Monday, November 17, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Atheism, a positive pillar

by USA Today

Thanks to "Clapton_is_god" for the link.

Reposted from:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/11/atheism-a-posit.html

It’s not easy not believing in God in the USA. That’s why a group of non-believers is trying to shed the strident image of past atheists by promoting a better side of those sitting on religion’s sidelines.

By Tom Krattenmaker

Being an atheist is not easy in this age of great public religiosity in America. Not when the overwhelming majority of Americans profess some form of belief in God. Not when many believers equate non-belief with immorality. Not when more people would automatically disqualify an atheist for the presidency (53%, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll) than a gay candidate (43%), for example, or a Mormon (24%).

Anti-atheism might have found its ugliest public expression during an episode in the Illinois Legislature this spring. As atheist activist Rob Sherman attempted to testify against a $1 million state grant to a church, Rep. Monique Davis railed, "This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children. … It's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! … You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying!"

Lest we dismiss the legislator's harangue as an anomaly, consider the organizations that bar atheists from membership — the Boy Scouts of America and American Legion, to name two, as well as some local posts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars — and the conspicuous absence of openly atheist politicians on the national stage.

Mindful of atheism's reviled reputation, a new current in non-belief is intent on showing the public what atheists are for. You might be surprised by what's on their short list. Because, save for the belief-in-a-deity part, it sounds a lot like what most Americans value. Care for one's community and fellow human beings, love of country and cherished American principles, the pursuit and expansion of knowledge — these are the elements of the new "positive atheism."

A new face

The reputation of atheists has not been well-served by the surly attacks on religion by some of atheism's highest-profile torch carriers. From the best-selling atheist manifestos of recent years to Bill Maher's new Religulous movie, the loudest voices of non-belief have exhibited much of the same stridency and flair for polemics as the religious fundamentalists they excoriate.

But if Margaret Downey keeps making progress with her campaign to show a different face of atheism, it's possible to imagine the day when avowing one's non-belief will not be political suicide. (It seems to be just that today, given that only one member of Congress, Rep. Pete Stark of California, has revealed that he does not believe in a deity; in view of polling data suggesting that some 5% to 15% of Americans are atheists and agnostics, it seems certain there are at least a few more non-believing senators and representatives in the halls — and closets — of Congress.)

Downey, having recently finished a stint as president of the Atheist Alliance International, is now organizing a non-believers' unity convention to take place in 2011. She is the poster person for positive atheism, a term she uses for a new face of atheism that emphasizes the good things in which non-believers do believe.

Downey does not move in the ways of the late atheist spokesperson Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who was known for her caustic mockery of religion and its followers. And despite Downey's friendship with the outspoken atheist author Richard Dawkins, of The God Delusion fame (who likens the religious indoctrination of kids to child abuse), Downey is more interested in building bridges than walls.

In an episode earlier this year in the Philadelphia area, where Downey lives, the stage appeared set for an atheist-vs.-Christian billboards shouting match: Downey and colleagues had posted a billboard on Interstate 95 saying, "Don't believe in God? You're not alone," prompting a local Christian congregation to erect signs with a counter-message promoting God. Instead of escalating the billboard battle, Downey and company asked those who put up the pro-belief sign to join forces and volunteer with them for a Philadelphia charity. The people from the Light Houses of Oxford Valley congregation accepted the offer and teamed up with the atheists to spend a half-day sorting and packaging food for the needy.

"My goal is to teach by example that we believe in the importance of helping improve the human condition," Downey says. "We atheists simply add one more 'o' to our belief system — we believe in good."

The spirit of positive atheism infused this fall's convention of the Atheist Alliance, which comprises nearly 60 U.S. atheist groups with combined membership of about 5,000. Attendees gave blood and had their hair shorn for use in cancer patients' wigs. At last year's convention, Downey presided over a baby-naming ceremony, where parents and their supporters exalted wisdom, love, honesty and the beauty of nature, and the newborns were given not godparents, but "guideparents."

The leader of positive atheism certainly is not above going to court to protect the rights of non-believers. But in a holiday-season episode last year, Downey and her free-thinking allies responded to a crèche and menorah in front of the Chester County Courthouse outside Philadelphia not with a lawsuit, but a display of their own — a "Tree of Knowledge."The 22-foot-high evergreen was decorated with color copies of book covers, the titles included the Bible, the Quran and numerous other works on religion, atheism and evolution.

When it comes down to it, the positive atheists aren't inventing something new so much as highlighting something that has long been true about atheists. Namely, that non-believers have always stood shoulder to shoulder with fellow citizens doing the things Americans generally do: working hard, obeying the laws, helping the needy and doing what they can to improve their communities.

