1. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114213 by thirdchimpanzee on January 21, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Summer Seale,

even the most die-hard Jack Bauer wannabe has to stop and consider the cost. I think America's "moral" reputation was never as high as most Americans thought. Europe, including the UK, was pretty skeptical about Vietnam, but would give most Americans the benefit of the doubt.

The Richard Calleys of My Lai notoriety were bad apples, and lots of good, working-class Americans got sent into a war they didn't know how to fight, led by incompetents. A recent Gallup poll surveying attitudes around the world to America have, for decades, recorded lots of negative opinions of US Government behaviour, but this did not translate to feelings about Americans as people. Most of these countries felt positive about Americans, and usually had positive experiences in America.

When this survey was conducted again after the 2004 election, Gallup reported a big difference. The same negative opinion of the US Government now extended to Americans themselves. The principle reasons were the utter high-handeness evident in all the public media concerning Kyoto, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib. It was obvious to most non-American (and many Americans) that 9/11 had been used as a Carte Blanche excuse to go on a rampage.

To a Londoner who can remember the Blitz - 9/11 is a pinprick. I arrived in London the day after the July 7th bombings - and I did not find hysteria, or xenophobia, or excuses to round up and torture someone. When that poor Brazilian was shot dead by mistake, the overwhelming public response was outrage at the police. This was noted by the Brazilians.

At that's the point of the Gallup poll - the rest of the world is starting to see an America that's long been there (you don't have to dig very deep in its history to find it) - but usually overlooked in favour of the Reaganite sunny disposition and "Land of Opportunity" optimism.

While there wasn't one cause for the defeat of the Axis in World War II - the barbaric behaviour on the ground of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan cost both powers dearly. The Ukraine would have readily joined the German cause against the Soviets - but that opportunity was quickly squandered, with Soviet agents having little difficulty prodding the Germans to excess. Similarly Japan had a potentially sympathetic audience for its decolonisation agenda until the locals realised it wasn't decolonisation but a switch of masters, and the new one was way worse.

In the long run, how you play the game does matter, and it will matter to America. I was against the war in Iraq, but once begun I hoped the Americans would have learned from their own mistakes and those of the British in Northern Ireland. What possibility there was of victory was thrown away in the first few months of occupation as the local insurgents pushed all the predictable buttons and the troops responded with excesses of violence. As a US taxpayer, we'll be picking up the tab for this for a long time to come.

2. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114007 by thirdchimpanzee on January 21, 2008 at 7:54 am

babrock - I could have been clearer here, but my understanding of how people have been able to inflict misery on others usually requires some form of psychological distancing. I honestly don't think the difference between physical and metaphysical distance is as important as you claim.

The Japanese who ran the notorious biological warfare unit in Manchuria, and performed live experiments on prisoners, referred to them as "logs". They were physically very close to these people, but psychologically they might as well have been from another planet.

I get the same chilling sensation when I hear Americans talk about "perpetrators" or "perps" for short. These are no longer people, and locking them up in solitary confinement for 23 out of 24 hours day causes no psychological discomfort to the society at large. Where the UK could have a comedy series about life in prison ("Porridge") - the US seems to prefer shows like "Oz".

All of this is not to argue that one should accept distance as an excuse for immoral behaviour. I agree with Sam Harris on this. I think dropping nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a war crime, and British/American carpet bombing of Germany could qualify as well (as would the German destruction of numerous European cities by air).

One of the reasons Al Jazeera became so detested in the US was not its editorialising, but simply the fact that they relentlessly showed what it was like on the other end of the bombs being dropped. US TV would gladly show grainy cockpit footage of a missile or bomb being launched, complete with the final scene of a building or vehicle disappearing in a cloud of smoke. What the media didn't want to do is show the same scene on the ground, after the dust had settled.

It was ground-based images of Vietnam that helped turn public sentiment against that war.

3. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113987 by thirdchimpanzee on January 21, 2008 at 6:40 am

Most cultures seem to acknowledge a moral distance principle where actions at a distance (whether its bombing civilians, or dumping toxins into a river) carry less moral burden than actions taken directly on a person. The distance principle also applies to cultural or tribal "distance", where actions can be countenanced against members of an "out" group that would be unacceptable to members of one's own group.

We see this principle in action in Guantanamo, where one of the "justifications" for the unacceptable treatment of detainees is that they're not American, and therefore not entitled to the same legal protections as American citizens. It seems to escape the logic of most Americans that if you kidnap people from around the world, and hold them in a facility you control, you might actually have an obligation to treat them better than your own citizens. After all, the US has more prisoners in jail for non-violent drug offenses than the entire prison population of Europe. Americans may choose to put up with such treatment of its fellow citizens - but the majority of those prisoners would be free in Europe.

4. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113969 by thirdchimpanzee on January 21, 2008 at 5:28 am

If "history" is only 9,000 years, then this argument doesn't have much credibility in the 200,000 year timespan of our species. History as we understand it will tend to coincide with hierarchically organised societies, arranged primarily for the benefit of males who like to own women. However, I think the argument is implicitly biological - we've always been this way. However, take that tack and you have to reckon with our cousins the bonobos - who can show us a thing or two about primate sexuality.

5. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113960 by thirdchimpanzee on January 21, 2008 at 4:54 am

Summer Seale

3) Sanctioning Torture: Waterboarding isn't torture. We train our own troops by waterboarding them since years and years and years to show them what hard interrogation is like. If it was torture, we wouldn't be allowed to do it to our own troops to train them.

The point of this exercise is to prepare airmen or others who may be captured by the other side what kinds of interrogation to expect. While I disagree with him on most political positions, John McCain knows what torture is, and he's unequivocal that waterboarding is torture.

What's more troubling is the ease with which so many Americans - who like to think they're wearing the white hat - can bring themselves to accept barbaric behaviour. We've seen this tragedy many times before in history - unless we rewrite the history of course.

6. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113937 by thirdchimpanzee on January 21, 2008 at 3:28 am

Summer Seale - you forgot to mention the following grounds for impeachment of either Bush or Cheney:

- Lying to Congress regarding WMD
Bush/Cheney deliberately misrepresented the opinions and evidence accumulated by our own experts on Saddam Hussein's intentions and activities. "Misrepresentation" is lying. If you remember the Clinton impeachment, the only basis for the action was Clinton lying about whether he has sex with Lewinski. As the bumper sticker said:
At least whe Clinton lied, nobody died

- Revealing the identity of a CIA agent
This one is a slam dunk - its a felony, and most certainly originated with Karl Rove/Dick Cheney. At the very least, Cheney should be impeached and imprisoned for this. Watching various high level Republican and the righ wing blogosphere trying to play this one down (e.g. "she wasn't really an active agent", or "her cover was already blown") was mind-boggling. The mute reaction of the Democrats was equally revealing - and poor public servant Scooter Libby gets spared even a minute in jail.

- Sanctioning Torture
I only wish the Canadian Government had the balls to keep the US on its list of nations that torture. A staple of World War II movie scenes involving Gestapo torture of resistance fighters was water-boarding. It was assumed the audience would react with expected horror at the scenes. How do we go from that to a prospective Attorney General unable to declare such a technique is torture. The cost of this dalliance with evil has been enormous to America's standing around the world.

There's more but this will do.

7. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112914 by thirdchimpanzee on January 18, 2008 at 9:18 am

Scooter is remarkably good at stirring up this kind of discussion - and I mean no disrespect to scooter in saying so. He holds his ground well even as many of us struggle to find some empathetic context in which scooter would agree to intervene to help another from their "choices".

