1. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179699 by ? on May 13, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Kass' "philosophy" is a nightmare of weird contradictions.

On the one hand, he seems to be saying that the "animal" side of human nature is horrible and must be suppressed. We must (for some strange reason) show how "in control" we are from abstaining from everything from non-reproductive sex to public consumption of ICE CREAM for the love of @&*^@!!!! Its just and ICE CREAM CONE you freak!!!

But THEN he goes on to preach against us wicked modern liberals for wanting to be in control; for not submitting to the (in his mind) mystical, natural forces of fertilty and death.

He makes no sense at all, even on his own terms, and it is shameful that he is taken as an intellectual or philosopher by anyone--even Bush! There should be public service announcements on TV warning people that the government is "advised" by such deranged people.

2. Fear Is Stronger Than Hope When It Comes To Fitness

Comment #94490 by ? on December 5, 2007 at 7:20 pm

I liked the article because it seems to support a favorite issue of mine--accepting all of our emotions, not just the "nice" ones. This important from a humanist/rationalist perspective because disowning and demonizing certain basic human traits is a big part of both the Christian and New Age mind control agendas. 'Don't ever feel fear, anger, envy, etc.' they tell us. 'Think only happy, group-approved thoughts.' Fear is as natural and normal as hunger. It is not a devil, but a useful tool.

3. Jesus Camp: A scary movie that should frighten us all

Comment #85368 by ? on November 5, 2007 at 3:18 pm

My favorite part of that film was when the head nut-jobs did an extended prayer ritual to protect the electrical and sound systems from being attacked by demons! (since we all know that demons are what cause routine technical difficulties) :) Funny that no corporations or governments have exorcists on their technical support staff! And these people think they could run a modern nation even if they won.

4. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83361 by ? on October 29, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Great writing often contains anti-religious and anti-clerical barbs, as well as "heretical" reinterpretations of conventional religious views. Pullman is only one recent example.

These agitators for cencorship are like something out of the big 20th Century dictatorships. Art is useless or dangerous except as propaganda for their preconcieved "truth" and authoritarian agenda. (That appalling Donahue character seems born to be America's Goebells or Beria with his relentless bullying, worship of power and obsession with ideological purity)

Since they cannot hold their own in a reasonable discussion, all criticism and alternate points of view are seen as destructive. Someone should make a film of "Candide" just to watch them make anti-intellectual, bigoted fools of themselves attacking it! I guess the Muslims would get in on that one, too.

5. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #82205 by ? on October 25, 2007 at 9:28 pm

I don't think its a matter of "stupidity" as such. IQ scores are supposed to be higher than ever, and it must take a certain amount of cleverness to use all these little handheld electronic gadgets all the kids are weighted down with.

I am by no means a Luddite or particularly old, but it amazes me how everyone under 23 seems equiped like James Bond with a new set of technological wonders on a monthly or weekly basis which they use effortlessly. Also, the sheer amount of memorization required to be a serious fan of sports and pop culture preclude true mental impairment.

The problem is more cultural:

--an obsession with the trivial.

--no respect for language.

--no idea of rational discussion and inquiry(passive tolerance for the left, non-negotialble demands for the right)

--TINY attention spans that get in the way of assimilating complex intellectual products. Movies that aren't "art films" or ultra-serious adult dramas (American ones, at least) are little more than flashing light. The Godfather and Taxi Driver seemed like cool pop culture in the 70s, but comes across as very cerebral and "high brow" by today's standards.

--No sense of history--even a contempt for a sense of history. All that exists is the present. The Cold War might has well have ended 100 years ago.

--The sense that to better oneself or cultivate an inner life is "elitist" and the feeling that education is justified only in terms of job training.

--Snobbish ultra-intellectualism among the "alternative" crowd as an understandable reaction to the general dumbing down. This polarizes a population into artificial extremes: "the best art is incomprehensible weirdness" vs. "the best art involves kittens, Jesus, Elvis or all three together"; "the best films are unnaturally slow and confusing," vs. "the best films are eye candy appealing to nothing but simplistic wish fulfillment" ; "eat nothing but health food or expensive cuisine" vs. "eat nothing but junk food," etc., ad nauseum.

6. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #82188 by ? on October 25, 2007 at 8:21 pm

When Creationists raise these points about evolution I try to get them to re-evaluate their hostility to the scientific community.

Do you really believe that there is some big conspiracy among scientists to suppress the truth? How would such a conspiracy work?

Science is a vast, competeitive enterprise involving millions of people of all different cultures, political views, etc. and virtually all working research scientists accept evolution.

If such a conspiracy or totalitarian authority structure existed in the scientific world, research and discovery would come to a halt. This is not happening.

We are living in an era of unprescedented progress in all the sciences--particularly the life sciences. This would not be the case if evolution were untrue and the Evolution Police were running around suppressing eveyone's right to find out the facts.

If you are correct then only ultra-conservative Christian univerities and a few Creationist institutes are free from this stifling conformity in which eveyone is forced to believe a lie and ignore the real data.

If that were true, then places like Liberty Univerity would be the only people getting good results in research. The mainstream institutions, mired in conformity and dogma would stagnate. We would be wondering why there was no innovations, no new drugs, no useful information on genetics.

This is the exact opposite of reality.
"Establishment biologists are wrong about their basic assumptions" would lead to "mainstream biology is useless to explain the world and get experimental results." Do you really believe this is true? I'll believe it when you stop taking your heart pills!

