation was to set forces in motion that he/she/it knew would culminate in Man. To hold this view, they need to believe, further, that “God” waited over nine (9) billion years before creating earth, then another four-plus billion years before creating Man. (And creating Man for what purpose? Because the Almighty was eager for creatures to worship him/her/it?) Though these believers are less silly than than those who reject science outright, they are silly nonetheless.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The only thing that differentiates religious claims from other irrational claims is simply that some religious claims are more prevalent. It is, however, a sad indictment on the failure of our culture to eliminate the influence of bronze age superstitions that we still have to have straight-faced debates on how a virgin birth might be reconciled with biology, or how evolution might be reconciled with the belief in a God that created the universe 6,000 years ago in 6 days. It’s completely nonsensical. In a perfect (read, rational) world these people would be politely but rigorously sidelined to the intellectual margins of our society, to be as readily ignored as the proponents of witchcraft. In certain countries, this has more or less happened (there’s a reason why people consult a medical doctor rather than a witchdoctor when they have an aliment), but these beliefs still persist at a level that far exceeds their philosophical, scientific or moral merit. We simply shouldn’t have to have these debates in the 21st century. But I applaud the likes of Krauss and Harris for doing so.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I consider myself more of a Freethinker than an Athiest, but definitely am on the side of Science and not all those antiquated religious mythologies. My interest, after all these debates that I have read and thought about over the years, has become, if there really were a God, then who was ITS creator, or then ITS creator, and so on and so forth right on down the line down the line. Kind of like looking at yourself in a mirror with a mirror behind you and seeing your reflection as far as the eye can see. Hmmmm?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Phil eloquently presents a point shared by many….that people should be permitted to believe as they wish - “because it makes them “feel better,” and presents no real danger to others.  Unfortunately, we no longer live in a world where ignorant bliss can be blindly accepted or even encouraged.  Sam’s major concern, and one that I wholeheartedly share, is that while the religious moderates permit and encourage the ignorance to continue - and even proliferate, the fundamentalists and extremists - Al Qaeda; the Taliban;  Iran’s Ahmanutjob, etc., are busily plotting our total destruction, and the technology with which to accomplish that goal is improving daily and becoming increasingly available to these religious fanatics.  Meanwhile, our own population’s knowledge of science and rational thought processing seems to be racing in the opposite direction, led by organizations such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute.  For a professional scientific publication such as “Nature” to seemingly “contribute” to this maintenance of ignorance is simply unacceptable. People, and Americans in particular, possess an uncanny ability to bury their heads in the sand, until such time as a bomb detonates in front of them.  At that point they suddenly wonder how something like this could have been “allowed” to happen.  There is one thing of which we can be reasonably certain:  When that first nuclear device is detonated, or chemical/biological weapon is released upon us, “god” won’t be there to prevent it.  Keep up the good fight Sam - eventually they may get it - hopefully before it’s too late.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Haldane (and his son) were such bold men
and to just flat out say
birds fly
bears don’t
that rocketingly rocks

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Great article but I’d enjoy twice as much to actually watch the debate!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Why so many words on who is right.  There are billions of people who believe in gods and religion and many thousands of aethists.  Yet if we are ever to move quickly to a sustainable world, leaving lots of oil and coal for the millions of generations who come after us, we should be spending the effort trying to find ways of working together.  If those interested in gods and religions can come to emphasise that their god made this planet for us, s/he would be delighted if we worked to maintain it just we well as s/he provided it for us.  Perhaps then we can come together in worthwhile discussions on how we can maintain it.  Ho Hum!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Last post was intended for Sam’s debate with Phil Ball and posted with the wrong article.  My Bad. 