However, there may be a more biological basis for the obvious inability of conservative libertarians like scooter to understand "choice" in the same way as many of the other posters in this thread (who would probably self-describe as liberal).

This recent research on conservative vs liberal cognitive styles:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center

is one of many that suggests there is a profound difference in the way conservatives and liberals cognitively and emotionally understand their world.

As might be expected this is a politically charged minefield - with the Conservatives more likely to cry "shenanigans", while Liberals express curiosity and intrigue at the emerging results and their implications.

I'm honestly not sure where such research takes us as a society. It probably makes discussion of such notions as "free will" and "choice" almost impossible to reconcile between Conservatives, who tend to dismiss the emotional context, and Liberals, who may be overly reliant on emotional context.

One of the most intriguing (and scary) characters in the current US election is Mike Huckabee - who is a real Conservative on many intellectual fronts (including religion), but emotes like a Liberal. The latter characteristic is making him suspect with the hard-core conservatives, but he is someone who could represent compassionate conservatism (unlike the current President) - albeit he's a creationist wing-nut.

By comparison, Mitt Romney is a classic fraud - any words of empathy emerging from him need to be taken with a bucket of salt.

8. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #109101 by thirdchimpanzee on January 8, 2008 at 10:25 am

Diacanu -

Name me one thing the God of Abraham does that I can't do for myself.

I have far more reason to want Superman to exist than I do God.

Superman would've stopped 9/11.

Brilliant point! We all could wish for some superbeing to right the wrongs of the world - or even just favour us. The emergence of superheroes in our popular culture attests to the desire for such intervention, and the absence of God/Jesus/Rama from this literature is testament to an inconvenient truth understood by most believers - their superhero is impotent.

For every child "miraculously" saved, thousands or millions suffer and die. Everyone knows this reality - and somewhere in the back of their brain it must sow some doubt about their superhero's power. One other plus for Superman - he doesn't care if you believe in him or not (he'd rather be Clark Kent anyway)!

9. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108619 by thirdchimpanzee on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 am

A day after his win in Iowa, Huckabee toned down his anti-evolution stance, saying in a television interview that the question of whether to teach creationism in schools was "not an issue for our president."

The media have got to do better (perhaps study Jeremy Paxman) - the question is very simple:

Do you, Mike Huckabee, accept that Humans are evolved from earlier species?

I don't care whether he wants creationism in classrooms or not - it's how his mind works that is at issue. To their credit, the scientists in this piece are saying the same thing - how does the potential political leader of the largest economic and scientific community in the world evaluate evidence in coming to conclusions.

So its doesn't matter if Huckabee tones it down or shouts from the rooftops - if the answer is the same as it was months ago the decibel level is irrelevant.

10. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106819 by thirdchimpanzee on January 3, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting. That implies the risk of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.

11. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106301 by thirdchimpanzee on January 2, 2008 at 4:07 pm

A moments consideration of the following sentence tells you all you need to know about the author of this piece:

The number of people who felt comfortable enough to tell Gallup pollsters that they didn't believe in God inched up to 6 percent this year from 2 percent in 2001.

First - the math, to go from 2% to 6% is TRIPLING your presence, not inching your way up. Also, at 6% atheists signficantly outnumber adherents of Judaism.

Second - the acknowledgment of discomfort. The author admits what everyone in the US knows - to be a declared atheist anywhere other than the West Coast or New York is to risk social and commercial ostracism. She fails to follow up with why that should be the case, or how that might be artificially depressing the numbers she mentions.

There is also no mention of those parts of the world where atheists are perfectly comfortable declaring their world view. This is relevant in this case since she wants to bash Richard Dawkins, who has pointed out in interviews that where he comes from, its the person of faith who feels most in need of defending their position. What is apparantly shocking to Lisa Miller is that there are prominent atheists who are insisting on a normal conversation about the nature of belief - one that does not begin by presupposing the truth of the belief.

Finally - the presumption there is only one "God". If the sentence had read

...they didn't believe in any Gods ...

we might all be closer to the true nature of unbelief. But the position is never phrased that way - looks too much like a reasonable proposition, even for a Christian.

12. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99592 by thirdchimpanzee on December 17, 2007 at 6:28 am

Comment #99575 by Beth

Thanks for the insight there - it certainly seems that my American friends are generally unaware of the extent of the rot. Their concepts are still rooted in the US of the 1970's, and I think that's probably the case for most moderates in this country. It's really hard for them to imagine that a religious coup d'etat is being attempted.

This same group of people have a hard time accepting the data showing over 40% of their fellow citizens believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. When shown the data (like the Science survey of August 2006)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125653.700

too many will defend the status quo as a matter of personal belief - something America is supposed to support.

When four GOP candidates for President (including the two front runners) - can proudly put up their hand and declare they don't believe in evolution, and not be laughed off the podium, there's more wrong than just a stealth campaign by the religious right.

It should be as ludicrous to reject the obvious data of evolution (which is not a belief but a set of observable facts - Natural Selection is the theory) as it would be to reject the data that the Earth is round and not flat. The challenge before us is to come up with some really simple observation that would seem obvious to any one, and would cause them to think twice about dismissing the evolutionary relationship between living things.

For example - why are there no animals with backbones that have 6 limbs? You can certainly imagine lots of advantages to having six limbs (four for running, two for grappling prey), and mythical creature like Centaurs had six limbs. So in a designer world you would think that at least one of these kinds of animals (to use the Biblical terminology) might reasonably be designed with an extra pair of limbs.

But we don't EVER see a vertebrate with six limbs (except for development mistakes) - not now, or in the fossil record. Evolution provides an answer, creationism has no answer.

13. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98750 by thirdchimpanzee on December 14, 2007 at 7:37 am

I agree with ehudsons general sentiment that we may be coming across as a bunch of humbugs unable to accept a "Merry Christmas" - except for the inclusions of phrases like these:

Ramadan resolution

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

Would be nice if they had included the same language for Christians (homophobic hatred for example)

Christmas resolution

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

Apart from the head-scratching notion of supporting historical events - the role of Christianity has been largely negative. The excellent article on this forum by Peter Watson makes a strong case for secularism being the key factor in the emergence of the Enlightment, whence came the United States.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2006,Heres-an-improvement-on-democracy,Peter-Watson-Times-Online

So - if this was a simple Christmas Card from Congress, I would agree we're overreacting. But its not - and the slimes in Congress know that - it's why they keep putting these little "Culture Wars" digs into utterly irrelevant actions like this. I want my tax money back!

14. Jumbo shrimp, creationist astronomy

Comment #98725 by thirdchimpanzee on December 14, 2007 at 6:25 am

Putting aside the "science" in this trailer, I have to ask why they used a British "expert", and a George Page style narrator (George Page used to narrate the Nature series). Does a "scientist" sound more authoritative with a British accent, or is this a dig at RD?

One more observation (if you pardon the astronomical pun) - let's assume the class viewing this is encouraged to follow through with the creation hypothesis. Now show animations of other solar systems recently discovered, the scope and enormity of our Galaxy, the gigantic black hole in its centre, pulsars, red giants, blue giants, white dwarf stars, other planetary systems. Have the students imagine being on a planet in a planetary system near the galactic core and looking up at the night sky.

When that has sunk in somewhat - point out that the latest estimates for the number of galaxies in the Universe is 150-500 billion! Hopefully at least some of the students will start asking themselves the rather obvious question - all of this was created for us?

15. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97740 by thirdchimpanzee on December 12, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Jonathan Morris

For most of us, including many atheists, it takes little effort to recognize how their belief that man can be reduced to his material properties (that he has no spiritual soul and therefore no sacred dignity), makes killing the innocent for political or selfish reasons a whole lot easier.

