1. Albinos, Long Shunned, Face Threat in Tanzania

Comment #190446 by Erik on June 9, 2008 at 5:46 am

It's a particularly sad commentary on what promises to be a continuingly growing gulf between city and countryside in Tanzania. Although I am sure there remains a steady stream of superstition in the cities, nevertheless the younger generation in the cities are far more exposed to other ideas, the internet, etc., and they seemed to me to have little but scorn for this kind of lunacy.

2. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186501 by Erik on May 30, 2008 at 11:36 am

I grew up in Houston public schools in the 60's and 70's and we didn't have this kind of crap. People by and large did their worshipping in private.

We had a Bible display outside of the state courthouse for a while. Its presence was challenged in federal court, and the judge, himself a devout Christian, had no problems in ruling the display to be unconstitutional.

3. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186352 by Erik on May 30, 2008 at 7:48 am

It is unbelievable that otherwise rational persons cannot see that the 10 Commandments are themselves anathema to an open system of government. After all, the first Commandment, depending on which version you use, commands that no god other than the Hebrew god can be worshipped. Hard to think of an idea that is more restrictive on freedom of thought than that.

The idea that the 10 Commandments are fundamental to the formation of our system of laws is also pure fiction. Just read them and you can see that. The Magna Carta is arguably far more important. The centuries of developed English common law are undisputably more critical.

But to me, the biggest problem with displaying these things in the state legislature or courthouses is that they create the impression that only people of a certain religious following will be represented in legislation and receive justice in the courts. Those of us in the minority understand that, no matter how hard they try, religious people render moral judgments about those who do not share their beliefs. So it would not be unreasonable for, say, a criminal defendant who happens to be Muslim, at the sentencing phase, to believe that a judge who has the 10 Commandments on the wall will not treat the Muslim in the same way as that judge would treat Christian defendants. It is not lost on many minorities that on the one hand they are told that they have to conform to civil standards, but on the other hand may be excluded from the process.

Fortunately, most legislators who try to pull these stupid stunts usually leave a trail of evidence to show that their primary motivation is to not only push religion, but a very specific form of religion. They simply can't help it, because they believe in the justness of their cause. This makes it easy for the courts.

4. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158143 by Erik on April 10, 2008 at 6:09 am

I am no fan of the Catholic church, but it would of course be inaccurate to suppose that the church was or is a monolithic entity. In fairness, Catholics were among the strongest supporters of the resistance in the Netherlands. And if you look through the display at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem referred to as the "Righteous Among the Nations", you will find a not insignificant number of Catholics represented.

5. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156701 by Erik on April 8, 2008 at 7:00 am

I think that there should be no term "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist" at all, because (at least here in the US) there is an implication associated with the suffix "ist" that the identifying issues are subjective, that they are simply a matter of opinion. None of us, for example, would call ourselves "gravitationists".

6. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155426 by Erik on April 4, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Pascal's Wager should never get off the ground for the simple reason that its premise is too suspicious to be trusted. It is, of course, merely a threat wrapped in a pretty ribbon. If the threat were "believe or face a mild slap on the wrist", the wager would be ignored all the time. To make the threat, and thus the Wager, more effective, it has to employ extremes on the opposing ends of rewards vs. punishment. You therefore cannot trust that there is any relation between the choice posed by the Wager and actual fact, and so it collapses.

7. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #149983 by Erik on March 26, 2008 at 11:32 am

Happy Birthday, Professor! and best wishes to you and yours from Houston, Texas.

8. Banned From Church

Comment #115515 by Erik on January 24, 2008 at 9:22 am

You really have to wonder about someone who accuses some poor old lady of being "guilty of idolatry". Seriously, idolatry? Like the woman is secretly worshipping a statute of Baal or something. It's as suspicious as someone regularly using the word "for" instead of "because", or the phrase "at hand" to mean "happening soon". Just grow up and leave the stupid phraseology behind.

9. Man and God

Comment #103532 by Erik on December 26, 2007 at 6:35 am

Sorry if it has been rehashed already, but I find the argument that someone like Dawkins is encroaching on the wrong field either disingenuous or just downright ignorant. Leaving aside the fact that a number of atheists are former believers, the simple problem is that religions make claims about what must either be factual or not factual.

The claim that God exists is surely a theory about the origin of the universe, even if it is a bad one. So to say, for example, that a physicist cannot hold forth on the existence or not of God is pure nonsense. Similarly, to claim that a biologist has nothing to say about God as the basis of the the origin of life or the diversity of life is complete hogwash. Religious claims are at their heart claims about facts, and therefore subject to scrutiny like any other claim.