Let's recall that invective from the Illinois legislator who could not tolerate the malevolent presence of — gasp! — an atheist in "the Land of Lincoln." Monique Davis' reference to the revered 16th president is instructive, although not in the way she intended. Lincoln's own story teaches a cautionary lesson to those who would exclude and condemn some Americans on the basis of their religion, or lack thereof.

Honest Abe's example

Davis might be surprised to learn that Lincoln himself was frequently attacked by politically active pastors in his time. As the author Susan Jacoby documents in Freethinkers, her 2004 book on the history of American secularism, presidential candidate Lincoln rued the opposition he faced from 20 of the 23 Protestant ministers in his hometown of Springfield, Ill. Earlier in his career, Lincoln complained about opposition from religious figures who warned Christian voters against him on the grounds, Lincoln wrote, that "I belonged to no church (and) was suspected of being a deist."

Lincoln — the man accused of insufficient piety in his time — is appropriately lionized today for his unswerving courage and moral clarity. Honest Abe's example strongly suggests that we all think twice before asserting that our religious camp has a monopoly on truth and virtue. And that we acknowledge that non-believers — who can be found all across the landscape engaging in acts of decency and battles for justice — are worthy citizens in a country whose Constitution imposes no religious test and whose tradition cherishes freedom of choice in all matters religious.

Yes, there is a place for atheists in the Land of Lincoln. Especially in the Land of Lincoln.

Tom Krattenmaker, who lives in Portland, Ore., specializes in religion in public life and is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors. His book on Christianity in professional sports will be published in the spring.

Posted: Monday, November 17, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 201 - 238 of 238 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

201. Comment #285951 by MPhil on November 17, 2008 at 9:25 pm

I think you are wrong. Functional power is related to the design.

You're right. I didn't mean to say that it is not related at all to the design specs - it is - but the environment plays a much larger role.

You will forgive me - I hope (cause this is not meant to be rude or condescending at all) for pointing out that I have reason to assume that I know a little more about neural networks and on what factors their specific behaviour and functionality depends.

We inherit only rough architecture - even the physical distribution of neurons and the synaptic topology is shaped mostly by our environment, not our genes.

The idea that there can be major functional changes without evolution being involved does not make any sense.

Yes it does. You don't need to change the building-plan for an already complex neural network to make huge functional changes - you only need to change the training it receives to get networks with hugely different functions and even hugely different levels of functional sophistication. I think you know that you can trust me on this.

Of course there was genetic evolution involved - the increase in size, neural density and complexity of topological architecture in the brain areas responsible for abstract intelligence.

You of all people should know that in complex systems, minor changes of initial conditions can lead to very drastic differences of the behaviour of the system over time. A small genetically encoded increase as above is enough to potentially shift the balance of influence of the cortical subsystems on the behaviour of the individual, so that these areas become dominant. In turn, the entire behaviour of the system changes - even the strategies it employs to deal with the world.

And when this leads to the development of a non-genetically modular tool like our complex language, which is so hugely powerful that it revolutionizes society... there's no mystery.

But the most important point is certainly that of how a change in dominance of functionally specialized subsystems (through genetic changes) can lead to a difference in behaviour is far more drastic than the change which lead to the shift in dominance.

You seem to underestimate the role of the environment. Not just the fact that the training a neural network receives (i.e. the influence of the environment) determines it functionality and functional sophistication (and to an ever larger degree the greater the initial complexity of the neural network)... but also the role of society and culture.

We actively shape our environment - we can learn a new strategy for dealing with a certain problem ...and implement it in society, teach it in schools and research it further. Thus we shape the environment in which our brains develop.

We externalize and consolidate information pertaining to specific knowledge, strategies and functions and whatnot in developing a culture. It gets refined by each new generation - yet it is in no way genetically modular. But it is what determines the training our neural networks receive - and thus the functional sophistication.

[EDIT:]As such, yes, we do inherit many things from our ancestors - but when it comes to our complex mentality, most of that is non-genetic "inheritance" as in being trained and taught by our environment, parents, schools, culture and society as a whole.

Other Comments by MPhil

202. Comment #285954 by NakedCelt on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 pm

decius...

Sorry, I am a bit tired. You can find plentiful of criticism of the naivete of Diamond, who attempts to explain history through geography without providing evidence for his claims.
Here is a link.

...aaand it becomes evident that you don't read the ones you do like either. Callahan isn't saying Diamond has no evidence or is being postmodern. Quite the opposite -- Callahan argues that Diamond is trying too hard to be scientific in a domain where the principles of science do not apply. (That's an automatic Diamond 1, Callahan 0, on my scorecard.) A quote:

The view that "vast, impersonal forces" largely determine the course of history, whether those forces are taken to be "the material conditions of production," as in Marxism, or geographical circumstances, as in Diamond, naturally suggests that individuals can do little to affect their own future.