Its like saying "the science that went into designing this airplane is complete nonsense, the people who designed it are brainwashed idiots following discredited dogma, but it flies perfectly anyway."

7. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #82159 by ? on October 25, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Consider how subjective this question is. What one person finds "depressing" another might not. It is entirely irrelevant to deciding whether or not something is true.

[I am assuming the hypotheitical opponant is Christian] If a Hindu or New Ager said to you "I cannot accept Xianty because it does not have reincarnation and I find a universe where I have never lived before very dull, depressing and stifling; therefore I will not even consider the calims of your grim reincarnation-less religion" you would feel the same way I do when you reflexively reject looking sensibly at my worldview on narrow-minded, sentimental grounds.

If you are merely expressing your feelings, no problem. But don't present them as universal. Not that I would commit the same error and use my emotional responses as *arguments* for naturalism, I will share my feelings on what feels right and good to me:

1. The idea that the universe is only 6,000 years old, earth-centered and will soon be destroyed is depressing to me. What a small, petty cosmos!

2. The idea of being watched constantly and having my thoughts read constantly by God and maybe angels and devils, too, is CREEPY.

3. The idea that a newborn baby is already guilty before God makes me feel both depressed and incredibly angry.

4. The idea that we have only one life to live makes me feel like living it to the fullest.

5. Having to find my own "meaning of life" feels inspiring and just plain sounds like a lot of fun.

Again, neither of our emotional reactions to these ideas says anything about their truth or falsehood. So why don't we stick to evidence and logic?

8. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #82029 by ? on October 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm

The argument that certain aspects of Christian theology were conducive to the growth of early science has been preseted fairly well by Rodney Stark (sociologist) and others. Even if true, however, it says NOTHING about the truth of the religion.

The scientists discovered things through work not revelation. Anything that inspired this work would have ***indirectly*** contributed to science.

A person can be inspired to productive behavior by ideas that are not true. If you go into a jungle to find the "fountain of youth" and in the process draw some excellent maps of the region, those maps may have serious value to other travelers even if the myth that guided you is false or even absurd.

Propositions should be accepted or rejected as facts based on evidence; not their connection with some admirable person or useful act.

9. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #81472 by ? on October 24, 2007 at 7:36 pm

The universe shows no sign of being governed by a personal will or conscious intelligence. The impressive "order" we see is mathematical, impersonal and amoral.

If you want to call this "intelligence" in some abstract philosophical sense (and go on to call that "God" in a pantheist or extreme deist sense), fine. But it has no real analogy to the intelligence of a sentient being.

A personal intelligence(s) would actually preoduce little in the way of predictable order. Things would move according to the will of the creator/sustainer at any given moment. A person driving a car doesn't go on indefinately in some complex but meaningless pattern. The take the car wherever they want to go! Traffic accidents happen because you can't say "Well, that car has been going slowly and making all left turns as long as I've been observing it, so I can assume that it is governed by the Law of Slow Left Turns and totally ignore the possiblity that it might do anything else."

10. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #81434 by ? on October 24, 2007 at 5:58 pm

This objection sounds interesting on the surface, but its based on outdated medieval scholastic logic. In the face of an empirical worldview, it falls apart. It doesn't matter if reason has its roots in non-rational forces or processes beacuse:

1. Its here now and is what it is, regardless of origin.
2. It is valueable because it can be shown to get results.

11. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81406 by ? on October 24, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Please name some "evil, mass-murdering atheists" who were not ALSO part of a totalitarian regime or movement! Why is it the same three or four guys and their lackeys every time? Western Europe has huge numbers of atheists and we really aren't all that rare in the U.S. or the Third World. Where are the British, Swedes, French, Amercians, etc. on the list?

Outside of the ideological cult of Leninism and its imitators, atheists are (on average, of course!) remarkably less violent and authoritarian than is normal in their respective cultures.

12. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #80942 by ? on October 23, 2007 at 3:24 pm

What exactly is this fool complaining about? If you can't do your job for reasons of consience, resign! The only reasonable exception is that of pacifists in a time/place that has military conscription. Fine, let them do their service to the state in some non-violent way. My grandfather did this in WW II.

But don't intentionally TAKE a job and then refuse to do it!!!! If you become a judge or a cop you have to enforce the law. And as usual gays and gay-related issues are singled out for special abuse by these cretins. Magicly, no other law interferes with his faith. All other laws in one of the world's most secular nations are strangely enough 100% fundie-friendly! Or, more likely, he just wouldn't care as long as he got to exercise his favorite prejudice.

If he wins his appeal, some other judge should claim to be an anarchist and as such must be excused from any case in which s/he is required to enforce any law whatsoever. But the salary, social prestige and pension plan are nice, so please let me keep the position! :)

13. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69532 by ? on September 11, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Oh, give me a break! What a bunch of humorless idiots. If these complainers have ever watched an award show (and who hasn't) they have no excuse not to get this joke.

Its not even ABOUT Jesus, its about the annoying cliche in America of piously thanking Jesus or God for every award as if it were a medal from the Pope even if the thing you're getting the award for is something that no religion would actually approve of! Whatever her personal views on religion are, it would be funny on these grounds alone.

Seems like the Catholic League is grasping at straws for something to complain about.

14. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69117 by ? on September 9, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Henri--

I'm not saying that general welfare or civilization are values "without question." You are right that one could hold a value system in which strength and courage are the most important values (and many do).

But from a practical perspective which is more likely to bring happiness even to an above average ("superior", if you will) person?