And there's the real heart of the problem: science has been pounding religious claims into dust, one by one, over the centuries. In the same way that some scientists were surprised to find that the mechanisms of evolution were discovered, the religious are regularly surprised to find that science does have something to say about deeply-held religious convictions, and it often has the effect of pulling the rug right out from under them. No wonder that believers have to resort to this type of argument.

10. The Scientists Speak

Comment #89363 by Erik on November 20, 2007 at 12:08 pm

arogop,

You might also take a look at www.realclimate.org for the perspective of a climatologist on the very issues you raised.

11. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84494 by Erik on November 2, 2007 at 7:07 am

Along the lines of slavery, to regret the wholesale slaughter of native Americans is to regret Western civilization. To me, the whole point seems to be that Western ideas have flourished in large part because they are open to criticism. Religious thought may be criticized by believers, but must also be open to criticism from unbelievers, on the grounds that faith itself is an unreliable process for coming to understand anything. The idea that critics of religion would toss out the life work of Isaac Newton because he was in some respects a religious nutcase is a straw man.

I also don't see what the fuss is about with the supposed significance of life. In fact, I have some difficulty understanding what it is that people actually mean when they say this, although I suspect that many of them mean to say "I have a hard time accepting the idea that when I die, that's it."

Frankly, I find this to be a most liberating notion. I think it is rather easy to slip from the idea that there is some significance to life to the idea that perhaps the things you do and say in this life will affect you after you die. In the religious context, therefore, there are thought crimes, one of the most heinous aspects of it all. Lose this unsupported notion and your mind is one step closer to free.

If Dalrymple means to say that religious thinkers came up with paradigms about nature that could over time be tested against the facts, that is all well and good. (Although one point must be made -- exactly what room was there in, say, 16th century Europe for a prominent scientist to be explicitly atheist?) What is plain as the nose on your face is that religious concepts simply have no useful place any more, if they ever did.

12. Brief Regarding the California Same-Sex Marriage Case

Comment #83166 by Erik on October 29, 2007 at 6:23 am

After reading your posts and rereading the brief, I realize I was perhaps being a bit hasty. We had a similar situation here in Texas with the Lawrence case (regarding the anti-sodomy statute). The case was not decided on First Amendment grounds, but in dissent, Justice Scalia touched on the notion that was really bothering him: the ruling provides a springboard for arguing that every law passed by a legislature must have a rational basis. Scalia realized that, to accept the Court's ruling in Lawrence, you cannot justify passing a law based purely on a religious notion.

In other words, a guy like Scalia can't see that there is really no conceptual difference between a law that advances, say, a religious ritual (like a law against eating meat on Fridays) and a law that advances a religious tenet (like a law prohibiting homosexuality). He thinks the latter is just fine, and the former would be if it weren't for that pesky First Amendment.

And, indeed, the lawyers for Lawrence didn't look at it this way, either, although it was staring them right in the face. At trial, the State of Texas admitted that the only basis of the anti-sodomy law was religious, but Lawrence's counsel did not argue that the law was unconstitutional based on the First Amendment. And when I talked to them at a meeting here in Houston, it was plain that the argument did not even occur to them.

But it seems to me that there is no First Amendment justification for permitting the enforcement of a substantive religious view vs. a law addressing a societal issue (like the prohibition on murder). The trouble is finding where these things diverge, since there are plenty of religious admonishments that coincide with secular ethics. My guess is that Scalia, and a whole lot of other people, would find it an odd exercise to have to determine the secular basis for having a law against murder. So before we even get to the pros and cons of a particular piece of legislation, I suppose we have to get folks used to the idea that the only proper way to legislate is through evidence and reason. Maybe that is too broad a view of the First Amendment, but it is my firm wish.

13. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #82472 by Erik on October 26, 2007 at 12:11 pm

LeeC nailed it. If the question "What is the purpose of our existence?" is a valid question, then the question "Why does God exist?" is also valid. You quickly discover this is an infinite regression, i.e., a variant of the First Cause argument.

14. Brief Regarding the California Same-Sex Marriage Case

Comment #82370 by Erik on October 26, 2007 at 7:16 am

I wish Tabash had spent more time on the issue of whether there is no secular purpose to the same-sex marriage ban, and less time on the basics of First Amendment principles, which are well understood. It may simply not be sufficient to show that legislators were motivated primarily by religious tenets. Otherwise, one might be tempted to strike down laws prohibiting murder on the grounds that the Ten Commandments were the prime motivation for the laws.

This is not to say that there are valid secular reasons for banning same-sex marriages. But clearly a lot of people will be uncomfortable with that notion, even outside of religious thought. Opponents of same-sex marriage bans on First Amendment grounds are doing good work, but sooner or later they will have to face this issue.

15. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68489 by Erik on September 7, 2007 at 9:25 am

I particularly liked Bunting's reference to the exchange between Harris and Sullivan. It was a thorough thrashing of Sullivan's position by Harris, almost to the point of embarassment for Sullivan. But Harris was polite, no question about it. Perhaps Bunting is suggesting to Dawkins that this is the proper way to demolish a theist?

16. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60968 by Erik on August 3, 2007 at 7:56 am

Re: Comment #60953 by Blaine

I think PZ does understand McGrath's position and still disagrees. If I read PZ correctly, he is saying that the concepts of god used to explain things we observe have taken a serious beating over the course of history. There is therefore no good reason to even take the agnostic position as the default position.

An analogy might be the concept of ether. Are you an agnostic on whether there is a cosmic ether? Or, like most people, do you basically discount this idea? I don't think it is out of line to say that the rational default position on whether ether exists is that there is no ether.

17. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59777 by Erik on July 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Bonzai,

I am in no way saying that crying is just water and salt. There was a cause, and someone felt real pain. In fact, that has been part and parcel of my point all along. It is just as defensible to avoid emotional anguish as to avoid physical pain. There is no reason to denigrate either one merely because they are highly complex chemical reactions.

A rational conclusion depends in large part on what a person's goal is: if you do action Y, you are more likely to obtain goal X. Therefore, it is rational to do Y. What I am saying about the underpinning of values is that there is this process at the heart of them all.

Once again, the whole point, that everyone seems to want to avoid, is that religion simply does not advance the ball in this realm, which is why I was asking stag about the use of the term way up towards the beginning of this thread.

But to get back to your post, are you suggesting that emotions are something other than chemical reactions? If they are something else, then what are they?

Maybe I should ask this a different way: do you like the taste of an apple? If so, why?

And one more thing: What is an "insight"?

And whatever an insight is, are you seriously suggesting that science has not provided the most astounding insights on life?

18. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59734 by Erik on July 30, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Stag,

And I believe that even your values are ultimately fact-based. Each person may have different values, but underlying them all is a fact or a rational conclusion. If you decide that your values place family above all else, then I cannot but expect that there are emotional ties driving your values. I also expect that those emotional ties are founded in the facts of biochemistry.

These things may all be outrageously complicated, but do you really think that emotions or other factors that drive our values will never be understood by biochemists? Given the phenomenal advances in understanding of the last 200 years, I'm not sure this is a safe bet.

You mentioned that to make a good ethical decision, you need good facts and good values. How would you define what a "good" ethical decision is, as opposed to a bad one?

19. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59680 by Erik on July 30, 2007 at 7:06 am

Stag,

I agree. But the way those decisions are made is not on the basis of a 3,000 year old book. We make those decisions based on our perceptions of the mental and emotional development of children. (That is why you can get a curious dichotomy in most states of the US, where 18 year olds can vote, but they cannot buy alcohol.) We can argue about where those lines should be drawn, and many of them would be difficult, but that only proves my point -- we would be arguing based on the causes and effects of observable facts.

You and I may disagree about, say, the relative value of individual freedoms vs. state interference. But we will not be arguing at random. Each of our approaches will be based on our perceptions and experiences.

I will freely admit that not everyone completely roots their decisions on fact, but then look at the abysmal results -- witch trials, eugenics, persecution of homosexuals, etc.

So once again I come back to my original question: what does religion have to offer to resolve any of our value questions?

20. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59458 by Erik on July 29, 2007 at 6:02 am

Henri Bergson,

I understand that I am inculcated with western values. I also appreciate that moralizing is a power play. Not sure what that has to do with anything in this discussion.

What I don't understand is why you insist that our observations of the natural world cannot tell us what we ought to do. How else do you go about deciding on a set of morals? And why would this involve prescribing actions that are hurtful? I am in no way suggesting that our own human tendencies be the rule.

Why doesn't the following progression work?:

1. I avoid physical pain in the same way I avoid starvation.
2. I observe, empirically, that X action, while possibly bringing some benefit to the actor, causes Y pain in the recipient, whether physical or emotional.
3. I observe, empirically, that a society in which people refrain from doing X by mutual agreement reduces the incidence of Y.
4. I observe, empirically, that in order for 3 to work, people have to take it upon themselves to refrain from doing X. Or to put it another way, I observe, empirically, that the Golden Rule works.
5. Therefore, I will refrain from doing X.

Why is this substantively different from saying that, if my goal is to not die, I shouldn't drink hemlock, something that was learned, no doubt, by trial and unfortunate error? How are the answers to "ought" questions not the result of similar observations?

In any event, what I am suggesting is that a method of determining "ought" that separates itself from the observed world (i.e., religious thought) is hopelessly flawed.

21. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59070 by Erik on July 27, 2007 at 7:35 am

Stag,

For the most part, I am in agreement with you.

Clearly, there are elements of affection, empathy and sympathy in moral values. I just don't see how those things are not ultimately explainable in terms of fact. For society's shared values, I also don't see how these things are somehow divorced from a society's collective experiences. Once those are experienced and understood, it may well be irrational to deny they exist.

That is why I don't see any role for religion, because in my view that term denotes a process by which people (intentionally or not) end up divorcing morals from fact.

22. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58915 by Erik on July 26, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Stag,

If you experience extreme pain from putting your hand in a fire, and then conclude that you should, whenever possible, avoid putting your hand in a flame, is that an ethical judgment?

The reason you shouldn't impinge on others is that someone may come along who is stronger than you. You want everyone to live by the same rules for that exact reason. I perceive that a society in which people abide this way reduces my fear of loss, whether that loss is of property, companionship or freedom. I also perceive this relative lack of fear to be of considerable benefit to me. There is no leap of faith here at all.

To my view, slavery fails as a rational way of distributing labor. It may be a temporary benefit to certain people, but the long-term detrimental effects are extreme, and still being felt.

But your question raises another more basic question -- why do we think anything is morally abhorrent? If it is in part hard-wired, then what about it isn't fact-based?

I am by no means advocating that we live simply by our own natures; rather, I think we can see the benefits of pursuing certain desires, among those being a peaceful life, one that reduces our fears, because to live with fear is palpably less pleasant than living without it. In ways I find this conceptually no different than yanking your hand out of a flame.

23. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58871 by Erik on July 26, 2007 at 1:39 pm

TinyRobot,

Actually, I think your post (#58638) was well stated. The term "religion" has always meant to me the adherence to something that is not really justifiable. That's why what you were describing sounds to me more like ethics, a very worthy pursuit.

Stag and Henri Bergson,

I don't see why a system of ethics could not be based on facts. Pain is a fact of life, is it not? How would it be too reductionist to say that a goal in our lives is to reduce the pain caused by irrational fears, the inability to address the needs of food, clothing and shelter or ailing health? How would it be too reductionist to say that curtailing someone's freedoms has adverse psychological effects, and therefore, as a general rule, people should be free to the extent they do not impinge on others?

To say that we cannot derive values from facts smacks to me similar to saying that we can never understand consciousness. But I will admit that I may be totally wrong. Can you give me an example of a value that cannot be ascribed to facts? Or are you just saying that we cannot currently ascribe all of our values to facts, though perhaps we might in the future? While I agree with the latter, I am highly skeptical about the former.

I guess I don't see how your values are not based on your observations of the natural world. When someone steals something from you, you have an angry reaction. Biologists can help me out here, but this reaction is likely a series of highly complex chemical reactions. Are these not facts? So when you say your values include not stealing, aren't you really saying that you want to avoid the unpleasant feeling associated with the loss of your property? (Is this conceptually different from not putting your hand in an open flame?) This idea can then be expanded to the rest of the society, because the entire system will break down if not applied across the board.

24. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58610 by Erik on July 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

TinyRobot,

What would a "naturalistic" religion actually be? Would it differ from a rational study of ethics?

Maybe I'm dense, but I really fail to understand what religion brings to the table of human understanding. On the contrary, the full appreciation of Darwin's dangerous idea, which is so obviously more accurate than any religious view of life, is potentially blocked by the idea that we belong to some greater unified thing "out there". Most people I know who want to hold on to some notion that we might describe as religious are, in my estimation, really trying to hold on to the idea that we are more than a combination of molecules, or that consciousness could not be subject to the same evolutionary pressures as anything else is.

On the subject of the historicity of Jesus, the lack of contemporary evidence is not the only arrow in the quiver. There are Christian writings that suggest that the earliest ideas regarding Jesus are of a celestial being, not an earthly one. This would seem rather unlikely if the religion had been built on the life of a recently deceased preacher.

25. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #57293 by Erik on July 18, 2007 at 7:40 pm

The idea articulated by the American geneticist that you can reach a belief in a god through a study of probabilities is really just fooling yourself. We establish the probability of something because we have evidence of the regularity or rarity of its occurrence. Without the slightest shred of reliable evidence for god, you cannot establish its probability. The poor man made a complete fool out of himself by further trumpeting the divinity of JC, thereby indicating just how little he actually employed reasoning and evidence in his conversion.

26. A force for evil?

Comment #55214 by Erik on July 10, 2007 at 9:05 am

"No doubt people will still find reason to quarrel, and peoples will still find reasons to go to war with each other; but in the absence of the portmanteau appeal, the all-trumping, simplistic, total motivation that religion provides to people who think it gives them divine sanction to murder strangers, that indeed makes the murder of strangers a moral good, there will have to be much sounder arguments and much better evidence available for doing evil. At present, all that evil needs is the name of faith."

I'm not sure I entirely agree. I believe that faith, and particularly the strength of faith, is rooted in something else. Perhaps in the fear of losing one's identity; perhaps in the fierce notion of self that may be tied to the drive to procreate. In any event, you can find the same type of phenomenon in patriotism, which can be as extreme as religious faith.

27. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46104 by Erik on May 30, 2007 at 8:24 am

It's 1960. You are black and living in rural Alabama. You see 10 white men walking towards you. How secure would you feel, irrespective of the kind of meeting they were coming from?

28. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45835 by Erik on May 29, 2007 at 11:15 am

pewkatchoo,

I agree with you. Probably what I should have said was "I have no reason, without doing research into her background which strikes me as a waste of time, to doubt that Ms. Somerville has thought at length about ethics, even if it may be laden with faulty assumptions."

29. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45775 by Erik on May 29, 2007 at 7:32 am

The notion of seeking common ground with people whose ideas you oppose often seems like the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, people who hold power do not relinquish it lightly. Advances in equal rights for various minorities have not been the result of polite sit-downs.

It can be difficult to get theists to understand that a society is better run when legislative decisions are not made on the basis of religious rules. If you look at Antonin Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case, for example, you find his flabbergasted outburst that accepting the majority's opinion would require that legislatures have a rational basis for their decisions. Imagine! And this from one of the most powerful jurists in America.

So when I read this kind of commentary from Somerville, I hear echos of the notion that lack of reason has a place in public discourse, the notion that you can have a compromise between hard evidence and irrational beliefs.

I would not doubt that Ms. Somerville is a good ethicist. But I would wager that the basis of her ethics can be found in facts and experience, and not in doctrine. It is unfortunate indeed that believers mix these two freely.

30. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #8530 by Erik on November 21, 2006 at 2:45 pm

Hello! I'm sorry to say I'm breaking netiquette a bit by not reading all the comments before me but it's much and, well, yeah. I wouldn't blame you if you're not reading this either.

I'm (sort of) an atheist as well, and I can sort of find myself in your points, except for the fifth. I'd rather reverse your argument. While I like to apply moderation in religious matter, I very much like applying it to everything. Isn't it true that the best way to form one's opinion is by endlessly listening to other people's opinions and evaluating them and seeing whether or not they have a point somewhere? Of course, it's nice to be certain of oneself, but I find it even more pleasing to understand why other people think the way they do, rather than just telling them they're wrong.

On that note, also a small comment on your second point. This is why I said I'm 'sort of' an atheist - I don't believe in a diety, but part of me believes in the concept of reincarnation. Part of me knows it's probably not true, but the idea of an afterlife, or in the more usual religions, someone who watches over you, is very comforting. I think it's one of the main reasons so many of the elderly are religious - they're lonely. My grandma is a firm Christian, but by no means because she needs anything explained. It's just comfort. And I find it comforting too - I've no problems with holding two concepts in my mind that conflict a bit. Or a lot :) And I know there's no proof to be found for reincarnation, and I'm not seeking to prove it. If I want truth, I'll say there's nothing. If I want to sleep well, I'll say there's reincarnation. A delightfully easy way to soothe the mind, is it not?

Mm, I'll shut up, I must be boring you.