Let me present a precise logical equivalent...

The view that genes largely determine the lives of living things, whether those genes are taken to be protein or DNA, naturally suggests that individuals can do little to affect their own future.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

203. Comment #285955 by MPhil on November 17, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Addendum:

Our genetic makeup merely defined what our brains can become - but the factors that determine how its functionality will develop specificially are environmental - the training our neural networks receive.

EDIT: "You of all people should know..." - that doesn't sound right. I apologize if this offended you - the English phrase does have different connotations than the corresponding German one. I chose the wrong formulation. I'm sorry.

Other Comments by MPhil

204. Comment #285956 by Steve Zara on November 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Mike-

Our brains are adaptable, sure, but evolution is economical. It would not have had considerable amounts of neural networks hanging around waiting for some future extension of the ability to do abstract processing.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

205. Comment #285959 by decius on November 17, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Comment #285949 by NakedCelt

It seems that I pissed you off.

but we're clearly not talking about the same work.

Or more simply, my interpretation differs from yours. No need to make a spectacle of yourself over it.

Please give me an update on Western Civilization's current plans for dealing with Peak Oil and global warming.

Should I? Are we a failed society, or are we failing because of peak oil?

What gives you and the other doom-sayers this certitude?
Contrary to you, I make no claims of clairvoyance, but chances are we will move to other sources of energy and rule out oil.

that a naked man alone in the middle of the Sahara could provide himself with food, water, and shelter if he simply thought rigorously enough and applied his thoughts to his situation.

Nice straw man, bravo.

I would certainly allow for scarcity of resources to impinge on progress, particularly in extreme environmental situations as in your preposterous caricature.

However, we were confronting native american with western civilisation.
Didn't it occur to you that resources in America were as plentiful as in Europe , and indeed when Western civilisation arrived to America it thrived, genius?

Comment #285954 by NakedCelt

.aaand it becomes evident that you don't read the ones you do like either.

I googled the first article I found as a common courtesy to Bonzai. I didn't read it, nor do I endorse its content, obviously.

If it says that Diamond provides evidence for his pseudoscientific claims, you will find 1000 other which say he doesn't. Look them up for yourself, I don't care.

The parallel with PoMo is entirely mine.

Do me a favour, I am not interested to debate you. Please refrain from further correspondence, or be prepared to be ignored.

Thank you.

Other Comments by decius

206. Comment #285960 by NakedCelt on November 17, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Our brains are adaptable, sure, but evolution is economical. It would not have had considerable amounts of neural networks hanging around waiting for some future extension of the ability to do abstract processing.

Excellent point. And note, decius -- foragers have brains as large and energy-hungry as Westerners'. Make the appropriate deduction.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

207. Comment #285963 by masubi on November 17, 2008 at 10:08 pm

I have often been called a "nice atheist." When people ask me the "what religion" question, I say, "I am a practicing Atheist." That will often spawn an interesting conversation.

Live a good life,

Masubi

Other Comments by masubi

208. Comment #285966 by NakedCelt on November 17, 2008 at 10:19 pm

decius -- One of us certainly seems to be pissed off. The other, I can assure you, is merely amused.

Please give me an update on Western Civilization's current plans for dealing with Peak Oil and global warming.
Should I? Are we a failed society, or are we failing because of peak oil?

Somebody should, not yet, and yes if everybody answers the way you just did. You say we are capable of "thinking abstractly and planning ahead"; was that an example?

Ah, no. "Chances are we will move to other sources of energy and rule out oil." Well, that's all right then. Excellent abstract forward planning, that man. "Chances are."

However, we were confronting native american with western civilisation.
Didn't it occur to you that the resources in America were as plentiful as in Europe , and indeed when Western civilisation arrived to America it thrived, genius?

Please enumerate the domesticable animals of the Americas. Jared Diamond answers this argument explicitly and in great detail. He may be justified or he may be not, but it is clear you haven't bothered to engage with his arguments. Your opinion on them is therefore worthless.

I googled the first article I found... I didn't read it...

I rest my case.

Do me a favour, I am not interested to debate you. Please refrain from further correspondence, or be prepared to be ignored.

Correspondence? This is a public forum, dude. I'll say what I perceive to be true. It's up to the whole forum whether I'm ignored.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

209. Comment #285969 by MPhil on November 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Steve,

Absolutely! That's where the concept of (weakly) emergent characteristics comes in - and that's why it is so important.