Do you find more art and philosophy in war-torn deserts and jungles? Would it have been a better world if every great genius had been in constant danger of being hit by a stray bullet or dying of starvation? The "superior" people are often the MOST dependent on the values of civilization and a modicum of peace and stabilty!

Also, I didn't say compassion was necessary to appreciate art, but that learning to be compassionate can be *like* learning to appreciate art--in other words, its something that expands your horizons.

15. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69103 by ? on September 9, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Henri--

All right, I'll take a two pronged approach to your question about why I think compassion is a value.

On a social or "big picture" level, I value it because it promotes the general welfare. Any of us might be struck down in some horrible accident, lose our source of income, get very sick or have any number of other bad things happen. Thus it is objectively better that people in civilized communities are encouraged to relieve suffering. It simply makes things safer and more pleasant. Not eveyone in need of assistence or care at some point is some sort of genetic inferior.

On a private level, I value it because it helps me feel connected to other people and animals. A person capable of compassion and empathy is not a stranger in the world; not a lone subject surrounded by meaningless objects, but finds himself/herself reflected in a rich living world of aware beings who's joys as well as sorrows can be shared. I realize you might not feel that way so consider my first point the main argument. But please consider that feelings of connectedness may be rewarding if you work to develop them. It gives you a window to the world you wouln't otherwise have had like learning a new language or learing to appreciate art and music.

16. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69092 by ? on September 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Henri-
Just because a human value was incorporated into a religion doesn't mean that it is dependent on or synonymous with that religion.

Religions do not spring up in a vaccum, they develop from human nature and culture. Atheism and secularism do not require us to arbitrarily reject human accomplisments previously made in a religious context and proceed under some sort of bizzare historical amnesia.

We do not renounce the wheel beacuse the people who invented it were probably animists and flat-earthers. Saying compassion is a value no more makes a person a "covert Christian" than recognizing the beauty of a cathedral does.

17. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69067 by ? on September 9, 2007 at 4:22 pm

JJ Ramsey--

I sort of agree with you that the analogy breaks down when dealing with the nicer more refined side of religion, but that is partially the point.

Lets switch to the more complex, less (currently) emotionally charged subject of monarchy. Not all monarchs and monarchies are evil, but when given the opportunity (i.e. when they are allowed to wield real power), many of them are.

And even if all current ones were fairly decent, one could still criticize the BASIC IDEA of monarchy or fascism, communism, tribalism or anything else on intellectual and moral grounds.

18. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66096 by ? on August 28, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Paul,

I've been enjoying this thread but haven't contributed to it yet. Your comments are very stimulating and challenging. I disagree with your ultimate conclusions, but think that you have a point about morality being about more than concrete goals such as a "stable society" or reciprocal cooperation. After all, I hope we would not support certain actions (genocide, dictatorship, etc.) even if we knew it would ultimately have good results.

I am curious, though, about your views on moral progress. I gather from some of your earlier posts that you don't think the world is improving, and get the feeling you doubt that our ideas about morality have become more sophisticated. However, you seem to be a fairly liberal, humanistic sort of Christian, so I assume that you would approve of the many victories that have been gained in terms of human rights in the past few decades.

Aren't achievments like the highly influential women's rights, anti-racism, and pro-environmetal movements (to name a few) signs that people are simply thinking on a higher level than most of their grandparents were likely to have, about how we treat others and take responisbility?

I would be interested in your opinion about contemporary Western societies and how contemporary ideas about right and wrong in measure up aganist your ideals. If they measure poorly, was there any time in the past that was better?
Thanks!

19. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #65950 by ? on August 27, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Come on! If Jesus drank wine he could drink beer, too. Lower alcohol content actually. :)

And as for the 'smoking Jesus', that's pretty funny:

"...and if a man ask thee for a cigarette, give him thine entire pack and also thy lighter."

[after the scribes and priests have criticized him and his disciples for smoking]"Fear not the smoke that kills the body, but fear only the smoke from the fires of Hell. Oh ye hypocrits; your lungs may be clean, but your souls are filthy!"

The miracle of the loaves, fishes and cigarettes?

20. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65784 by ? on August 26, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Corylus (in 65780)

You raise some good points. I think she was both arrogant and masochistic in many ways--AND the two genrally go together. I know a therapist who said that people who hate themselves are also very self-centered on a deeper level. Its still an excuse to think a lot about yourself put yourself in a different category from everyone else.

Hitchens has a great deal of psychological sophistication which enabled him to see this aspect of her long ago. I remember one of his articles where he was making fun of her for walking all the way across Calcutta (in the horrible heat) to meet someone for an appointment instead of just getting one of her many friends and supporters (some of whom must own cars) to drive her. Of course, the mainstream media played along and waxed poetic about the humility and simplicity of the act.

There is a sort of inverted consumerism in such showy self-denial--'look at how humble I am.' So she might have also gotten a certain perverse pleasure or self-satisfaction in her crisis of faith and the guilt associated with it.

21. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65694 by ? on August 25, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Comment 65664 by "10"

----"Seems like preparation to deny sainthood."

In any event, I hope the new Pope tones down the canonization mania instituted by John Paul II, who recognized a truly bizzare number of saints for an individual Pope. A couple of hundred years could usually go by without that many new saints. The world must be getting better and better! :)

Why do I care? Its because the "saint" idea, (at least when transplanted into the modern world and applied to figures within living memory) is blatant, crude supernaturalism--not just theology or metaphysics. Its saying that there is real evidence of miracles in the modern world and torturing the evidence to "prove" it. Even (hypothetically) assuming the supernatural is real, one would expect modern methods of inquiry to reveal less of it rather than more just by filtering out sophisticated fraud and phenomena now explainable through science that seemed supernatural at one time.