    As usual, Lawrence Krauss succinctly and accurately hits the nail on the head.  Science and religious belief will likely never be compatible.    Specific beliefs in the supernatural only survive (in a rational mind at least) until science debunks them, one at a time.  “God” then becomes responsible for the “next” unexplained subject, until such time as science ultimately solves that mystery as well. 
  It is time that the religious recognize the irony of the indisputable fact that they are all atheists with respect to every religion but their own as they watch their unexplained “miracles” fall victim to scientific discovery. one after the next over time.  When this finally occurs, religion as we know it will cease to exist, and the world will be a better place - if we survive long enough to achieve that incredibly worthwhile goal.  We have to hope that Prof. Krauss, and others like him, continue the difficult quest toward achieving rational thinking by all.  Thanks for the great work.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I enjoyed this short article. It gets directly to the point and does so with complete reasoning. I shared it with people from my 15 year old to a very educated friend with the knowlege it would communicate to both. Though to my 15 year old I like to point out that “science” is not a living, breathing, thinking “thing.” Scientists are. “Science” does not care if it is right or wrong. “Science” is not atheistic or religious.” Science” is the method for the way people should think, learn and teach. At that point it probably becomes a “thing” that is inconsistent with susperstition, religion and other forms of fantasy.
Peace.
ejs

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with the fact that science and religion are two different subjects and of course, do not mix.  Who says that they should mix?  They are two subjects that deal with two very different aspects of man’s nature.  One is based on fact and logic while the other is based upon imagination.  You call call it an illusion if you wish but it is a mental construct, the concept of God, developed by man throughout the ages.  This construct was developed through mans’ spiritual nature.  Do we want to nullify or dismiss the idea that man has a spiritual nature?  Perhaps, we should consider how the proponents of science would replace this aspect of mans’ nature.  Better yet, how would our gifted minds, the elite, will replace morality, an important subset of the God concept?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This came just at the right time. Some idiot on another forum was telling about the harmony of Science and god… I just gave this as reference - nothing more to say.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Eons ago in a college Phil 01 class, we debated the question: Does God exist?  And here it is again in 2009, answered routinely in the negative by gangs of rationalists ganging up on religion.  After all this time, perhaps we should ask: Does gravity exist? Apparently gravity is a fact like any other, known at least since Newton’s day.  But gravity is NOT a fact any more than God is a fact.  The term ‘gravity’ expresses a RELATION between Mass and Acceleration. The term ‘God’ expresses a
relation between Man and Creation.

Is it rational to rely on a mathematical relation as proof of existence?  I doubt it, but if rationalists insist, then, is it not reasonable to advance the mathematical order in Nature as ‘proof’ of an order-Maker?

We can measure mass and acceleration and attribute these and other properties/behaviors to ‘forces,’ such as the force of gravity, but these ‘forces’ have no material existence. They are not facts.  The existence of the ‘force’ we call gravity is IMPLIED by the relative motions of bodies in space. Nevertheless gravity cannot be be measured DIRECTLY nor ascertained as material fact.  Absent direct measurement, there is no proof of the existence of gravity; only circumstantial evidence.

Behavior is a fact, a fact which IMPLIES a cause, but says nothing about the nature of that cause. It might be that God is doing it, for all we know. Furthermore, it is not rational to define a cause in terms of its effects and then to turn around and define the effects as the product of the self-same cause. Circular reasoning such as this is not a hallmark of rationality.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

godel2 writes: “We can measure mass and acceleration and attribute these and other properties/behaviors to ‘forces,’ such as the force of gravity, but these ‘forces’ have no material existence.”  Some sentences later, godel2 continues: “Behavior is a fact,”  This is an inconsistency, and that’s a fact.  godel2 continues”. . . which IMPLIES a cause, but says nothing about the nature of that cause.  It might be that God is doing it, for all we know.”  God is doing what, and whatever it is, who is doing (causing) God?  This second question we can answer—human beings.  The God-concept is a human construction that is used to explain everything, including God itself.  In other words, evidence for the existence of God is the actions of God, and evidence that these are God’s actions is this God’s existence.  Hence, given this circular reasoning, it cannot be that “God is doing it for all we know.” To quote godel2: “Circular reasoning such as this is not a hallmark of rationality.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The history of science is a history of mistakes.  But unlike religion, science is self-corrective.  This world is truly unbelievable.  The trees and birds and bugs.  This world is all we got.  I do not think that this world demands a GOD, but this world is mysterious.  May be every atom is part of God.  I do not know.  I am an agnostic that does not know.  I do not want to know.  I just want to walk around in my garden and find strawberries that my grandson eats.  I am a happy agnostic.  The active word is “happy.”  All the best, P

You don't have permission to flag this entry.