The brains of our ancestors who did not have this kind of culture, society, technology, knowledge, sophistication of abstract reasoning etc already had the functional subsystems I was talking about. They developed because they were hugely effective at performing the tasks people had to perform until then - and these are still the rudiments and fundamentals of our behaviour and the tasks most of our brain is engaged in performing. But the shift in dominance of these sub-systems, resulting from a (relatively) minor genetic change but leading to different behaviour is all important here - when those functional areas increased their dominance, the individuals became even better at those tasks the brain initially evolved to deal with... but then, once these areas were on the way to become hugely dominant, they were able to "enlist" the rest of the brain for helping with tasks which it "deemed important", and which, prior to becoming dominant, had little influence on the system as a whole and weren't very sophisticated because they were only a function of sub-system that is largely told what to do by other systems, instead of being in a position to "telling the rest what to do". Thus, cognitive processes of abstract thinking and reasoning could become more far more sophisticated. And the concerted behaviour of the subsystems under the relative dominance of these areas, in interaction with its environment (including other individuals) also lead to new functions, new strategies, new cognitive faculties. And when these were effective, they were passed on through teaching and learning.

The neural sub-systems developed for the tasks our ancestors performed - but it took only a slight change in dominance for the brain as a whole to perform functions that developed socioculturally, (and thus very fast) towards more complex and sophisticated abstract reasoning.

For someone who is so intimately familiar with programming on a von Neumann architecture with linear processing and local representations - it is quite natural to think that for an information-processing system to develop far greater functional capacity, it's not enough to enrich the software (though this can make a lot of difference) of the system, you need an almost as drastic change in hardware. This is not the case with neural networks, especially with neural networks that are as complex as to be networks of networks of networks (...) of functional specialists in hugely complex communication. (a "system of systems").

Since there is no hardware-software distinction in neural networks, and everything depends on weight-distributions, topological organisation (determined largely through learning)... and functionality only develops through the input when the "hardware" is already "running"... the behaviour, especially concerning changes in the functions the system or some part of it performs, is crassly different than a computer.

Neural networks are essentially opportunistic, and a certain "hardware spec" (ie initial configuration) can be very well suited (in fact best suited) to a huge variety of tasks, given the proper training. Their being opportunistic in that way also means that not much is required to change the behaviour, even drastically increase the complexity and sophistication of a certain kind of functions (in this case abstract intelligence, reasoning).

A neural network-system that was developed (through evolutionary mechanisms) to perform a specific range of tasks adequately can very well be ideally suited to perform far more and complex operations.

I should perhaps clear one thing up (I think I didn't deal with this before): It's not that our entire brain's functionality changed radically, only (okay, perhaps not "only", but mostly) the prevalence, sophistication and number of functions concerning abstract reasoning had to change dramatically. Most of the brain-activity still deals with maintaining the body... so even the final change is not that huge when viewed in context of the totality of brain-functions. But it is certainly possible that a slight genetic difference can - through a dominance shift - revolutionize the behaviour and cognitive strategies of the system.

So, no teleology is needed, and neither is it required that evolution lead to the development of a brain "hanging around waiting for some future extension of the ability" - precisely because the neural network that is our brain is so drastically different from von Neumann machines.

NakedCelt,

yes - it was an excellent point. And quite true - but the problem it criticizes simply does not arise in the account I presented.

Other Comments by MPhil

210. Comment #285978 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 11:25 pm

decius

Well, one of the tenet of PoMo is that western values are just another narrative. Western civilisation is therefore no more advanced than any aboriginal culture. This is eerily similar to Diamond's thesis.

When did Diamond say that Western civilization,-- as it stands now,--is no more advanced than aboriginal cultures?

Based on what I read he was trying to understand "why" indeed that is the case (Yali's question)

In an attempt to answer that he asked the broader question of why some civilizations developed into higher level of sophistications while others didn't.

That doesn't sound like denying some societies are materially more advanced than others. It was his starting point.

Maybe I am missing something or you are reading a different book.

I totally agree, but he fails to provide evidence. He just tells a beautiful story. In history departments he is the butt of all jokes.

That is another surprise to me. Actually he laid out his evidence very carefully and made rather compelling arguments based on evidence. You may disagree with his intepretations of the data, but it would be difficult to argue that he did not present evidence.

If it says that Diamond provides evidence for his pseudoscientific claims, you will find 1000 other which say he doesn't. Look them up for yourself, I don't care.

Actually I did look up some of the critics. First off there are quite a few people who disagree on ideological ground, like some Marxists. Those are hardly more "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination.

A common criticism by professional historians is that Diamond overemphasized geography and natural constraints while ignoring finer points such as institutions and culture.

Now first of all if you want to argue like a hard nose empircist there is much more concrete data you can gather from Diamond's angle than by talking about things like "culture".

Secondly, Diamond has acknowleged that he was interested in the broad picture, outlining some powerful natural constraints that sent civilizations on divergent courses in the very begining. He did not address the fine, proximity causes of individual events which are well covered by conventional historians. He looked at 13000 years of human history from a bird eye's view. The critics who argue that he didn't put enough emphasis on say the role Renaissance might have on the industrial revolution are completely missing the point.