Look at the section in *god is Not Great* about the Mother Teresa issue. Hitchens researched the miracle claims by Teresa's followers in detail and they were as silly as claims of Pentacostal faith healing and New Age "medicine." When a Pope supports this kind of stuff over and over again it is very dangerous because of the size of his audience. Even the big shot faith healers and homeopaths cannot make a statment and have about a billion people listen.

(On the positive side, John Paul II had as reasonable views on evolution as a theist can.)

22. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #65547 by ? on August 24, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Is any hunter so religious that he has to carry the Bible while in the act of stalking and killing the animal!?

I could kind of see them taking the Bible along on the trip if that is their choice of reading material. But to actually be carrying it so that if it wasn't camo, the colors would be distracting. "Hey Jim, the glare off your bright red Bible is blinding me and scaring away the deer. Why can't you be more like James Dobson or George Bush and get one of those nifty new hunting Bibles?" Of course, most animals see in black and white anyway.

I know its really just a "style" thing, but the article seemed to be implying the new cover was "practical" in some way. Perhaps they were subtly mocking the whole concept.

23. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65531 by ? on August 24, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Its where Limbo used to be before the Pope got rid of it:)

24. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65526 by ? on August 24, 2007 at 3:21 pm

This lady had some very sick ideas, but I can't completely dismiss her crisis of faith as mere "hypocrisy."

There is a long tradition with ascetics and other extremely religious types of a "dark night of the soul." Even the stories of Jesus have him stuggling with dispair and alienation from God (even though he also IS God....well, whatever! I'm not the one claiming this stuff makes sense).

There is a fine but real line between the kind of doubt which leads to freethought and the kind which still implies a strong core of devotion and desire for belief beneath the questioning. We are complex creatures with many conflicting impulses and layers of self.

The kind of doubt she seemed to be going through is experienced as a kind of mourning of the percieved absence of God and hoping he's there. I actually trust religites more if they admit to this---only in her case, she didn't actually admit it.

I'm impressed on one level, despite my loathing of her creepy worship of suffering and reactionary political agenda. The "woman of simple faith" had a something of Tillich or Bergman beneath the surface!

Seems like she missed her calling as some sort of existential theologian, which would have been much better than what she was.

25. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65355 by ? on August 23, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Ben Jennings--On what non-religious basis could chastity be a virtue?---

Interesting..... There are probably examples, though, strange as it is. If there is a "principle" behind such behavior, it is probably some kind of aspiration to extreme self-discipline or just plain aloofness rather than a moral prohibition.

As I understand it there have been various people who were (or claimed to be, or were said to be) celibate for private reasons that don't necessarily have a "god told me to" justification(not that the people involved were atheists as such): maybe Epicurus, maybe some of the Cynics, Newton, various shy, introverted, bachelors in scholarly fields, etc.

Of course, a lot of this might be a cover for simply not being interested in marriage or monogamy, and they might have been gay or had various flings on the side. Sex was such a private, hidden subject through so much of our history.

The pop star, Morrissey, a contemporary example, used to always claim to practice extreme self-denial including no drink, drugs, sex, and so on. Not sure if that was all for real, or if he claims it now, but I used to be a huge fan and don't remember him coming across as religious in interviews. Quite misanthropic, prudish and sexually conflicted, though (in common with religion).

26. Researchers find fossils of 10-million-year old ape

Comment #65084 by ? on August 22, 2007 at 9:25 pm

I love findings like this ....except.....

Time for another stupid chorus of 'See! see! They're changing their story again! They can't get it straight!' from you know who. :}

I understand the following quote in context, but it is in serious danger of misuse in the wrong hands:


"...but we know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes."

27. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65026 by ? on August 22, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Bizzaro Dawkins--

My problem is not so much that the Church teaches that this sexual act or that sexual act is a sin. What makes me angry is that they politicize issues related to contraception and sexual minorities. This political agenda leads to the abuse of power and the undermining of the open society. It also whips up hateful attitudes among the public who listen to the religious leaders--the division of society into the "normal" "moral" people and the Other.

Christianity teaches that many things are sins, yet appatently some sinners get a free pass while others should be subject to all sorts of attack and discrimination.

There is a lot of anti-gay political and legal activism from Christian groups, but where is the political activism aganst (for instance) Christians who hardly ever go to church, Christians who are married to unbelievers, etc. Both of these things are condemned in the Bible, but no one is blaming hurricanes on people who sleep in on Sunday morning or proposing a "defense of marriage act" against interfaith couples. No shopping mall is threatened for promoting greed of coveteousness.

These (and many , many others) are generally considered private sins and the Church may criticize them in broad terms, but takes no concrete action against the people themselves. Why can't condom use, homosexuality, etc. be the same?

I don't believe that any of the behaviors I've mentioned above are wrong (maybe the greed in extreme cases!), but I freely recognize the right of any believer and any religious group to have any beleifs that make sense to them.

Lets leave the law out of private, consenting behavior, and focus on secular ideas like rights and contracts between free agents.

I know you weren't personally supporting any political activities in your posts on this thread, but given your admiration for Falwell and your defense of the policies of the even more powerful Vatican, I thought is was relevant. By all means, let the priests *preach* abstinance and non-condom use, but stop there and let people make up their own minds. And let the other point of view have equal access.

But the problem is that when it comes to (some)sexual issues, many religions seem to spend as much time and money lobbying governements to ban the things they oppose than convincing people that they are right.

28. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64622 by ? on August 21, 2007 at 3:21 am

The "assault" part is the most ridiculous. What the hell does that even mean in the context of a book review?

29. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64618 by ? on August 21, 2007 at 2:58 am

message 64602 by Nefrubyr
"Should she care about the 'Sikh community' just because she was 'born Sikh.'

I understand what your're saying. I didn't mean to imply anything like that. I just meant on a practical level, I wouldn't want her growing up taking a bunch of crap for an idenetity imposed on her by the parents' decision. Actually TWO imposed identities--the original one and then the second one.

As someone who chose to change my mind about religion (both converting to another religion and then rejecting religion as such) as an adult, I understand how being thought of as a "heretic" can feel. But adults are free to negotiate their own identity and choose their associations; children are often not.

However, I think you raised a great point about the potentially liberating effets of this. Being exposed to a second religion can have a very mind-expanding effect because then its harder to see the original teachings as unquestionable assumptions about reality (or the only possible community).

30. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64577 by ? on August 20, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I just hope her new "Catholic" status doesn't earn her a stigma within the Sikh community (which she will probably have to deal with her whole life in one way or another).

And how far will the whole thing have to go to satisfy the Catholics? Will she actually have to practice the religion, be confirmed, etc?

By the time she's 14 or so, will she be firmly convinced that at a young age, thanks to the guidance of her wondeful Catholic teachers, she saw the error of her parent's ways and boldly chose to follow Christ?

The whole business shows how arbitrary religious classifications are. It reminds me of the movie Deconstructing Harry where Harry (Woody Allen) is arguing with his untra-Orthodox sister and she's saying things like "I'm a Jew, that's who I am" and he comes back with "If our parents had converted just before we were born we'd be Catholics." Life is sometimes stranger than fiction...."if our parents had had us baptized to get us into a good school..."

31. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64338 by ? on August 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm

I can't stand questions like this in a public setting!!!!

The implication being that if by some ....sorry... miracle any of these candidates are atheists, agnostics, deists, pantheists, etc., the question will ferret them out!

Its like the questions the Inquisition would ask.

All of these people have repeatedly said that they are religious but some people have to get real nosy about it.

32. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64334 by ? on August 19, 2007 at 3:50 pm

I wonder how rational or irrational the willing *patients* are when it comes to this kind of "medicine."

O.K., the treatments that violate simple laws of physics (like homeopathy)or actually reference supernatural powers are one thing.

But one isn't necessarily superstitious (maybe passive) to go along with treatments that are presented as valid by people whom the rest of society accepts as experts. Not being a doctor or biologist I only have a vague understanding of what my blood pressure medicine does, after all.

For instance, some people who go to chiropractors or herbalists might just have some vague notion of "herbs are good for your body" or "manipulating the back makes it feel better;" both of which are partially true.

Especially with chiropractic--everyone I know who uses this gives a simple, pragmatic reason. My back hurts and I know someone who told me a chiropractor can help.

I have NEVER heard a chiropractic patient defend, support or even mention any of the weird claims of the pseudo-science, nor have I heard of anyone actually going to them for anything except back pain. If I ever hear of someone saying that they are going to a chiropractor for their heart or eyesight (and the lunatic who founded it DID intend it as a cure for just about everything), I'll be sure to yell at them! (:

33. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64301 by ? on August 19, 2007 at 12:54 pm

I know how you feel, Impious; its hard to imagine believing it someting that is blatantly contradicted by everyday experiences. A trace amount of some chemical mixed with water makes it super-powerful? We would all be poisoned constantly! Other forms of magical thinking protect themselves by retreating into metaphysics. This one doesn't, but still survives.

34. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64293 by ? on August 19, 2007 at 12:20 pm

A few random thoughts on Riley's criticisms of Hitchens.

---Yes, Hitchens has an abrasive style that utilizes flamboyant rhetoric, warped humor and colorful insults.

Some people see it as entertaining, thought provoking and even charming; especially in the tough-minded less than scholarly arenas of newspaper opinion pieces and radio shows. Others obviously don't.

To a large extent its a matter of taste. I have a Christian friend who has met Hitchens a couple times and likes him, and finds his views stimulating.

----You raise a good point that there are Christians who are open to debate, and are even good at it.

----The charitable contributions issue is a tricky one. Curches are communities, after all, and they do often collect money for good causes and encourage members to give to charities outside the church. Christians have been known for their giving to the poor since Roman times, and it doesn't make sense to deny this.

However, Hitchen's point still has some validity. Does such giving *require* religion to back it up. Is there an essential connection between the two activities?

---Finally, I understand that the "being good for a reward" issue can lead to unwarrented insults against religious people who are genuinely trying to be good because they are benevolent people. However, is it fair to completely ignore the issue? Most religions do, in fact, promise some kind of divine reward for good behavior. It is not unreasonable to speculate about the likely consequences of such teachings.

35. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64242 by ? on August 18, 2007 at 10:58 pm

# 64239 by Veronique-

Your take on modern Chritianity and "trance" music was interesting. Yes, the fundie right thrives on crude emotional manipulation through rythmic music, huge crowds and shaman-like charismatic speakers.

Its weird that the "conservative" side has embraced such postmodernism. A while back the idea of "guitars and casual clothing in church", etc. was the height of edgy "Jesus was a hippie" theological liberalism.