Arnold-Amary, abbot of Citeaux, papal legate in 1204 on attacking the Cathars in Southern France

"Kill them all... God will recognize His own!"

I think history shows that belief in an afterlife does a pretty good job of devaluing present life.

16. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97532 by thirdchimpanzee on December 12, 2007 at 9:22 am

To run with Riley's alternate Imaginations consider the following:

1. Imagine a world with no priests, imams and gurus

2. Imagine a world with no scientists

It shouldn't take anyone in the west long to understand how their lives would be impacted if no science was being conducted. On the other hand - a world without purveyors of religion would probably (not necessarily) be a saner, more rational world where 16 year old girls wouldn't be killed over a head scarf. The whole point of the sign is to ask people to use their intelligence to envisage an alternative. The US is still in the mental grip of an assumption that religion will forever dominate the political and social landscape. I'm old enough to remember thinking the Berlin Wall would never come down in my lifetime - things can change faster than we realise - it just takes some imagination.

17. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97512 by thirdchimpanzee on December 12, 2007 at 8:18 am

The link I provided above to the Indian Muslims does suggest that the hijab has entered Pakistani muslim culture as part of a deliberate "Islamisation", but really "Arabisation" of Pakistani Islam, initiated the Zia al-Huq - the man who murder Benaizir Bhutto's father.

I'm sure its more complicated than that - and honour killings have been part of conservative Pakistani society before this - but what a whirlwind we have collectively reaped for supporting groups like the Mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan!

18. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97496 by thirdchimpanzee on December 12, 2007 at 7:37 am

serain,

you might want to check out this link, where Indian muslims talk about their outrage at this and similar incidents in western muslim societies:

http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/dec/11/pakistani_canadian_kills_daughter_over_hijab.html

19. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97472 by thirdchimpanzee on December 12, 2007 at 6:41 am

I agree that we don't have the information to determine exactly what role the father's religious beliefs played in this murder, but the build up to this crime brings up some important issues in my opinion:

1. Acts of violence (or threats of violent action) against someone for not conforming to a religious observance should be treated as a hate crime. As we have seen in so many other contexts, the religious of all denominations are quick to take offence, and to take it very personally. The poor Sikh gas station owner who was shot dead in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, died because he was wearing a turban and the FBI prosecuted this as a hate crime. Well the obverse is equally true - to assault or kill someone because they don't wear some religious garment should fall easily into the same hate crime provisions.

2.We need to do a much better job of defining the rights of minors. Various posters here (and apparantly on other sites) have claimed this was more of a father/daughter control situation that went out of control. I don't think that's likely since the brother, who should have been defending his little sister, is instead charged with obstructing justice. Whatever the balance of forces involved we need to establish that, for example, a minor above the age of 16 is free to dress as they please consistent with other rules and conditions such as school dress codes, or work requirements. This doesn't obligate the parents to buy clothes the minor might want to wear, but it limits the parent's ability to exert coercive control over a key part of a teenagers identity. In the case of hijab wearing this is no problem since the parents are the ones trying to get the teenager to wear something they don't want.

I don't think this freedom should extend to irreversible actions like body piercing or tattoos, but we need to send a resolute signal to parents of any religious persuasion that their teenagers have emerging, independent rights - which will be protected.

20. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96979 by thirdchimpanzee on December 11, 2007 at 7:40 am

Gay or straight, Jonathan Morris walked away from a normal life as a human being at 21 to become a supposedly sexless priest. The celibate priesthood is weird, always has been, and our collective response should be disdain, not veneration, for someone who so egregiously turns their back on such a fundamental aspect of humanity.

No other modern church (of any stripe) continues to make this demand - and consider the origins of this absurd tradition.

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html

Since working with Mel Gibson on the Passion of the Christ, Morris has become a sought after media figure in the US (I don't think he would have a career anywhere else). He now purports to hold forth an any matter that might touch on ethics, and is well outside his theological background.

In short he appears to have a limited intellect, and even more limited understanding of the world, and no indication he's actively seeking to improve either shortcoming. The world outside America doesn't know about him - and should be in no hurry to find out.

21. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96920 by thirdchimpanzee on December 11, 2007 at 5:11 am

If you look at Morris' website, I think the real reasons for this open letter is apparent in the comments he has after the letter:

On another occasion I happily would debate points more central to Richard's thesis that God probably does not exist. Unfortunately, the people BBC chose to give reasons for believing in God were clearly out of their league. Part of fairness in the media, I would suggest, is to give not only equal time to valid, conflicting viewpoints, but also to present equally-matched representatives to defend them.

He was clearly uncomfortable being only one of many callers to the show, and not treated with much respect. His contribution was quickly dismissed both by RD and a subsequent caller. I think Richard was quite unaware he was talking to the Father Morris, who is used to being the center of attention at Faux News, and generally fawned over whenever he appears. This was an embarrassing experience for him.

I think Morris has pretensions to be another flea on Richard.

22. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96370 by thirdchimpanzee on December 10, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Riley

"imagine" is not the same as "eradicate". Even if we concede this was poor taste - it most definitely is not an attack. There's no coercion implied by imagining, whereas the Xian responses are full of calls to fight back - but against what? A dream?

23. The God Delusion in Turkey

Comment #95365 by thirdchimpanzee on December 8, 2007 at 6:56 am

I think whether Turkey is admitted to the EU is extremely important to the future of Western/Islamic relations. Just as individuals can become radicalised by real or perceived exclusion - a factor in the radicalisation of the Muslim world is the sense that their societies will never be accepted in the West. It's clear from her writing that, as a secular modern Turk, she's already imagining (wishing) that Turkey is a European country. She references the European Court in Strasbourg, which is applicable since Turkey signed the European Convention on Human Rights.

The way Turkish membership has been treated by France, Germany and the Netherlands has been little short of disgraceful. I'm sure there are deep grumblings within the UK, but that's in the wider context of immigration, and the fact that Turkey's application is still alive is largely thanks to the UK and the Scandinavians (fortunately Sweden is about to take the presidency next year).

Most of the arguments about culturally differences between European and Turkish society amount, in my opinion, to an obvious double standard. Were Portugal, Spain and Greece so "advanced" when they were admitted? Each of them had only recently emerged from the grips of fascist dictatorships - closely tied to their respective Churches. In the rural areas women went around with headscarves not so different from the hijab. The Church dominated the political arena - with predicable consequences for women's rights, free speech and so on.

Ataturk was a determined secularist, and even switched the written language from Arabic to roman characters to break with the Islamic past. Why should a Europe that turned down the opportunity to enshrine references to Christianity in its constitution be afraid of an officially secular country whose majority Church just happens to be Sunni Islam? It doesn't take much imagination to see how offended Turks must feel at the way they and their society are being described in various European countries.

This potential prosecution should be seen in the same light as the kind of nonsense going on the the US (I'm thinking of the career ending email in Texas for providing information about a presentation on evolution). At least we can be sure that any efforts in Turkey to raise these cases to the level of the European Court will be decided in favour of modernity - can't say the same about the US Supreme Court.

If RD is invited to speak in Turkey - he should go. I can't think his security in Turkey would be much worse than in the UK with its sizeable pool of wannabe jihadis, and the only way I can see of bringing the Muslim world with us into the 21st century is by showing some basic respect for countries like Turkey and their attempts to build a progressive society.

24. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95147 by thirdchimpanzee on December 7, 2007 at 12:54 pm

I don't know about the "smart money" on the Republican side. I think we tend to forget that 2000 was the beginning of the Cheney presidency - which is itself a weird payback from Bush senior, who suffered a humiliating loss at the hands of Bill Clinton.

As various insiders have attested, the inner circle of Cheney and Rove have barely tolerated the Religious Right "nutters" - they leave that to the front man - aka George W Bush. The farce played out on the world stage was to see Tony Balir sucking up to the monkey, while the organ grinder was making war.

I can't see that the "smart money" in Republican circles can view the last 7 years as anything but a disaster - but they're in a bind. The really can't talk up any of the supposed non-religious virtues of conservatism like their economic performance - certainly not while millions of voters are facing foreclosure. Polls are showing the that fear tactic is losing its bite - with social issues such as health care and the environment rising in the public consciousness.

The only reliable buttons they have left to push are the social and religious ones (gay marriage and who's more godly). Even stem cell research is rebounding against them.

The Cheney machine plucked George W Bush from Texas to be the "aw schucks" face of a grim assault on American democracy - and that machine has no obvious candidate in this race. With all respect to USA_Limey, I think Rudy Giuliani will prove as toxic to many conservative voters as Hilary Clinton is to far liberals and conservatives. Rudy might win against Hilary, but I think he'd lose to Barack Obama.

I don't know - but its possible a number of moderate Republicans might cross over to the Dems if anyone but Giuliani or Ron Paul (a libertarian) wins the nomination. The culture war everyone talks about here is probably going to be played out in earnest during the Republican primaries.

25. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95079 by thirdchimpanzee on December 7, 2007 at 10:23 am

Here's why I think Romney's candidacy is going to air some very dirty laundry. In the recent CNN/YouTube Republican debate, a questioner held up a Bible and demanded to know which candidates believed every word of the book. As the questioner put it, their answers would tell him everything he needed to know about them as candidates. Here's a link to the transcript:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript.part2/index.html

Guiliani got some heat later for declaring the Jonah story allegorical, but Romney and Huckabee do their best to weasel around the issue of accepting the literalism of the Bible. As an atheist, I don't necessarily care that much whether Jesus every really existed or not. I'm OK in principle with people using the religious texts as personal inspirations, but I think we all have a stake it separating the literalists from the allegorists (if that's a word).

I'm not the only one - that's precisely why the YouTube question was asked by the fervent believer. For the practical purposes of helping determine who is fit to lead, the question is probably more important than whether or not the person has faith in anything.

For an educated, wealthy politician to say they believe every word of the Bible (or Koran, Mormon texts etc) they would

a) Be lying
b) be dangerously credulous
c) actually not read the book(s) in question
c) all of the above

There's no way such a person should be given nuclear codes! So hat's off to the YouTuber who asked the question, and let's have more like that.

26. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95046 by thirdchimpanzee on December 7, 2007 at 8:24 am

I actually want Mitt to win the Republican nomination - then I won't have to worry so much who the Democratic candidate will be. The story of Joseph Smith will get dragged out - and hopefully begin to overturn the absurd presumption that a Candidates specific religious beliefs are any less relevant than their worldview in any other domain.

One other observation - as Chris Hitchen's piece in Slate picked up - his weaselly attempt to brand non-belief as a religion.

It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism.

The use of "It is as if..." is a depressingly transparant dodge - depressing because the majority of media in this country seem incapable of detecting this kind of bullshit. Come on Mitt - is the mindset of consumerism (presumably the target of his secularism - since he's probably unaware atheists exist) a religion or not? This is tough one, since this mindset is responsible for 70% of our economy - and currently taking something of a battering thanks to falling house prices.

The final irony is that the loudest critics of any social activity that doesn't genuflect to God are usually "free market" conservatives. How about a simple free market in ideas - let your children read "His Dark Materials", or better yet - read the Bible without "guidance" from adults, a sure-fire way to create more non-believers.

27. Riding with Rocinante: 'It's me or the crucifix'

Comment #94799 by thirdchimpanzee on December 6, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Thanks decius.

What exactly is his "crime" - refusing to sit in a courtroom with a crucifix, or making a fuss about it? How can this case be elevated to the European Court - where hopefully sanity will prevail. They're the ones who forced the British to stop torturing IRA prisoners - to the benefit of both parties.

28. Riding with Rocinante: 'It's me or the crucifix'

Comment #94791 by thirdchimpanzee on December 6, 2007 at 2:57 pm

I'm confused by the link to brightsfrance - which refers to events from 2005. It seems Judge Tosti served his 7 months in 2006, and is now presumably waiting out the 1 year suspension. Did this case get to the European Court of Human Rights? What exactly is happening tomorrow with the Tribunal in Rome - knowing no Italian, but recognising words that have English equivalents it looks as though it's to do with the suspension.

Looks like Italy has its own version of our (US) culture wars. In the same way that we have to put up with "In God We Trust" tacked on to the currency in the 1950's, the Italians have to put up with this nonsense imposed by two fascist regimes - Mussolini and the Vatican.

29. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94301 by thirdchimpanzee on December 5, 2007 at 7:56 am

I guess I'm an incorrigible optimist (which according to Atkins in Beyond Belief 2.0 makes me a scientist rather than a philosopher) - but the Texas story, and the Florida link (DavidJGrossman - #2 above) have me encouraged.

It seems to me that the battle is being joined here, and the stakes are becoming clearer to everyone concerned. As a former High School Science Teacher in Canada, I have had to cope with various religious objections when teaching evolution, but one of the hardest problems for any science teacher is to make the subject personally relevant to the students.

It may seem like a slam dunk until you see a class watching video of Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon - and they might as well be watching an episode of Star Trek. And don't get me started on why supposedly scientifically literal US school graduates can't give their weight in Kilos.

So back to the point - here's a key quote from the Florida Board of Education member:

Evolution "is like no other subject we teach. Therefore, it is of supreme importance," Callaway continued, according to the Florida Baptist Witness. "This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is. This strikes to the meaning, the value, and the core of life itself. I firmly believe that a child can deal with the proof of science along with a personal belief in God as the Creator of the universe at the same time.

As any Science teacher can attest, humans are remarkably able to simultaneously hold utterly contradictory viewpoints, with only minimal discomfit. However, there is a limit, and Darwin understood that very well when he took decades before publishing his Origin of Species.

Ironically, believers like Callaway have a better understanding of the implications of accepting Evolution as the basis for our existence than those religious believers (like Francis Collins) who seem to think you can have your cake and eat it. The only God(s) that could survive a thorough understanding of the Theory would be some vaguely deist watchmaker that set the wheels in motion and was currently unavailable for any intervention. God(s) are not necessarily disproven, just made utterly irrelevant. That's why the recent National Academy of Science survey shows that while 90% of members overall are non-believers, that figure rises to 95% for biologists.

For 150 years the Darwin's Theory of evolution has been relegated to the back rows of Biology classes in America, and now its finally getting some overdue recognition. Looking at the back and forth exchanges on the Florida link, many Americans, whether religious or not, are realising their place in the 21st Century is at stake. I think this battle will be won by the rational and scientific consensus, at least in the large States - and a welcome corollary might be a much more vigorous assertion of what constitutes science, and why Creationism and ID transparantly fail that test.

30. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93443 by thirdchimpanzee on December 3, 2007 at 6:55 am

the impossibility of negative proof is a crack through which the gods, no matter how ruthlessly banished from the human world, forever threaten to return.

I presume this existential crack provides equal opportunity to all Gods, pink unicorns, leprechauns and celestial teapots. As Dawkins has stated repeatedly, he accepts that there is no way to categorically disprove the existence of Gods - but he doesn't have to. By continually showing that the world we live in, and the nature of our existence, is explainable using natural principles , Gods simply become increasingly improbable, and more importantly immediately irrelevant.