I sense that you are offended because Diamond didn't say loudly enough "the West is BETTER". Making this kind of value judgement has nothing to do with science.

Other Comments by Bonzai

211. Comment #286007 by DamnDirtyApe on November 18, 2008 at 12:39 am

I'm a bit annoyed with the whole concept of positive atheism/negative atheism coined by some philosophers.

I think Atheism is a lot simpler than that. The dictionary definition is enough for me.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

212. Comment #286080 by nalfeshnee on November 18, 2008 at 6:02 am

Stop with the whole atheism thing already. It's secular humanism your talking about.

Quite correct.

Atheism and theism are opposite sides of a single coin.

But when you apply each one, you have a whole range of possible philosophies, ideas and concepts available to you.

Yet secular humanism is, on balance, probably the "best" applied theism or atheism for civilization as we know it.

I agree with Sam Harris on this one. Saying one is an atheist is like saying one is a non-stamp collector or a non-line dancer.

We should stop saying why we are not like others ("atheist") and start pointing out why others are not like us ("humanist").

I've said more than once that we should jump-start the adoption of the word "ahumanist"* for those who do not see mankind as the immediate object of their duty, love and responsibility.

* It currently has only 250 Google hits. So it's definitely up for grabs.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

213. Comment #286116 by zythum on November 18, 2008 at 7:39 am

Whenever I am asked my religion I use the term 'nullifidian' - having no faith, especially religious (Chambers).

Other Comments by zythum

214. Comment #286123 by severalspeciesof on November 18, 2008 at 7:53 am

203. Comment #285955 by MPhil & 209. Comment #285969 by MPhil

MPhil,

For what it's worth (and my apologies for horning in on your conversation with Steve Z.)...

From what you are saying about emergent characteristics, would this analogy be sufficient?--

Let’s consider the evolution of the brain as a lever. The environment it’s fulcrum. Change the position of the fulcrum (different inputs) and you get different outputs. The material hasn’t changed, in other words, evolution remains economical, but the results can change drastically…

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

215. Comment #286234 by decius on November 18, 2008 at 11:24 am

Comment #285978 by Bonzai

When did Diamond say that Western civilization,-- as it stands now,--is no more advanced than aboriginal cultures?

He never said so. I apologise for the lack of clarity. I was referring to his interpretation as to how we got here in a position of dominance. According to him, it is by sheer luck - as in a favourable configuration of external factors. In other words, anyone who happened to occupy Eurasia at a time ripe for civilisation, would have achieved the same progress and dominant position.
Which is no different to say that there is no intrinsic qualitative difference of ways, intellect, planning, or even genetic patrimony among ethnic groups.

Actually he laid out his evidence very carefully and made rather compelling arguments based on evidence.

Bonzai, you are not unfamiliar with the ways of science, and you know what a compelling argument based on evidence is. It is not an argument based on systematic pick-and-choose approach at the available body of evidence already established.

This person is rewriting the history of mankind, coming from a field as far apart from History as one can imagine. Did he make his case to the academic community with careful peer-reviewed papers dissecting the various periods in history? He didn't. He went straight to popularising the subject and fed the general public with a blurry simplistic all-encompassing narrative.
This is in itself a huge red flag to anyone with a healthy sceptical attitude towards extraordinary claims.

We shall later examine some of the evidence together, mostly from memory, for I borrowed the book years ago from the library.

. First off there are quite a few people who disagree on ideological ground, like some Marxists.

I am totally uninterested to ideological criticism of all sorts, let's just skip those arguments.

He did not address the fine, proximity causes of individual events which are well covered by conventional historians. He looked at 13000 years of human history from a bird eye's view.

Except that he craps all over the accepted interpretations that those historians provide, just like an obnoxious pigeon. So, hand-waving the unfavourable details won't do.

Claims and evidence.

I have yet to see the epidemiological forensic evidence for much of his germ hypothesis, without which none of what he concludes stands up to scrutiny.

While the smallpox may have contributed to the relatively easy colonisation of the Americas, the claim that throughout history food-gatherers were systematically decimated by contact with food-producers is made up of whole cloth. Infectious diseases acquired from wild game, and travelling the other way, are completely removed from this picture. We may know little about their effects, but there is no reason to assume that they didn't exist in antiquity as well as they do now.

The implication that Europe, contrary to non-agricultural societies, enjoyed immunity to disease developed through a closer contact with livestock is then turned onto its head to explain the fall of Feudalism (in his view, and not without merit, due to the plague), as if the pandemic distinguished between professions and in plain contradiction with the premise.
This is, of course, complete nonsense for which zero archaeological, statistical and forensic evidence exists.
A perfunctory reading of the many contemporary chronicles detailing the effects of the Black Death, with which Diamond is clearly unacquainted, would suffice to dispel this notion.