But today's version is hard and dead underneath the aritifical frenzy. There is no sensitivity or real expression behind it. It is not the Christian equivalent of the Beatles, Stones, Simon and Garfunkle or interesting contemporary stuff like Coldplay (sp?) or the Shins. It is the asthetics of the crassest kind of TV or radio commercial. Drown out BOTH rational thought AND complex emotional responses.

Theologically, these folks are also extremist and crude; and getting worse by the hour. I remember trying to read a book by LaHaye and throwing it down in disgust when he accused St. Augustine of free-wheeling theological liberalism! But by today's standards he has a point! Intelligence = heresy.

36. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #64186 by ? on August 18, 2007 at 12:40 pm

boysetsfire--

You raise an interesting issue.

There are certainly passages like that in the Qu'ran which imply tolerance and throughout history there have been many Muslims who have been guided by them and lived in peace with others. But you must admit that the more violent texts have also had their influence and that it has been quite a bit stronger at many periods in history including our own.

Also, these texts you quote have a disturbing undertone. They are based on a doctrine of predestination and the idea that God is willfully blinding us to the truth of Islam, presumably so he can punish us later.

This is very similar to Calvinism in the Protestant tradition as well as many passages in the Old Testement which say things like "God hardened Pharoh's heart"--in other words manipulated him into sin. Such a view is cruel even if it sometimes can have the effect of getting believers leave other religions alone. I remember reading that non-Christians would at times prefer to be ruled by the (Calvinist-dominated) Dutch Empire than, say the Catholic Portugese or Spaniards because the Calvinist ministers saw their mission as serving an insular elect while the Catholic priesthood was preoccipied with aggressive conversion tactics.

But at the same time, belief in predestination usually leads to intolerance. The unbeliever is not someone like you, only lacking belief for the time being. S/he is utterly and irrevocably rejected by God, while you, the elect are chosen. This can (and often does) lead to other forms of mistreatment even in the absence of violent attempts at --conversion-- per se.

So the Qu'ran's view of unbelievers is split between total hositility and policies which CAN be interpreted as tolerant, but can also go the other way. Hardly a recipe for lasting or consistent success in this area.

37. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64116 by ? on August 17, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I loved the point that most people must be lying in these polls that "prove" that most Americans regularly attend church.

I occasionally go to services at a Unitarian Universalist church (a philosophical religion not requiring any supernatural beliefs) and I'm amazed at how little traffic there is on Sunday morning.

The trip would take me an hour or more on a weekday morning but is only about 20 minutes on Sunday.

And come to think of it, Sunday morning radio programs don't give detailed traffic information to help people get around traffic jams and accidents.

Why not? According to the "official story" almost as many Americans go to church regularly as work. Apparently not so!

38. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64101 by ? on August 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Thor, Roach, Johnny O, etc.;

I looked up this Mohler character, too, and have to second the opinion that he is unimpressive--and I am a person who enjoys reading all sides of issues including conservative and/or religious writers IF they argue more or less intelligently for their views and actually address the issues at hand.

He, however, strikes me as something like Jimmy Swaggart in a better suit with a better vocabulary. There were never any arguements in the pieces I read, just simple attacks and declarations.

The biggest howler was the statement that homosexuality is essentially rooted in unbelief (^&%g@*&!!!!!!!) and that all modern ideologies were simply rationalizations of sexual immorality (what the %$*^@@!!!!) None of this was justified or argued for an any way. It is simply paranoid circular logic. If you're gay, you don't believe.

He brings up the fact that Paul had no concept that people could differ naturally in ther sexual orientation. For Paul, (as for many of the ancients, probably) people were all assumed to be heterosexual by nature, even if they sometimes had intercourse with people of their own sex. Of course, many in the Classical world believed that this was acceptable in certain circumstancs contra Paul.

But does he anaylze the evidence that some people are homosexual by nature and point out its empirical flaws? Does he give us any evidence or even logical arguments a al Aquainas that the ancient view (and Paul's moralistic modification of it) are supported by obersvable facts or even more logical?

Noooooo.....of course not because Bible quoting is almost all he can do.

Sorry to rant about him. Maybe I'm being unfair. I need to read a few of his more abstract theological articles before I write him off completely. But I was shocked at how bad the things I read were.

He must assume gays are sitting around laughing to themselves about how much they are hurting God---not really caring much about the sex mind you. Maybe he imagines that they are actually attracted to members of the other gender but stubbornly refuse to give into these desires....."Wow, that [member of the gender opposite me] is hot! NO! Must keep offending God because I hate him so much."

39. Atheists for Jesus

Comment #64084 by ? on August 17, 2007 at 3:09 pm

I read this article a while back in Free Inquiry and enjoyed it. I also liked the book Jesus for the Non-Religious by Spong and some of Crossan's books on the Historical Jesus (he's an expert on early Christian history and a radical ex-monk with a very modern non-supernatural theology).

One can read the Gospels, edit out the obvious supernaturalism and demonology and come up with the idea of Jesus as an idealistic reformer and lover of the oppressed.

However, someone else could easily paint the portrait of an insignificant minor cult leader with no original ideas who influenced history only because his name was attached to a later, successful sect founded by Paul.

Jesus apparently died without writing a book or gathering a large following (twelve full-time followers, perhaps several dozen regular hangers on and the occasional admiring audience of a few hundred), so its easy to make him over in a variety of ways.

Maybe this is part of the appeal. He is a sort of floating, achetypal image of an "ideal man" who's handful of known aphorisms and parables can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways.

40. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63775 by ? on August 15, 2007 at 9:19 pm

I can appreciate the Old Testement mytho-historical stuff as epic tragedy. A small desert tribe (or set of related tribes) becomes a great kingdom after generations of struggle, but the kingdom falls into ruin. It has kind of a dark grandure like the Godfather movies (and about the same morality :) ).

And I like the Psalms and Song of Solomon as poetry, some of the wisdom literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) and the short seemingly allegorical stories like Job and Jonah.

I'm no more offended by the violence than I am offended by similar vioence in Greek myths, samurai stories, science fiction, etc. Of course, I'm offended by idiots who use it to justify THEIR violence!

Don't much care for the New Testement. If I want interesting Christian thought I'll read Augustine, Aquinas, Dante and others. Even C.S. Lewis, Belloc or Chesterton are better writers and thinkers than St. Paul.

41. Saudis to build their own version of Eden Project

Comment #63552 by ? on August 14, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Corylus--
:) Yea, looking at that first picture, I feel like I'm in a 'thropter' surveying the spice mining operations. I haven't read many of the Dune books, but the original is great.

42. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63254 by ? on August 13, 2007 at 4:54 pm

US Limey--

Thanks for your comments.
Maybe Ratzinger will be so obnoxious that he sends us back to the Middle Ages----but not in the way he would like.

I'm talking about the days of Anti-Popes popping up left and right challenging his authority. :)

How would the modern news media handle an Anti-Pope or a schism for that matter? Tonight on Larry King....which of these guys is really Pope? Will the newly founded Church of Latin Amercia last, or is it just a fad?

43. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63244 by ? on August 13, 2007 at 4:11 pm

RE: # 63128

The Pope is often disobeyed with impunity. I am not really disagreeing with anything in US Limey's post about how the Vatican-sponsored boycott would be ignored but it started me thinking about papal power now vs. the past.

One could argue that the Papacy has rarely been more secure and powerful since before the Reformation. In the past few generations the Popes have become figures of general cultural respect all over the world, even for non-Catholics or (non-New Atheist) secularists. Pre-Vatican II (or even to a large extent pre-John Paul II), the Popes were less relevant, respected or even thought about outside places dominated by religious Catholics.

They were openly hated by Protestants and other religions. Progressive governments sometimes (even in nominally Catholic countries) put serious limits on the activities of priests. Anti-clericism was a serious political and cultural movement. It would have been seen as ridiculous for smart secular magazines to write star-struck articles about the Pope as if he were this benevolent grandfatherly figure that everyone of all faiths and political orientations loved (or a figure of undisputed accomplishment like Einstein).

Being widely admired and listened to might be worth more in the long run than always being obeyed by the devout. The ever popular practice of "cherry-picking" allows people to igore disturbing papal actions and celebrate the seemingly nice things and the carefully crafted media image.

44. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #62998 by ? on August 12, 2007 at 8:20 pm

For the most part, White came across (at least in the transcript I read) as unusually civilized, cultured and friendly. I had several problems with his arguments, though....

---Like many elite, intelligent theists with good intellectual jobs he's simply living in a protective bubble where he doesn't have to deal with the barbarians. So he gets to pretend they don't exist or are rare. We know better.

---Along the same lines, as a liberal Protestant who CHOSE to become Catholic as an adult, he has no knowledge of what it is like to grow up in a rigid, dogmatic environment, Protestant or Catholic. Coming to it as a free individual, he gets to largely define what it means to him. For many, it (or other things like it) is an identity imposed through intimidation from such an early age that it interferes with the basic sense of self.

---Shockingly, for a man of his overall education and intelligence, he doesn't take full advantage of his right as a modern Catholic to accept much of evolution. Literal Adam and Eve? "Not sure" if our species is at least 100,000 years old?! There are probably Cardinals who would laugh at this!

---He uses Russian Orthodox writers as sources on at least two occasions and then indulges in ugly remarks about their church. These remarks may be warranted, but is calling the Czar "Holy Father" and writing the Protocols (was that really written by the Russian CHURCH per se or just secret police officers who were members?) really as bad as the Inqisition and the genocidal conquistadors? At least the Eastern Patriarchs have some limit on their power and the various Orthodox Churches cooperate and make decisions in semi-democratic councils instead of just damning each other as heretics. Admittedly Eastern Christianity might historically outdo the West in social conservatism and (especially in the case of the Russian believers) crude nationalism. And they may be more vulgar in their anti-Semitism. But the West's hands are scarcely clean when it comes to these things!

---What the hell is wrong with the Mass in vernacular languages? If the current English, French or Italian ritual is boring and ugly, hire some good poets to help you write a better version instead of lapsing back into Latin. There is nothing more pointless than intentionally communicating supposedly essential truths in a language hardly anyone can understand.

---I greatly respect his love of the arts and literature, and enjoyed his comments on them. However, how much of an authority is Dante on anything real? And while religion, particularly Catholicism has inspired great art, it has also limited the scope of expression. Look at what 19th Century artists like Monet or Degas accomplished persuing beauty and skill for their own sake without the need to glorify any myth, ideology or political/religious authority.

45. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62959 by ? on August 12, 2007 at 2:23 pm

What a strange article!

How, exactly, are Dawkins and other "New Atheist" writers (and we, their readers) forming some kind of "movement"?! They write books and give lectures. So do thousands of other people.

They are a cluster of independent individuals with various styles, value systems and areas of expertise. There is no Atheist Central or whatever directing their actions.

The books were surprise bestsellers because they struck a chord with a large segment of the educated public, not because there was some aggressive recruiting scheme.