There is not one piece of actual evidence for any God, nor any useful prediction derived from belief in any God. As far as "visceral reactions" go - it's likely the sight of two large airplanes full of innocent people being flown into two office towers full of thousands of other innocents starting their workday that has galvanized the current reaction to the consequences of unhinged beliefs.

Damon Linker is clearly writing from the American context, where atheism is still an embattled minority trying to make its true presence felt. The people who are actually scared are the American Christians who understand more clearly than ever that:

1. The coming biological advances, rooted in an evolutionary model, are going to challenge religious assumptions about life to their core.

2. They're losing the youngest generation to an increasing acceptance of secularism

3. Their attempts at mind control of their children are collapsing in the face of the internet, and centres of atheism like Europe that continue to produce films, books and cartoons to challenge the inviolability of religious belief.

You only have to listen to some of the stories from young people escaping their indoctrination to understand why Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris, Dennett et al are finding such a receptive audience. Atheists ("new" or otherwise) aren't scared - they're pissed off at having to revisit medieval arguments 300 years into the enlightenment. It's the religious who feel threatened by the 21st century - and they should be.

31. The Scientists Speak

Comment #89347 by thirdchimpanzee on November 20, 2007 at 11:03 am

Nobody said humans are evil in ignoring global warming, just stupid. En masse, we appear to have the herd intelligence of deer, and we do know better. This crisis could yet have a positive outcome in terms of comprehending our global impact, and our global connectedness - but make no mistake, this is a very big crisis.

32. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88649 by thirdchimpanzee on November 18, 2007 at 9:44 am

bravo Greybishop.

Its so frustrating to deal with religious apologists who think their deities dignify our existence, whereas the exact opposite is the case. Its further irony that so many of the conservative Christians come from the tough-love, "God helps those who help themselves" school of thinking.

33. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #87838 by thirdchimpanzee on November 13, 2007 at 10:20 am

Danielos wrote:

Religions make ontological claims (i.e. claims about how reality fundamentally is) as does atheism, but in order to understand these claims they should be taught as ontological theories.

How many times do atheists have to point out that having no evidence for god(s) is not the same as stating a particular world view. For example, being atheist does not automatically assign you to being a proponent of "big-bang" cosmology, or multiverses. If Danielos really wants to assert that religion is making ontological claims, then the correct atheistic counterpart is science, which does make ontological claims that explicitly exclude the supernatural.

Leave atheism out of this.

34. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #87828 by thirdchimpanzee on November 13, 2007 at 9:24 am

From the Nicene creed:

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end

I'm confused - aren't the dead already judged? Did they end up in the wrong place? Do you get a second chance on Judgement Day? Maybe its like leaving your credit card alone for millenia, and your credit score improves to the point you get to go to Heaven after all.

Here it is again with the resurrection of the dead:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

So if your body gets raised do you get your soul back from wherever its gone? Or are we talking Planet of the Zombies here - and what would be the point of judging a Zombie?

How does anyone get to believe this self-contradictory rubbish?

35. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84609 by thirdchimpanzee on November 2, 2007 at 8:19 pm

I don't know about Australia or Europe, but the backlash against 1960's and 70's secularism was on full display in the US before 9/11. What had begun stealthily with Ronald Reagan had reached its fever pitch with the stolen election of 2000 that delivered the US Congress and Presidency to the Religious Right. The provoking of atheists and secularists began almost immediately afterwards, and was so strident that Jerry Falwell could feel sufficiently emboldened to blame the terror attacks of September 11th on the secularists, atheists and homosexuals of America.

He was quickly shut up by his co-religionists not because the felt he was wrong, just a bit too open about what they were all feeling. The tide has indeed turned, in part because atheists have realised that how much is at stake, but also because the neo-cons and religious cheerleaders of Holy War on Islam (sorry IslamoFascism) have committed the cardinal American sin - they're losing.

We didn't start this - and I feel no need to apologise for pulling back the curtain on the abuse of human intellect that goes by the name of religion.

36. AAI 07

Comment #84541 by thirdchimpanzee on November 2, 2007 at 10:25 am

My apologies notsobad, re-reading your postings I realise your views are not entirely libertarian. In fact, its not so clear what they are. For example:

Marx was after religions because they were primary competition for his ideology and was after the same demographic group.

seems like a complete misreading of Marx. I would agree with this statement if you were talking about Lenin or Stalin, who were trying to control societies, but Marx, like many progressives of his day, were seeing through the tissue of lies that was religion, same as we're doing today. He was part of a Victorian movement of scientific materialism, and religion clearly belonged to a superstitious past, and was transparently being used to control the masses (like America today). Furthermore - Marx wasn't after a "demographic group", whatever you think that means. His analysis of society was based upon economic stratification - and was decidedly NOT demographic in the conventional sense of the word. The German coal miner in the Ruhr occupied the same position and experienced the same exploitative conditions as a Welsh coal miner. To Marx, these two were natural allies and the common enemy were the Mine owners. Marxism was a threat in part because it eschewed the understanding of societies on demographic or national lines.

37. AAI 07

Comment #84508 by thirdchimpanzee on November 2, 2007 at 7:58 am

notsobad - it doesn't matter whether you live in the US or not - I was referring to an attitude of assumed "self-reliance", and assertions arising from that attitude which you seem to share with scooter.

This is you on communism:

The communist experiment failed because it's faulty by design. It's an unnatural utopia that always ended with atrocities and bankrupt economies. It has been tried by many different nations with different background and it failed everywhere.

The self-reliance and accountability model you tout is also a utopian fiction - utterly failing to take into account the myriad reasons people make the choices they do, or find themselves psychologically overwhelmed by realities, or in a changing global economy find themselves out of work in their fifties because of choices their venal bosses made for them.

I'm not laughing at you or scooter, and actually give both of you credit for believing what you do. I just happen to think its wrong-headed, and I think the data from Canada, Scandinavia, and probably Australia would back me up.

Your attitude is certainly to be found in all of these countries - and I'm sure Brian could find examples from Sweden - and I'm not sure in the short run that societies like the US and now uber-capitalist China (heck the locals are trying to sneak into Hong Kong to take advantage of the socialised medicine there!) can out-compete the Canadian/European model. But my money would be on the more caring societies to adapt to economic, climate and technological change far better - and Sweden is a great example of that adaptability.

The US and China will simply leave huge numbers to fend for themselves as societies losers. But remember the maxim - if you owe the bank $1000 you have a problem, if you own the bank $1,000,000 dollars, the bank has a problem. Generate enough losers and your society will start paying a heavy price.

38. AAI 07

Comment #84490 by thirdchimpanzee on November 2, 2007 at 6:58 am

scooter and notsobad - many posts ago I put up a link to a study comparing the living and working conditions for hotel workers in Seattle and Vancouver. The study is new (2007), compares two cities that are about as close as you could get to comparable demographics, lifestyles, wealth etc, but still be in different countries with some different societal choices being made.

The results make a nonsense of your assertions - Vancouver emerges as the clear winner for anyone in the lower socioeconomic level, and leaves individuals with far more dignity than their American counterparts. Canada is far less religious than the US (the Ontario provincial election was recently lost by the candidate who tried to play the religion card) - and there's a connection between the dignity and security offered by a society, and the need for individuals to seek "protection" from sky daddies.

Your attitudes are one of the most significant obstacles to advancing atheism in the US - as Matthew Chapman observed in his presentation.

39. AAI 07

Comment #84107 by thirdchimpanzee on November 1, 2007 at 7:15 am

If we're all the rationalists we claim to be, then the liberal vs libertarian debate here ought to be informed by analysis of available data. I have put up examples from my neck of the woods, Brian from his. I'm not sure where scooter's data is coming from to support his hypothesis.

Human societies are complex and contradictory, and arriving at policies that actually work involves the same kind of discipline in reviewing data that you would expect in any science.

Where this debate keeps veering into quasi-religious territory is the attempt to divine intent in everyone's actions. I would argue simply that everyone's intentions are suspect for individual and societal reasons (do we really know why we do half the things we do?). Better to average these things out by looking at how societies function comparatively. That's how we arrive at correlations between affluence, personal liberty and low religiosity in Western Europe, Australia, and Canada. Hard to say about Japan, but China seems encouraging. India and the US are carrying heavy burdens of religiosity and it shows.

40. AAI 07

Comment #84075 by thirdchimpanzee on November 1, 2007 at 5:47 am

Must remember to save posting. Here's the shortened version. There's actually a much closer comparison between the US model of capitalism and the European model - at that's Seattle vs Vancouver. Seattle is one of the best cities in the US, and Vancouver keeps wrestling with Sydney for best city in the world to live.

Vancouver is ethnically substantially more diverse than Seattle, but both have grown up enormously in the last few decades to be major players in the Pacific Rim economies. Seattle also hosts significant US Navy facilities, Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon etc.

Knowing scooter works in the hotel industry, this recent study comparing hotel workers from the same hotel chain in Vancouver and Seattle is very telling:

http://thetyee.ca/Books/2007/02/13/Seattle/

Basically, being poor in Vancouver is not a hindrance to improving your lot, whereas being poor in Seattle, with weaker societal support systems, and more expensive health care makes it much harder to escape. For example, the study describes a Chinese immigrant to Vancouver who was able over the years to end up owning her own home, and taking vacations to China, while her Filipino counterpart in Seattle was still renting month to month after years in the business, as well as taking second jobs to make ends meet. The Filipino worker and her family were also living in constant fear of being wiped out my a medical emergency - something increasingly likely as they aged. What price do you put to living in fear?

Actually - there's another simpler way to illustrate the difference in this "tale of two cities" - take a bunch of school kids from Seattle to Vancouver, and let them loose in one of the public swimming pools in Vancouver - the ones with a wave pool and water slides. There's simply nothing like them in Seattle - public or private.

Scooter - your experiment is being conducted and compared with a control out here in the Pacific Northwest. The results are in, and your way of organising society produces a much poorer outcome than one where there's reasonable degree of public compassion and support.

41. AAI 07

Comment #83595 by thirdchimpanzee on October 30, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Comment #83579 by Colonel Dan

I do not profess to understand why people in starving economies have multiple offspring while couples in flourishing economies limit the size of their families.

I believe the answer is distressingly simple, for much of human history children were your social security system - and the more you had the more secure you would be. Of course, you didn't expect that many to survive - and when conditions improved the habits took a couple of generations to catch up and the society would undergo a population explosion.

Basically, where women are empowered, educated and supported you'll find fertility rates drop dramatically (too far for some) and this is not a function of wealth. Cuba has a fertility rate of just 1.6 children per woman, and even Jamaica has seen its fertility rate drop from 5.5 (1970) to 2.4 children/woman (2007 est.). In the US the fertility rate is average 2.1 children/women, but this is generally lowest in areas like the Pacific Northwest and the North East, and highest in states like Texas.

Now I'm not drawing any conclusions here, except I wouldn't be surprised to find that states with the most tight-fisted and mean-spirited social policies have the greatest rate of children born into poverty, and likely to stay that way. When you're at the bottom, one more stick brandished at you, or one more humiliation heaped upon you, doesn't make much difference, and the extra kids can hustle for money.

If only these people would get out and vote - but hey, that's what "voter fraud" campaigns are intended to stop. As others have pointed out with regard to Sweden, and Scandinavia in general, one of the most striking things about their development as societies in the last 100 years has been the wholesale empowerment of women. Finland even had a female President and Prime Minister serving at the same time.

Matthew Chapman makes this same point (about women being the primary transformative agents in his speech) - and I agree. Whatever your politics in the US, most Americans would agree that things will not be the same again if Hillary Clinton becomes President in 2008.

42. AAI 07

Comment #83534 by thirdchimpanzee on October 30, 2007 at 10:40 am

There may be more at work here than polarisation or over-emotionalism, and its highly relevant to the objective all of us have to see humanity emerge from the religious dark ages. I do think the position taken by scooter and the other libertarians is cold hearted - but that's not the same as saying they're wrong, or I should concede, at an abstract level it might not work out better.

That being said, I do happen to think that their policies are wrong and hypocritical, and we could have a dispassionate debate where I might be shown the error of my ways. However, most people, and certainly the bulk of the US electorate, operate at a much more instinctual and emotional level. This simply cannot be ignored if you want real change. The politicians of the day fully understand this - hence the virtual absence of real policy debates in this upcoming election.

If we are to have any chance of success in America, we must address the perceived reality of the majority of Americans, and whether scooter accepts this or not, his attitude will strike many as cynical and disinterested and stereotypically atheist to many of those we would like to reach. This is something Christopher Hitchins taps into whenever he gives his blood-donating story - most people do have an innate sense of solidarity, and feel good when given a chance to exercise that aspect. Right now, in the US, the overwhelming assumption is that charity is based upon religion - and atheists are constitutionally incapable of such behaviour.

At the same time that we want to tear down the veils of delusion surrounding religious myths, we also need to build up a positive vision of interconnected humanity, celebrating how far we've come - even if its to the edge of climate change!

43. AAI 07

Comment #83508 by thirdchimpanzee on October 30, 2007 at 9:18 am

This thread does appear to have touched a nerve - and for that we can thank Matthew Chapman for positing that atheism can only flourish in the US if some societal changes take place to ameliorate the harshness of existence for many. I could easily debate different models of economics from right or left wing perspective providing:

a) The common interest is the greatest opportunity for all to prosper and lead a fulfilling life;

b) its not a zero-sum game.

Most of the libertarians here are simply unwilling to recognise the extent to which their well-being depends upon implicit or explicit collaboration with others, and therefore subject to some notion of fairness and reciprocity. The vaunted American individualism is as phony as the storefronts in a movie lot - you only have to look at how this society has behaved since 9/11 to see how easily people are herded into line by manufactured fears. The whip the libertarians crack to keep anyone from looking behind the curtain is that somebody's trying to steal your wealth, or keep you down, prevent you from buying that mansion.

The "libertarians" are also very selective in their application of outrage - railing against government spending (including the military I hope), but not be heard from when the Supreme Court was recently debating whether to strike down Texas' Anti-Sodomy Law in 2003! Those of you in Europe, Canada and Australia might like to know that adult anal sex could land you in prison in the good State of Texas until 4 years ago. This law had been challenged before, and there were plenty of opportunities for the libertarians to show that their "theory" of limited government applied to all measures that infringed an individuals right to pursue happiness (without harming others of course).

And that's the problem with debating policies with this brand of libertarian - there really does not appear to be any interest in the well-being of their fellow citizens, otherwise I would expect them to be in the forefront of lobbying to decriminalize drugs, and privatising the military. Let Blackwater invade a country by itself.

44. AAI 07

Comment #83374 by thirdchimpanzee on October 29, 2007 at 9:13 pm

As I mentioned in an earlier post - its interesting that word libertarian is so deeply associated with a "me first" Texas attitude in the US, whereas in Europe its as likely to be associated with a bohemian anarchism. I don;t think it matters whose misappropriated the word "libertarian" here - there's certainly no theory worth the name to it. Its also worth noting that Texas is among the many red states that are net takers of Federal dollars - and guess who's paying for it - the blue states of the coasts.