Let's get now to the most preposterous of his arguments, the one interpreting domestication as if it depended on an intrinsic animal quality that I would call 'domesticability', if you allow me a neologism.

According to Diamond we should understand European dominance by looking at: " The places of origin and the favourable traits of the ancient fourteen species of big herbivorous domestic animals (goat, sheep, cow, pig, horse, camel, reindeer, water buffalo, llama, etc.), the world's major domesticated animals. Only one of them is from the New World--the South American llama. The Old World had natural advantages: it had 72 animal species prone to domestication (13 were domesticated)."

The evidence for the inferior domesticability of other species?
When the Europeans conquered other continents, they didn't domesticate the local wild fauna, therefore it is not possible to domesticate it!

Not for a second would Diamond consider the uselessness of domesticating new wild animals when one could just introduce one's own livestock and rapidly populate an entire continent in a safe and efficient way.

Let's take a look at North America and see what fauna was available in great numbers to the natives before the colonisation.
Among others, we find bison, deer and moose.
Do we have any valid reason to think that domesticating the bison would be difficult or impossible to the local populations if they wanted to? None whatsoever. The ancestor of the cattle, Bos primigenius wasn't significantly different from the bison or the buffalo. As a matter of fact, while the bison is not to the present day a domesticated species, solitary specimens and small groups have more or less spontaneously adjusted to farm life.

What about deer? If the wildest of the bunch, the reindeer, could be domesticated in Scandinavia (where no bovine were available), why should other species, with no significant differences, not be prone to the same treatment?
Moose are just another deer - rescued orphans are known to become completely domestic, and even adults can be easily tamed. As as side-advantage, they survive on almost anything inedible to humans like tree bark.
http://www.excommunicate.net/taming-of-the-moose

Is it reasonable then to think that domestication in general was not an option available to the Native Americans? Certainly not, most likely they simply couldn't figure out the process and relied on the seemingly infinite availability of wild game as if it were a gods-given gift.

To cut short an already-too-long essay, I'll leave it here, even though much of the same could be said about Diamond's ideas about agriculture.
No amount of pseudo-science and pseudo-history a la Diamond will succeed in subverting reality in order to accommodate the intellectually bankrupt ideologies of aracialism and political correctness.

I wish he were right, but he is not.

Other Comments by decius

216. Comment #286244 by JAMCAM87 on November 18, 2008 at 11:55 am

Comment #285637 by decius

"I am an acharlatanist - that includes all forms of deception of the masses and quackery, down to religion."

Comment #285591 by Steve Zara

I am now even against the term "atheist". It makes as much sense to me to be "anti-santa-clauseist". I am simply not deluded

I don't think it is worth being atheist. It's a term that shouldn't even exist. I describe myself as an anti-theist. I am an anti-theist in the same way that I am an anti-fascist.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

217. Comment #286245 by NakedCelt on November 18, 2008 at 11:55 am

The implication that Europe, contrary to non-agricultural societies, enjoyed immunity to disease developed through a closer contact with livestock is then turned onto its head to explain the fall of Feudalism (in his view, and not without merit, due to the plague), as if the pandemic distinguished between professions and in plain contradiction with the premise.

Er... what?

Are you under the impression, or do you think Diamond is under the impression, that there is such a thing as "immunity to disease"? There is immunity to influenza, and immunity to measles, and immunity to smallpox, and immunity to bubonic plague... Just because a population has developed a creditable armoury of immunities against a wide range of pathogens doesn't mean a new one can't decimate them.

And "distinguished between professions" -- sorry, that's plain pig-ignorant. Farming became a specialized profession during the Industrial Revolution. Before that, the whole population was in close contact with animals. Even nobles had dogs, hawks, and horses. Disease vector utopia.

Not for a second would Diamond consider the uselessness of domesticating new wild animals when one could just introduce one's own livestock and rapidly populate an entire continent in a safe and efficient way.

Except he does, although he uses plants to illustrate the point.

...solitary specimens and small groups have more or less spontaneously adjusted to farm life... Moose... orphans are known to become completely domestic, and even adults can be easily tamed.

Diamond spends an entire chapter on this. Tameability is one prerequisite for domestication; another is the willingness to breed in captivity. There are others. So far from proposing one quality called "domesticability", Diamond lists, I think, nine qualities that animal species must have if they are to be successfully domesticated.

Is it reasonable then to think that domestication in general was not an option available to the Native Americans? Certainly not, most likely they simply couldn't figure out the process and relied on the seemingly infinite availability of wild game as if it were a gods-given gift.