Except for existing Humanist and freethought groups there is no massive atheist "subculture" despite there being enough atheists to make one if they wished. Humanist societies and other freethinkers are actually split on their opinion of Dawkins and the other writers (at least in meetings I have gone to).

Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens were outspoken atheists for years, and had fabulosly successful careers long before the term "New Atheist" was ever coined. Harris was simply a previously unknown individual expressing his opinion in a book. Any activism they are involved in is merely pro-science and anti-censorship, not some kind of unique atheist politics or atheist social views.

All of this is the exact opposite of a quasi-religious movement.

If fact, there have been atheistic movements analagous to religions in the past and upon examining the issue we can see that nothing like that is happening now.

Dawkins is not starting a political party like the Marxists or a "new science" like the Freudians in which he is the only expert. There is no schism between "Dawkinsists" and Dennettities." Unlike Ayn Rand, none of these guys is demanding that we share their musical and artistic tastes. No one is claiming privilaged knowledge about morals or economics. So how is what we have even borderline religious?

46. Science and the Islamic World

Comment #62956 by ? on August 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I've been re-reading Bertrand Russell's *History of Western Philosophy* and in the sections dealing with Islam, he paints the picture of a liberal (for that time period), advanced civilization with an openness to philosophical and scientific progress. If fact, many Western scholars have seen Islam in such a light until recently. And as the author of the article we are discussing pointed out, even a few decades ago Islamic extremism was a fringe element.

The Wahabis and their ilk have not typically defined Islam. That is not to say that I admire Islam as such. I don't. Even the fairly progressive "Golden Age" had its bigotry, superstition and violence (mixture of science with alchemy and astrology, violent suppression of pagans, second class status for Christians and Jews, territorial growth through conquest), and much of Islamic history has been characterized by stagnant ultra-conservatism broght on by internal strife and a shift among their theologians to peitism and fatalism.

Still, it seems likely that we are dealing with the worst of it now due to the vast amount of money funding the Wahabis, various governments (including Western ones) supporting the jihad networks and other unique modern factors.

47. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62649 by ? on August 10, 2007 at 3:00 pm

ISSUSER -

Your raise an interesting point that private school and homeschooled children tend to have higher than average test scores, but look at it from another angle.

1.) Do these advantages apply only to religious private education or private education in general? Most likely, the latter.

2.) Public schools are a public service. Children have a right to attend them unless they are actually a danger to others or have such serious problems that they cannot function in a normal environment.

Therefore, by definition, the crowd at your local public school is not a select group (nor should it be). It is a cross-section of the local community. The school's mission is to serve the needs of a wide variety of students with all levels intelligence, ability, emotional stability, etc.

Private schools, on the other hand can pick and choose. Therefore it is not remarkable that they have less problem students or low achievers than public school. Of course they do! They already screened out most of the ones they didn't want.

3) Homeschooling families are generally families with a great deal of time, energy and money to spend on their children. I'm not saying they're all "rich", but to do what they do, they must have resources beyond those of the average family where both parents must work at least one full-time job.

None of this proves anything about the specific effects of RELIGION on education.

More time, effort and money per child tends to lead to high test scores.

High test scores without creativity and critical thought are of limited value.

48. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62389 by ? on August 9, 2007 at 2:44 pm

There is something sort of desparate about these people. Its as if they think God will evaporate if they don't chant his name every few seconds!

Can they order of cup of coffee without going on about how ...I don't know... God wants us to be wide awake and focussed to resist the Devil; coffee wakes me up and helps me concentrate, therefore the existence of coffee proves the existence of God or some such silliness?

I went to religious schools, and yes, they would bring up religion in non-theology subjects, but it wasn't this constant hypnotic drone of GodGodGodGodGod drowning out the actual subject matter.

The bit advertising the Math Dept. was painful to read in its crushing redundancy. If I ever hear the phrase "absolute consistency" again, I'll go mad! Really, whoever wrote that must have severe OCD or some neurological impairment.

Weird!

49. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62175 by ? on August 8, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I used to get stumped by the "paradigm" routine. Its easy to do if you're essentially a tolerant, open-minded person. "But that's just you're secular viewpoint. If you assume a supernatural, interventionist God (or the idea that only thought is real or whatever), everything changes." True, up to a point.

But supernaturalists, philosophical idealists and the like have to contend with the fact that EVERYONE has to play at being a "naturalist" or "materialist" to get through the day.
There are people who never pray. There are many more who have never imagine themselves as part of a cosmic overmind. Hardly anyone casts spells.

But, you can't get up and go to work if you do not at least on some very serious level accept the premise that you are a mortal, physical being who moves through three dimensional space and linear time; your identity is linked to your body; you get things done by acting upon the extrernal world; and any number of naturalistic premises.

Naturalism is a part of life for everyone all the time. Other paradigms (even if they were true in some sense) are not. Therefore, no anti-naturalist paradigm can compete with naturalism as an explanation for or way to understand human experience.

50. Does the Bible have a place in public schools?

Comment #61747 by ? on August 6, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Seriously, though....

If they teach a proper Bible as Lit. course, be sure to point out that "Satan" as we know him in the Western tradition wasn't really a character in the Hebrew Bible, according to one theory, anyway. He was just another member of the heavenly court HELPING God by testing Job's faithfulness!

The pseudo-Persian dualism doesn't enter the Bible until the Gospels. Kind of puts a damper on the whole harmony and continuity of Scripture idea. But the Bible is more interesting when it doesn't have to be "Scripture" and gets to by "Mythology."