Seems there's a big disconnect here - just as 95% of the National Academy of Sciences are non-religious, and 72% of faculty in US Universities identify themselves as liberal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

the general trend appears to suggest the higher your level of education the more likely you are to be liberal and atheist. Where this ties into the economics is that the US economy is heading towards a post-industrial information/knowledge economy (leaving aside the military-industrial complex for now). This places a higher premium on creativity, which is obviously associated with "thinking outside the box". The "box" in question may be your own world view, and liberals, I contend, generally do a much better job of trying to understand the perspective of their conservative opponents than vice versa.

The net of this is that you should place your bets on the creative centers of the US, where there are the highest levels of welfare support, highest minimum wages, greatest push for universal health care, stem cell research, greenhouse gas controls and the least support for organised religion. As things stand, Texas would do America a big favour by becoming independent again - good luck with your "libertarian" future.

45. AAI 07

Comment #83218 by thirdchimpanzee on October 29, 2007 at 10:02 am

comment by notsobad

If by 'not giving a shit' you mean not giving me anything for free if I intentionally caused my misery, I am fine about that.

Actually I meant something deeper than that - it amounts to asking why would someone be rummaging around in your garden shed for stuff to steal. If its for drugs, maybe you should work to legalize drugs and keep them out of your garden shed - I don't know. Sometimes its just teenagers looking for a cheap thrill. In earlier times based upon village life you probably would know who was doing it, know the families etc. Today we retreat into our suburban anonimity and lash out at anyone who dares disturb it.

Historically it has been a role of religion to force people out of their inherent selfishness and consider the world as it appears to others. One of the significant challenges facing those of us who are proponents of atheism is to demonstrate that we can match the religiously-based concept of caring - which many people want to do. Perhaps, in other contexts, so do you notsobad. I think there are some people who are religious largely because it validates their desire to care about others. I think there are plenty of non-religious grounds to show that empathy and compassion are wired into most of us - and are essential to successful societies.

46. AAI 07

Comment #83202 by thirdchimpanzee on October 29, 2007 at 9:09 am

Aah - I see the glimmer of understanding here notsobad - you may not like it but people will respond to the way they're treated. If you don't give a shit about them - it will be returned. Reminds me of growing up in Latin America in one of those ex-pat communities with the grills on the windows, and dobermans on patrol for Ladrinos.

Is that what you want for America?

47. AAI 07

Comment #83187 by thirdchimpanzee on October 29, 2007 at 8:04 am

Interesting but poor choice of analogy by scooter

We are all born equal, not given equal

Has scooter checked the infant mortality rates of the US compared to Europe or Canada? And don't give me the old "can't compare homogeneous Europe to hetergeneous US" argument - its not valid in today's Europe. Canada has a higher proportion of foreign born in its population, as well as a higher proportion of indigenous Canadians with severe poverty in a number of communities.

The discrepancy isn't minor, over the millions of births in these countries, and further analysis of US statistics identifies clear disparities between rich/white and poor/minority. This is not an individual choice we're looking at, but a societal one. Assuming scooter (and I do apologise for using you as the representative of a widespread viewpoint in the US) is in some kind of business, or knows friends who are, then the notion of making all your wealth by yourself is utter nonsense. To make real money (unless you're an entertainer) you have to harness the cooperation of others. You may be first among equals, but as Pixar showed Disney, if you don't provide some respect and fairness, you can say goodbye to the collaboration.

And that is what is so fundamentally short-sighted about this mindset (or meme as scooter likes to use) - numerous experiments attest to the competitive advantages of a society using cooperation, combined with catching the cheaters, or punishing those who failed to catch the cheaters. I'm not saying the "no handout" mindset of scooter is cheating - no its perfectly ethical, and there's an element of truth behind it. Its just that everyone likes to be treated with some respect, and blanket statements that everyone in trouble is responsible for their own misfortune is profoundly disrespectful - worse than the handout really.

I know this line we're pursuing here seems off topic, but I think it gets to the heart of why atheism is at such a low level in the US, and atheists are so despised. Unfair or not, what we have in the US is a comparatively primitive society (to use Chapman's description) dressed up as a modern democracy. A country that imprisons more people for non-violent drug offenses than the entire prison population of Europe for all crimes has some serious "soul-searching" to do. On a number of fronts the US would not qualify for membership in the EU.

In this climate, where society as a whole seems indifferent to the individuals fate, many more people seek the comfort of religion, and take whatever fairy tales go along with it. If scooter and his ilk want to see the delusion of religion turned back in the US - they'll have to begin sounding like they actually care about their fellow members of society.

48. AAI 07

Comment #82928 by thirdchimpanzee on October 28, 2007 at 9:31 am

There was a seminal moment in Bill Clinton's presidency when he signed into law a "Workfare" bill that had been foisted upon him by a Republican Congress. This was a turning point for me at least and I think many liberal Americans who had hoped his surprise victory would bring America back from the Thatcher-inspired "Victorian" society ushered in by the master-salesman Ronald Reagan. It was a humiliating repudiation of common sense and basic empathy - dressed up as helping the working poor (who clearly don't need much more of this "help").

Many of the arguments put forward to justify the legislation echoed scooter's sentiments, and run along the lines of "you made your bed, now lie in it". Overlooking the callousness of this responses, I can agree that doing as much as possible to have everyone working is clearly preferable to welfare states where, at the bottom of the ladder, there's little incentive to work compared with subsidies that are generous enough to live on.

The problem is in the details - and the law Bill Clinton signed was a classic of American right-wing fantasy. Put simply, there were some minimal incentives added to help unemployed poor people find jobs, and after 5 years of taking federal welfare money - you were cut off for the rest of your life - regardless what happened to you. There were pleas in congress to think this through, and imagine what was supposed to happen 5 years afterwards - and the answers were straight out of the 1800's - use family, friends and church.

Well - we're way past 5 years on this, and what has happened is that the individual states, like New York, have stepped in to provide minimal money for the poor. The logical consequence of scooters attitude should be that individuals die from medical complications, or starvation, or suicide because of the poor "choices" they had made. However, the prospect of Americans dying on a daily basis in this way would embarrass too many good citizens. This is not new, years ago hospitals were instructed by law to accept and treat anyone walking into the emergency room, and food stamp programs and other forms of minimal support were instituted.

Nevertheless, if you're homeless in Toronto, you'll live an average two years longer than being homeless in New York (one of the more liberal cities in the US). The highly competitive nature of US society has, arguably, served it quite well in the last 100 years, along with the simply fact of having a continent-sized economy speaking the same language.

However, these kinds of regressive social policies are beginning to be understood as a competitive disadvantage. Toyota recent opened a new plant in Ontario, Canada - passing up union-free, cheap wage locations in the US South. One of the reasons cited was the quality of the workforce - which means a population sufficiently educated, healthy and motivated to prosper in a 21st century auto plant. It costs General Motors over $500 per car more to manufacture in the US versus Canada - primarily because of the cost of health care.

There are exceptions like California, but the "heartland" of America is stumbling badly at the beginning of the 21st Century. There are still tremendous reservoirs of talent and innovation in this country, but attitudes like scooter's are becoming part of the problem. In a telling piece yesterday, no American airline has ordered any A380 airbus, and only 50 out of 700 new Boeing 787s will be going to US airlines in the next 5-8 years. The foreign grad school talent pool that this country has so relied upon for the next generation of innovation is increasingly going home (to China, India or Europe).

The bottom line is that the competitive decline of the US, in combination with ruinously expensive war flings in Iraq, and tax cuts at home, are setting the stage for some very ugly possibilities here. They're not inevitable, but remember the world's shock and outrage at the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

Finally, how does all of this tie into Matthew Chapman's talk. I agree with him that atheism, like democracy, really can't flourish in the absence of a minimum of shared prosperity and security. The American working and middle class is shrinking, and more insecure every day - we're vaguely aware that really bad things would happen if the Chinese call in their chits. The US is not in the world's driving seat any more and in those circumstances I think we're going to see religious America become more intensely religious, even as non-religious America finds its voice.

49. AAI 07

Comment #82801 by thirdchimpanzee on October 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Comment #82760 by Diacanu

Oh boy, I guess Scooternyc is our resident libertarian atheist.

As a left-wing libertarian I take some exception to the assumption here. If you check out this site

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I think you'll find it will help get past some of the rhetoric - and you'll notice an FAQ where the organisers of this site respond to the question regarding left-wing libertarianism

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq16

I have lived in the UK, Canada and now the US - and my speculation is that there must have been some selection filter operating on US residents that leaves so many of them bereft of any empathy. Had the UK or Canadian Governments tried to create a Guantanamo, it would have been shut down long ago.

Example: A boy just got released today from a 10 year sentence for consensual teenage sex - but he still had to serve 2 years in prison and only just escapes being branded a sex offender.

The media referred to him as a "man", which he is now, but his "crime" was committed when he as a boy. I could go on and on - the person sentenced to spend the rest of his life in a California prison under "three strikes" legislation, his last crime being theft of golf clubs a little over $200 in value.

Many Americans do understand there's a serious problem with the values of their society, and actively fight to enlighten others. But they often seem to be marginalised defending obvious rights (like the ability to vote after you've served your prison sentence).

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins, in arguing for an innate human morality, assume a basic human solidarity. As Brits this is probably unsurprising, and one of the British questioners in the video pointed out that atheism is found across the political spectrum in the UK. What is making Matthew Chapman somewhat pessimistic is that the solidarity one finds in the UK and Canada (witness the public reaction to the deaths of prostitutes in Ipswich a little while ago) just isn't present in mainstream America.

If you listen to someone like Studs Terkel, he paints a rather grim picture of a concerted effort to expunge socialism from the US lexicon since the 1920's. There are many direct tools for doing so (like FBI infiltration, immigrant documents requiring that you swear you've never been a communist etc), but there's one other tool that I think is very relevant to this site - America as a religion.

By creating a religion out of the country's founding, declaring that certain attitudes are American, and others are un_American, one creates an idea of American orthodoxy, and an enormous in-group/out-group schism. This makes it very easy to marginalise elements of the society that make others uncomfortable: the poor, blacks, homosexuals, ex-prisoners (millions of them), and of course, atheists.

I don't think there's any quick fix here (and scooternyc clearly doesn't think anything needs fixing) - but I think we have to regard most Americans as in the grip of two religions, and society has to tackle the delusions of both to make progress here.

Final note - the US spends more per capita on its government run Health schemes (Medicare, Medicaid) than the UK does running the NHS, all the while strenuously pretending there no socialised medicine in the US. I can only hope that Health Care is the trojan horse that brings about the collapse of the scam being foisted on any ordinary American who keeps voting for tax cuts for the rich.

50. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #82407 by thirdchimpanzee on October 26, 2007 at 8:45 am

Comment #81803 by oeditor

Since thermodynamics and information theory are difficult to understand, punters are easily blinded by pseudoscience. Does anybody know where there's a robust understandable refutation of this nonsense?

I'm afraid that most of us (myself included) don't have the formal background to present detailed challenges to some of these assertion - which is the point being made by oeditor. What may be effective is to use a comparison that can be understood and accepted by most - and handily refutes the argument. In this case, the argument is essentially that the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that an isolated system will tend to become increasingly random (increasing entropy) over time. A system that is becoming more organised over time is therefore breaking the law, and since evolution appears to be increasing order, it must be impossible without divine agency (the uber-lawbreaker I guess).

I've seen attempts to refute this line of reasoning trying to point out that we're not an isolated system (the Sun pumps energy into the system for example). While these refutations are correct with respect to the science, I don't think these are convincing to the believer, particularly because bringing in an "outside factor", like solar radiation, simply lays the groundwork for a believer to bring in their outside factor.

I think there's another line that can be taken here, which everyone is familiar with - crystallisation. Here is a clear example of order being apparantly produced from disorder. Igneous rocks around us and under our feet are produced by crystallisation from liquid magma. The point can be made that this is a "local" reorganisation, and the surrounding solution is typically made warmer by the heat liberated when the crystal forms. Even the planet we're standing on is in a sense an enormous "crystallisation" from an amorphous solar disc. Over time, as the energy sources supporting this order diminish, our solar system will begin to distintegrate - but that's billions of years in the future.

The key point is that there's abundant evidence that a system can temporarily and locally become more organised (the surroundings becoming warmer and therefore less organized to compensate). Our Earth is geologically active, and therefore supports continued "organization" in the form of making new crust material etc. because we have a relatively rich supply of radioactive elements to keep supplying energy to the system. The excess heat from this activity keeps the core molten, and is also radiated out into space. All this would be happening even if we took the Sun out of the equation - and there are clearly lifeforms at the bottom of the ocean by vents that don't care is there's a Sun around or not.

Even a look at our own activities illustrates the same point - we take a coal mine in Kentucky, for example, and scoop the top of the mountain, extract the coal, burn it to CO2, and use the energy to increase the organisation of our lives (building a car for example). In return, we have warmed our environment, and severely disorganised a mountain in Kentucky.

The total biomass on this planet is a tiny fraction of the material present, and the fact this this biomass is running around making some things more organised, and consequently disorganising other things is perfectly fine. This is fully allowed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there's no contradiction.

Now someone may try to bring "information theory" into this - and all they are doing is playing with the statistical (microstate) component of entropy. So what - appeal to common sense. A volcano is clearly more organised (and therefore contains more information) than the black sand beach it will become, but volcanoes keep getting produced and worn down to beaches. As long as the energy to drive this is there in the Earth's interior, this will continue for billions of years.

If life cannot find energy to sustain its activities, then it too will regress to a more disorganised state - but until then, there's no problem. We're free to locally organise (and increase local information) as long as we have energy to do so, and somewhere to dump energy and make more disorganised to compensate.

While these examples should help explain why life does not violate any Thermodynamic Laws, there may still be an argument where evolution specifically violates these principles. My answer would be that evolution is nothing more than one of the activities of living systems, and is no more exceptional (arguably less exceptional) than the development of a multicellular entity from a single cell. Using the non-living analogy, it like crystals forming inside crystals (think of geodes). As a geode forms from rock cavities, it creates a more locally organized (i.e. higher information) environment for other fluids seeping in to form fantastic crystals in layers. Evolution is life reforming itself within the context of living systems, sometimes becoming more "organised " (fins become legs), sometimes less "organised" (legs become flippers).

By continually referring the analogy back to non-living counterparts this approach can possibly forestall attempts to bring in "divine sparks", or to treat life a a special case. In particular, challenging the "information theory" argument is important, because that's a new meme that's been recently added to the religious armory, and its spread impressively through their networks. It seems modern, and also has echoes of "intelligence" - but as far as I am aware its nothing more than a fashionable restatement of the microstates of entropy, and carries no more meaning when applied to the molecules and cells of a lifeform than it does to the crystals of a rock.