"Figure out" the "process"? You find a baby animal without its mother, you take it home, you feed it. Foragers do it all over the world. And do please explain how the Sioux, after millennia of being too dumb to domesticate deer and bison, became world-renowned horsemen within fifty years of the introduction of the horse. No, they didn't get it all off the whites, or they'd have used saddles and bridles.

The flaws you're finding in Diamond are of your own making.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

218. Comment #286248 by Sciros on November 18, 2008 at 12:00 pm

And do please explain how the Sioux, after millennia of being too dumb to domesticate deer and bison, became world-renowned horsemen within fifty years of the introduction of the horse

Uhh... the same way we got world-renowned drivers within 50 years of the introduction of the car? The horses didn't need to be domesticated all over again...

Other Comments by Sciros

219. Comment #286249 by JAMCAM87 on November 18, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Comment #285969 by MPhil on November 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm

That's where the concept of (weakly) emergent characteristics comes in - and that's why it is so important.

People have tried explaining emergence to me but I just don't get it. All I can think is SKYHOOK! SKYHOOK!.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

220. Comment #286256 by decius on November 18, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Comment #286244 by JAMCAM87

I agree that anti-theist is a useful concept, one I can easily identify with, but its connotation is more political.

Other Comments by decius

221. Comment #286271 by Tezcatlipoca on November 18, 2008 at 12:30 pm

I wonder if part of the reason for non domestication of draft size animals was due to the way the new world staples (corn, beans, squash) were cultivated. There was domestication of ducks and turkeys and a few different breeds of dog.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

222. Comment #286272 by Ex~ on November 18, 2008 at 12:30 pm

>Not when more people would automatically
>disqualify an atheist for the presidency (53%, >according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll) than a gay
>candidate (43%), for example, or a Mormon (24%).

Jesus Fucking Christ, I hate Americans so fucking much. More so because of the 43% figure, though.

Other Comments by Ex~

223. Comment #286467 by Goldy on November 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Sciros

Uhh... the same way we got world-renowned drivers within 50 years of the introduction of the car'

Very very few world-reknowned drivers. Come to Auckland, dice with dea...errr, drive in rush hour :-) Better yet, get a taxi in Shanghai...

Other Comments by Goldy

224. Comment #286591 by Titania on November 19, 2008 at 1:15 am

194. Comment #285929 by decius

He isn't even mainstream - his work is speculative, unscientific and appeasing PoMo's ideas.

Decius, I know you were not referring to this to this, but it’s apropos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomo_people

Other Comments by Titania

225. Comment #286602 by decius on November 19, 2008 at 2:18 am

Comment #286591 by Titania

Kuksu is a pretty good name for a deity. Kooksu an even better one.

Other Comments by decius

226. Comment #286618 by jabber on November 19, 2008 at 4:14 am

i think many xtians would desert their church as soon as all the priveleges they enjoy were removed - social status, tax breaks, 'special respect', legal loopholes, money, legitimate access to the vulnerable and of course....power.

People only ever abandon things when those things no longer work in their best interests - but that takes a lot of crashing and burning!

From what i gather, many religions don't really care if their 'flocks' truly beleive - as long as they SAY they beleive and behave AS IF they believe and accept authority; you can torture someone into an admission - but you cannot chnage their actual beleif by it... that takes sublty and the 'victim's' desire to be brainwashed.

It's about submission NOT about sincerity

Other Comments by jabber

227. Comment #286623 by jabber on November 19, 2008 at 4:31 am

48. Comment #285689 by Goldy on November 17, 2008 at 1:19 pm

@ Goldy

Yes, yes and thrice yes. The problem with education is, for many, that it gives one freedom but takes away excuses. Responsibility is about recognising that what you have done was becasue you chose to do it, and not projecting it onto parents, 'others', or a fantasy being.... 'i murdered him becasue i was merely doing God's will' (rather than 'i was so angry to be challeneged that i became homicidal and CHOSE to kill him'). Churches tend to be the bully in the background, egging on the weaker boys to do theri dirty work for them with a promise of being 'in with the kewl set'. I'm very HOT on responsibility, because, without Gods it would be less easy to avoid the concuilsion that a choice was made because of who we are.

Should we forgive those in Germany who were 'merely obeying orders' from their God-figure Hitler? I don't mean those poor tortured and broken people forced to do bad things, but those quislings who happily collaborated with the Nazis, then refused any personal responsibility whatsoever for their wartime actions.

i agree with every word you've said.

Other Comments by jabber

228. Comment #286627 by jabber on November 19, 2008 at 4:40 am

36. Comment #285670 by Ascaphus on November 17, 2008 at 12:58 pm

flyinggoose said:

...Are you all really saying that you wouldn't work in say, a soup kitchen if it meant working together with religious people?...

