Glenn, I am not convinced he does not understand the contradictions in his position. Logic went out long ago.

Qwest should be nationalized for resisting the forces of freedom. And tax breaks to the other telecoms as rewards for their patriotic actions.

seemed a lot better until the first sentence in the second to last paragraph, saying that immunity might all be OK since the government lied to the companies about the legality. Poor companies; so they have no real funds, and rely on moonlighting public defenders for legal opinions on communications law? Oh well, have to keep those rates down for the consumer.

But what is it about Dawkins (as opposed to G&P) that gets some people so fired up? I think he says things in a reasonable way, with evidence, when possible. To me it looks like a great starting point for someone on the other side to say this is where faith comes in and here is how it helps you. But instead it is mostly screeching. So I think studying religion is just studying people by other means.

"In Dawkins' book, one of the things he likes to do is ask people who say they are Christian whether they really believe in X, where X is both absolutely essential doctrine for a Christian, and is also completely impossible to accept if you believe in things like television and GPS systems. He points out that it is considered unconscionably rude to ask such questions. They are embarrassing questions."

That is a pretty answer (to the question I asked above): Dawkins makes people feel really uncomfortable by making them recognize the own inconsistentcy of their beliefs. Is anybody on the "Christian faith" side willing to show how their beliefs are consistent?

"Or are you really asking that theists come onto the atheists' field and play by their rules? In that case. it's a chump's game, like going into a megachurch to debate evolution would be."

A scientist loses pretty quickly without it. It is not required in a church.

"And since you're only interested in factual information about the world, why would you want to argue with me at all?"

Because those with diferent logically inconsistent belief sytems can tolerate only so much stress from their internal BS detectors. Better to argue than fight a war.

If the unknowable world is larger than the knowable one, what is your basis for picking out a specific subset of the unknowable to have faith in?

No, those things were just unknown. We can ask questions that have no answer, ever.

"My point is that it is very dangerous to claim something is unknowable, and while we can always go around asking each other things like "Why do griphons burn green", in terms of real meaningful questions - unknowable isn't a permanent condition."

I know that knowing which are the truly unknowable things is a big problem. It happens to religions all the time. They make hay by explaining the unknown instead of the unknowable, and then 2000 years later that hay got digested, and you know what you are left with.

On the other hand, we now know that any logical system strong enough to be of any value has unknowables, and this should be useful information to those busy trying to make new hay by finding which unknowns are most likely actually unknowables, or at least those that will remain candidates for a reasonable length of time.

Mimi, that is a good answer.

"I think you really do not understand contemporary mainline Christianity and how mainline Christians read "that big book." Most Christians are not literalists and understand that authorial agency is at work--hence, the variations among the synoptics."

"Most", or is it "just some". I am upset by the low level of science education in the US. But that is not the only neglected subject.

"I love how blithely Americans talk about listening in on calls between foreigners, like it's the most natural - and warrant-free - thing one could do."

I have this odd view that everybody on the planet has a right to private communication. But the US Congress certainly has not endorsed this, and don't hold your breath.

Dirk:

"Belief that there is no God is as much a belief in what cannot be known as believing in God. Really, nobody knows anything."

But the two beliefs are not comparable. Belief in God hypothesizes certain specific truths in an infinite set. It is the affirmation of something of zero probablility. Atheism just affirms the zero probability.

Bruce:

"The problem with the notion that the mind is not the result of the neural activity of the brain is the same problem as the notion of intelligent design. They are both dead ends. "

With improved research, the first can be made less likely, and so its a useful hypothesis from that view alone. It would be very interesting if it could be shown to be true.

"(The suggestion that there are problems that science cannot solve is another dead end. It may be true, but it leads nowhere.)"

Defining the limits on what you can know is important information about the logical system. It might lead to better ways of understanding how things work.

Monty:

You are right; Anesko said it really well.

Yes, everyone who can spies on everyone else. But there is a real difference between directed spying (what you had to do then) and searching all communications for certain triggers (which is still underdevelopment, I think). The potential for abuse is orders of magnitude greater, and this introduces new ways for certain unfortunate people to go where no one wants to go.

That is one of the most pathetic things I have ever read. Those experiences are not denied to atheists. And those two are capable of having them more than most.

Glenn, have you any comments on the NR's transition to its new attitude toward government power?