@flying goose..

No -we leave all that conditional 'goodness' to the xtians, thank you.

Xtian soup - best taken with a large pinch of salt

Other Comments by jabber

229. Comment #287729 by Goldy on November 20, 2008 at 3:06 pm

WRT to the Neanderthal argument, maybe one day we can find out for real :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html?ref=science

Other Comments by Goldy

230. Comment #288245 by youmemeyou on November 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Steve Zara
"This is not a battle between moral equals. It is between rationalists and believers who want privilege."

One irrational belief is the conviction that your opinion on religion determines the extent of your rationality and general righteousness of your moral ideals. I am not a member of that faithful.

Other Comments by youmemeyou

231. Comment #288246 by mitch_486 on November 21, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #288245 by youmemeyou on November 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm

You must admit, though, the first step to rationality is a full understanding of religious fallacies

Edit: The point is that the religious often (falsely) think that they are granted morality through scripture. The fact is, the morals they preach are in direct conflict with the very nature of their scripture. This is not moral.
One without scripture, has morals that do not need to be verified by DOG, but by his/herself.

Other Comments by mitch_486

232. Comment #288407 by youmemeyou on November 21, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Comment #288246 mitch_486

You must admit, though, the first step to rationality is a full understanding of religious fallacies

Yes, I think this is fair. I take a radical stance, by many standards, and assert that understanding the perspective of atheist rationalists is necessary in order to fully understand religious truth. This requires a full understanding of religious fallacies.

Edit: The point is that the religious often (falsely) think that they are granted morality through scripture. The fact is, the morals they preach are in direct conflict with the very nature of their scripture. This is not moral.
One without scripture, has morals that do not need to be verified by DOG, but by his/herself.

The question of verification is a profound one. It is, in a sense, the question of each generation as opposed to the lineage of ancestry. I would assert that individual reason is only capable as its inheritance.

Faith is simply the excessive zeal to ensure that the fallible human mind does not forget what is truly important to life.

Other Comments by youmemeyou

233. Comment #288749 by Eric Blair on November 22, 2008 at 10:58 am

Jabber wrote:

"@flying goose..
No - we leave all that conditional 'goodness' to the xtians, thank you.

Xtian soup - best taken with a large pinch of salt."

I'm assuming that you're assuming that religious people would only volunteer at a "religious" soup kitchen. I think this is untrue and unfair. Some evangelicals may only work in this way - and many such groups, like the Salvation Army, still fill some major gaps in our social safety net - but I think you'll find a true mixture of people at "secular" front-line charities, religious, non-religious, atheist, political, non-political, etc.

I hope you're not saying you wouldn't work alongside a religious person at a "secular" soup kitchen just because they were religious (assuming they weren't obnoxious or proseltyzing).

Not that working at soup kitchen is your thing ...

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

234. Comment #288882 by jabber on November 22, 2008 at 3:29 pm

@ Eric Blair

Your hope is rewarded and fulfilled. At a soup 'stand' in Bristol, they give you soup and bread first - they insist on talking about salvation, and that the only reason you get anything to eat at all is through the grace of God;that you are in your present condition because it is necessary for you to go through this in order to better appreciate His works...and if you hadn't been destitute, then you wouldnt have come to the soup kichen, where you wouldn't have been exposed to His Word - it's just another example of the Operation of Divine Grace. It is to this kind of thing i was alluding. I think the releif on human suffering has a greater priotity than any political agenda or religion.

I hope I'm not sounding too 'righteous' and 'noble' - but i would like to see hungry people being offered food for no other reason than that they were hungry.

Other Comments by jabber

235. Comment #288889 by Roger Stanyard on November 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Jabber - all I can say is that the soup kitchen in Bristol is run by the stupid and arrogant.

By all accounts it is no different from the one in my town. No humanity, no compassion, no idea how the real world works. They think they are doing favours to "sinners" who should know better.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

236. Comment #290056 by Eric Blair on November 24, 2008 at 2:23 pm

In my younger days (1970s), I did stay at a "Sally Ann" (Salvation Army) and once got a bed in a dorm and breakfast for $3. No proseltyzing tho' I must admit I didn't stay for breakfast (I was travelling).

The Sally Ann also runs discount clothing and furniture stores, which of course are not religious. In fact, they've just turned over operation of one of our hospitals to a regional board (they have been government funded for decades), which was only nominally religious. Much less than Catholic hospitals I've seen elsewhere.

A mixed bag here, in Winnipeg. A food bank is much more effective than small operations giving "free meals" - assuming a lack government agencies - and ours is completely secular. There are several smaller agencies that deal with "street people" - some are religious, some not.

Better government policy, of course, would mean none of these have to exist.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

237. Comment #290067 by Goldy on November 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm