1. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #72348 by sabre_truth on September 20, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Onward atheist soldiers ;)

2. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72341 by sabre_truth on September 20, 2007 at 7:08 pm

These moderate theologians basically believe what I believe, up to a point: we only understand parts of the cosmos; the whole is beyond our present ability to grasp in precise terms, and it may very well forever remain so. But it is still a leap to identify that ineffable reality that lies beyond the bounds of our finite experience expressible within the limits of our language with the God spoken of in the Bible. It is an even greater leap (and evident absurdity) to put stock in any claimed knowledge of its "will", based on this particular cultural artifact.

There is simply no evidential reason for preferring that identification to say, the 'emptiness' spoken of in Madhyamaka Buddhism (and, I might add, much evidential reason to believe that the 'caricature' was actually what the Biblical prophets believed in). The only "reasons" to label the unexplained in a given way are completely subjective, intuitive, and aesthetic choices. I choose simply to call it the unknown and not tie it to any cultural baggage, especially those claiming to direct how one should live one's life. Then I am inspired only to accept that my understanding is always incomplete, and to continue to learn further facets of truth as they can be known: the subjective truths of my aesthetic life, and the probabilistic objective truths of science.

3. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71521 by sabre_truth on September 19, 2007 at 1:02 am

watched the last 2 minutes

Is this the standard for mothers who have any sense?

I hope not...

4. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71520 by sabre_truth on September 19, 2007 at 12:58 am

Whoppi was the only one who had any sense whatsoever, and she was being all too diplomatic with it....sigh

This is the kind of drivel which is now put on our stay at home parents who can't or won't pay for cable? double sigh...

Gives me all that much more impetus as a scientist-educator which is my charge in this life, but lets me know what I am up against. A very high wall of fucking insane ignorance....

5. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70309 by sabre_truth on September 14, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Interesting that the discussion came around to the word "faith". In the Tibetan Buddhist traditions, there is a four-level definition of faith, graded hierarchically, and I think it is instructive for the purposes of our present discussion. No need to associate it with any of the metaphysical claims of those particular traditions.

The first level of faith is wish-thinking: wanting something to be so based on a desire for a better state of existence. This is the primary motivational factor in most religious thinking: faith is imposed out of a desire for salvation, or simply for an easier explanation of a complex reality.

The second level of faith is authoritative confidence: one trusts what comes from a certain source because what they have said has been shown true in previous circumstances. This is the sense in which I think bama is using the word, and it is probably indispensable to every person to varying degrees depending upon their relationship to the object of knowledge at a given time. I myself could be said to have this kind of faith with relation to the fields of science in which I am not expert.

The third level of faith is devotion or dedication: one endeavors to achieve a specific end through will, based on a value-based commitment to that purpose, and trusts that through appropriate exertion such an end will be attained. This is relevant to a mature relationship to one's spouse, for example (even though the goal is not necessarily in the future, but may be just the maintenance of the fruitfulness of the marriage). It also applies to a life's work, to pursuing a particular discipline or project even through the difficult and disillusioning points. It applies personally in my dedication to my particular scientific field, as well as to the broader project of deepening the public understanding of science in general.

The fourth level of faith is conviction through direct realization: this is the certitude (attitude approaching certainty, though it may not be fully "certain" epistemically) garnered by seeing something consistently proven true in one's experience. This is what occurs in the mind when one has completed a particularly rigorous course of applied study and attained the desired results. It applies to the scientific endeavor as the confirmation of theory through repeated experimental and/or observational test. It is only this kind of "faith" which can, in my view, be properly called knowledge.

6. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70250 by sabre_truth on September 14, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Okay, so we have here a review of research into the understanding of resistance to science. I am in training as a scientist and educator. So, what I am really interested in is the development of strategies to combat this problem. Ideally, we should try to develop a wide array of strategies adapted to th huge variety of learning styles. I hope this research helps in that task, but it is just a beginning.

When I was a child I lived on a street with an almost imperceptible downgrade to the south. So when playing ball and the ball went out into the road, it would roll south. Because most the the maps that I saw were displayed with south as toward the bottom of the map, I hypothesized that things tended to go "down" and south was down, so things naturally would go south. So when I learned around the age of 5 or 6 that the Nile River flows northward, I was perplexed. Before long I noticed that there were other slopes where I played with downgrades to the north, so it was in fact the direction "away from the sky" that determined the motion of things. Then, I noticed how silly my original idea was because if south was really "down" in that sense, everything would slide off the face of the earth in that direction.
Combined with other observations, this led me in time to understand gravitation and the roundness of the planet.

I have to wonder whether part of the problem is a lack of experimental habits of mind. Too much is perhaps invested in the authoritative presentation of knowledge, and not enough in hands-on, observational and experimental education. It was only through the accumulation of observational experience that I was able to disprove my incorrect (if childishly cute) theory. After living long enough with the accumulation of these kinds of experiences, I eventually understood the scientific method in a mature way as the testing of explanatory models against the accumulation of data.

I would like to know what it was apart from possibly some natural aptitude for empirical thinking which led me to pick up on science from an early age, whereas many people, even among my contemporaries in college, still have trouble grasping so much apart from trusting the authority of scientists, if even that. What was it about the education I received from my elders both in my family and in the schools which nurtured scientific reasoning? In the simplest terms, it had to be the encouragement to question and to always remain curious for new evidence, and perhaps most importantly, to pay attention to what was actually going on in the world around me. How can I make use of these lessons drawn from my own experience and from psychological research to be a more effective teacher?

There is always some degree of reliance upon authority in evaluating claims. What I have confirmed empirically for myself in a laboratory is very much limited by my own access and the extent of my own education. I am not an expert in virtually any field -- I barely even have any expertise in my own field of optical physics. I have no rigorous understanding of evolutionary biology or climate science, yet I accept evolution by natural selection and anthropogenic global warming. All I have to go on in each case is the lucidity of exposition of the evidence and how it fits the model done by talented educator-experts. I rely upon their scientific integrity and the consistency between multiple sources to be able to trust that they are being thorough and honest. In the media, I often see this "good faith" being undermined by sensationalism such as health scare reports that go back and forth and by outright fictions such as the existence of a significant body of methodologically sound climate research which contradicts the consensus. Here, in addition to the skeptical attitude which looks for soundness of methodology and consistency between sources, it is necessary to be media savvy. Unfortunately, because of the ineptitude in much of the mass media's reporting of science, it is science itself which is called into question in many people's minds, rather than journalistic practices.

So, in conclusion, while we don't have to make every member of the population into a professional scientist, we need to instill critical reasoning skills in relationship to not only science itself, but to our media information resources as well. Living in a wiki-world wrapped in the winds of the blogosphere, where a strong gust of rumor can easily run us aground on shoals of falsehood, it is more important than ever that we equip all members of society with the compass of reason and the astrolabe of evidence.

7. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70235 by sabre_truth on September 14, 2007 at 12:51 pm

I just wanted to add something somewhat off topic. I think that the word "marriage" should be removed from legal terminology. Marriage is something tied up with various cultural traditions, religious or otherwise, and should not be a matter of law. Marriage certificates should only be handed out by those private cultural institutions. The only thing that the government should issue is a Contract of Civil Union, and in cases where children are involved, a Contract of Joint Guardianship. As legal agreements, they should be open to anyone, and it shouldn't necessarily be tied to a sexual or romantic relationship. Any two adults who decide they want to enter into such a contract for the sorts of security it provides should be able to do so.

8. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70232 by sabre_truth on September 14, 2007 at 12:37 pm

This whole issue is so convoluted.

Some people express outrage primarily against the practice of polygamy. The fact is, no jurisdiction recognizes multiple marriage legally, so it is in some ways a moot point. People still may have sex with multiple partners, and as long as they are consenting adults, that is their own business.

For one thing, this is a case of incest and statutory rape on the part of the male cousin. Secondly, it is an issue of the coercive abuse perpetrated by the cult leader. On the first point, the young man should be held accountable for his crime, despite being under the manipulative influence of Jeffs. And Jeffs should be held responsible for his role in abuse of young girls in his religious cult. Emphasizing the polygamy thing is an unnecessary sensationalization -- it is only the vehicle through which the actual criminal sexual abuse of minors happens to be perpetrated in the case of the FLDS.

I grew up in the Salt Lake Valley, and knew of many cases where teenage girls got pregnant and were pressured into marriage by their parents at ages as young as 14 (the youngest legal age of marriage with parental consent in Utah). However, marriage was still never legal between someone under 18 and someone above because of the statutory rape issue. I would agree that marriage at such a young age, even with parental consent and even between partners who are both underage, is crazy. There has to be some provision, however, for taking care of the babies and encouraging the young fathers to take responsibility beyond mere child support.

This is a separate issue beyond cases where there is abuse and coercion, and it is far from being unique to the Mormons. It just seems that it occurs much more in places which are dominated by groups opposed to contraception and abortion and where teenagers are poorly educated about the risks of sex. More often than not, the force opposing the appropriate sex education and reproductive health resources, is religious. So in a broader sense, we should be emphasizing how religious stupidity around sex issues leads to the destruction of young lives -- through abusive perversions and unwanted pregnancies, which perpetuate themselves down to through successive generations, increasing poverty and crime.

9. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69815 by sabre_truth on September 12, 2007 at 11:13 pm

While I agree with the main spirit of Harris' argument, I say that it is very necessary that we keep a methodological relativism in the scientific study of all aspects of culture, including religion. Science is about descriptive, not normative claims. Ethics, though it may be informed by science, is not itself a science. The social scientists who study religious traditions, beliefs, and practices, must endeavor to understand the context within which the subjects of their studies emerges, and should keep their descriptive and explanatory work on those levels. These scientists may in other places delve into ethical considerations drawn from their work, and indeed speak out boldly for moral principle without relativism. But that should not be construed as scientific work. Though it may draw on scientific studies whose purpose it is to give an accurate description and explanation of the various forms of social behavior, it is the distinct and no less vitally important work of ethics. Ethics can achieve its purpose best when it has access to a store of scientific data with a minimum of bias. Both scientific and ethical study suffer if the two are muddled.

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

Comment #69611 by sabre_truth on September 11, 2007 at 10:43 pm

As someone else commented, give me a break!
Give me a goddamn break!

I think what Griffin said is a smart jab at the pathetically vainglorious attributing every accolade and honor to divine favor. The humorless gasbag Mr. Donahue wants to label this comment "hate speech".

I wonder whether he would be willing to call pro-lifers harrassing women on the way to or from very personal and sensitive medical procedures "hate speech".

Somehow, I doubt it.

11. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68608 by sabre_truth on September 7, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Until 1997, in that hotbed of liberalism Eugene, Oregon, a 51-foot concrete cross with inset neon lights stood atop Skinner Butte at the northern end of downtown. It was originally put there when the ownership of the land was not clearly designated, but when the Butte became part of a public city park, the people who erected the cross donated it to the city as a "war veterans' memorial". In 1997 the 9th Federal Circuit Court ruled that the maintenance of the cross on public land was in violation of the U.S. constitution, in accordance with an early ruling by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon in 1969.

I would not be surprised if the legal counsel on the side supporting the maintenance of the cross in the Mojave Preserve had looked to the Eugene case as a legal precedent. By trying to get the land deeded into private hands, they thought they could evade the establishment clause, when in fact acting on behalf of the preservation of one particular religious symbol was just another example of favoring an establishment of religion.

I hope that this case serves to solidify that precedent to help close loopholes which might otherwise have roadblocked the exertion of eminent domain in cases of genuine public benefit on the basis of religion.

12. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68048 by sabre_truth on September 5, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Friend Giskard said:
Religion should have no more political influence than other special interest groups such as political parties, trade unions etc.

I would go a step further and say that it should have no more political influence than other leisure and recreation clubs such as the National Mahjong League or the East London Swinger's Club for Standard Poodle Enthusiasts.

13. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67568 by sabre_truth on September 3, 2007 at 8:33 pm

The best counselor I saw when I was dealing with substance abuse issues was my last psychiatrist. The LCC I was seeing at the time was keen on promoting 12 steps. With my psychiatrist, I could express myself with greater understanding, being of a skeptical scientific bent. Unfortunately, the program was set up where they tried to discourage seeing the psychiatrist for counseling, instead only for medication consultation and follow-up. He said that it would be fine if I saw him apart from medication concerns, but of course, it cost 3 times as much for the same amount of time as one of the LCCs or LISWs.

14. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67566 by sabre_truth on September 3, 2007 at 8:21 pm

I can understand, given India's history, why it would have a law of this kind. It is not just Muslims, but also Hindus and to some degree Sikhs who have engaged in sectarian violence there. They are very nervous about those kinds of things being stirred up.

That being said, I still reject any such law on principle as a restriction of freedom of expression. It is the same way I feel about the laws against "Holocaust denial" in several European countries.

What they need is enforcement of laws against real crimes. If someone is being harassed and threatened, they should be protected and the perpetrators punished. If there is rioting between Muslims and Hindus, the mobs should be rounded up and jailed.

The great irony is it is Nasreen herself who is the victim here, who should be protected against these barbarians, yet she is being charged with a crime for simply voicing her opinion. Insanity.

15. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66851 by sabre_truth on August 31, 2007 at 7:21 pm

I think the question of the choice between science and religion should be interpreted as the choice between personally accepting a claim of science or a claim of religion when there is a perceived real conflict. I doubt if many, if any, of those surveyed were answering it as if it was: If you had to choose between the elimination of all the institutions of science and all the institutions of religion, which would you choose?

16. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #66807 by sabre_truth on August 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I agree that the headline is phrased in a potentially misleading way. I don't know whether that is intentional or just a case of sloppy language.

This would be further evidence of "gene transfer" and a suggestion that it occurs much more frequently than previously assumed. It strengthens the case for the influence of mechanisms other than mutation in the evolution of species' genomes. These mechanisms offer potential shortcuts in the tedious process of accumulating adaptive mutations.

I think it should be definitely greeted as a reason for people to believe in naturalistic evolution who don't already, because it should make it more believable that there has indeed been enough time in Earth's history for the diversity and complexity of organisms to develop without any outside intervention.

Many evolution doubters display not only an ignorance of the evidence outside of the fossil record, but also of the discoveries of these novel mechanisms which indicate that we don't have to just sit around and wait for adaptive mutations to accumulate. Evolution has had a lot of help from ecology.

17. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66800 by sabre_truth on August 31, 2007 at 1:35 pm

It seems to me that the Rabbis are more concerned over whether the chicken flesh from the ritual is kosher or not, rather than whether they are abusing animals, or whether it is sanitary by modern standards.

And then there was this little chestnut:
"I don't think that PETA is taken very seriously in the Orthodox community, or in any civilized society"

I think the irony meter just exploded.

18. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66373 by sabre_truth on August 29, 2007 at 8:38 pm

When I saw the title of this post, I processed the name "Bill Donahue" as "Phil Donahue"...never heard of Bill Donahue before, and from what I saw, no loss that I hadn't.

19. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66355 by sabre_truth on August 29, 2007 at 7:01 pm

P1. A is A

P2. Every effect differs in some way from its cause.

Then, if God is His own cause, it follows that God differs in someway from Himself. That is, God is not God, a contradiction.

Therefore we conclude that God is not His own cause, or either P1 or P2 is false.

If we are to insist that God is His own cause, then we have an example where A is not A. Some people might be willing to drop the law of identity, and with it the entire edifice of logic. If not, then they must accede that an effect can be identical to its cause, in which case we would have no means of determining a which is the cause and which is the effect, and in fact the entire concept of causality would be rendered senseless.

To put it another way: Is the God who caused God the same or different from the God who was caused by God? If the same, then God did not cause God, and if different, then God is not God.

20. Another view

Comment #66340 by sabre_truth on August 29, 2007 at 6:05 pm

I think it is important not to oversimplify the issues involved. When we ask the question of the efficacy of a particular kind of treatment, we have to ask, "effective for what?" Based on the meta-analyses available, there is evidence that acupuncture may be effective for the treatment of a limited set of conditions. Next it needs to be asked, "effective compared to what?" Again based on the meta-analyses available, acupuncture is more effective in these limited cases than no treatment or "sham acupuncture" while less effective than certain other treatments. But even these qualifications of the efficacy question which can be assessed through a statistical meta-analysis miss a final qualification, which is perhaps the most important qualification to an individual patient: "effective for whom?".

This is not amenable to a simple meta-analysis of studies for the treatment of a certain condition.
This is the part of medical practice which is more properly an art than a science. With time and the accumulation of data, we may be able to add more and more variables to our analysis to where we may be able to personalize treatment with incredible accuracy, but this is no consolation to someone who needs relief now. So in particular cases, a treatment with an efficacy deemed questionable at best in the statistical aggregate may in fact work. It would be foolish to close our minds to this possibility, especially when more conventional interventions have failed or where the risk of failure of the unconventional is less than the risk of side effects from something conventional. A good doctor is one who takes into account everything they know about the individual patient when considering the treatment options, and prioritizes according to this in light of their knowledge of those treatments. Now, no such analysis will be as complete or perfect as it could be, but the experienced clinical intuition of doctors is the best guide to the application of our limited scientific knowledge when it comes to treating actual, individual people who are not statistical ensembles.

I believe in the project of scientific medicine, but it is important to recognize that it is a work in progress. Statistics should be used to prioritize the direction of research so that it may progress most efficiently. But the combined experience of the medical community outside of controlled trials should also be a guide. At the same time, all options should be kept on the table, because as wacky as something may seem, it may just work for one or two people out there.

The chief obstacles to medical progress, conventional and alternative or complementary, arise when the manipulative tactics used by those seeking financial gain interfere with the application of science and clinical experience. This is a huge problem in the alternative health industry, primarily through the advertising and sales tactics proponents of these therapies use to obscure their limitations. But conventional medicine is certainly not immune to these problems, whether it is through the advertising of potentially dangerous drugs as a quick fix, or through the undue influence of major corporate interests upon the professional clinical communities and governmental agencies. Until we figure out ways to curtail all these forms of fraud and corruption, our progress towards better and better medicine will be stymied, sometimes with the result of great suffering and loss that could have been avoided.

21. Enemies of Reason

Comment #65692 by sabre_truth on August 25, 2007 at 4:44 pm

I did learn something about homeopathy from this program of which I was not aware before, and which has led me to finally dismiss it where I had given it the benefit of the doubt before. I had been under the impression that homeopathic remedies actually contained a very small amount of the active substance at sub-toxic levels, and that the practice was based on basically the same theory that explains the efficacy of vaccines. That is, I thought that something was actually being introduced into the body in very miniscule amounts to induce an immune response.

The only way I could conceive of that water could retain any information about a substance which had been diluted out of it would be if the dilution process was conducted while keeping the water in a coherent quantum state like a bose-einstein condensate. Of course, the water would have its memory washed out once it was brought out of thermal isolation, which of course it would need to be in order to be used medically. Any information that was encoded in the vibrations of such a coherent state would be for all practical purposes erased as soon as the temperature was raised that miniscule amount higher about absolute zero to cause irreversible decoherence.

This is of course overkill in refuting the ridiculous theory of homeopathy, but I wanted to demonstrate how little specialized knowledge of physics is needed to rule such hogwash out beyond a vanishing probability.

22. Scientists Induce Out-of-Body Sensation

Comment #65533 by sabre_truth on August 24, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Ever since I experimented with LSD as a teenager, I have frequently had out-of-body experiences. I think that this terminology is accurate because it is an experience of being outside of one's physical body, and even illusions are experiences despite the fact that they are objectively erroneous. The experiences increased in frequency and intensity after I stopped taking paroxetine, with which I had been treated for nearly 5 years.

After my first major experience, in which I thought I had travelled to the star Arcturus where a supernal being contacted me and took over control of my body while showing itself as the platonic face of all lifeforms, I entertained the possibility of some extraordinary interpretations. Over time, however, the memory of that experience and subsequent ones mainly served to demonstrate the power of neurophysiology to shape perception. I believe now that the brain is able to store vast amounts of information which can be called up to fabricate the perception of an entire universe, and it is this neurophysically generated virtual universe in which one moves in these experiences.

These days, I have on average one or two of these experiences a month. They are almost invariably preceded by an extremely intense dream which becomes lucid and I become aware that my will over my body is somehow distant from my experiential self in the dream. I usually try to forcibly regain control over my body, to wake up and move. Sometimes it becomes quite terrifying and frustrating, especially in that I there is usually a strong visual and sometimes auditory element mixing in with a perception of my real surroundings.

I have learned recently that this phenomenon is known as sleep paralysis, and I have noticed that when I finally do fully wake and regain control of my body, my eyes are extremely dry, indicating that in fact my eyes are open and I am seeing the real world mix with my dream. It is in fact not a dream which is going on, technically, but "hypnopompic hallucination". A few times, the paralysis has been absent to an extent that I have been able to sit up and began talking to the hallucinated presense of a person in the room. One time I even punched one of these hypno-people. Fortunately it was just a hallucination which didn't happen to coincide with an actual person's body.

23. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65080 by sabre_truth on August 22, 2007 at 9:07 pm

Like the others, I'd like to share my spiel to the CNN question:

If religion is under attack, to some degree it deserves to be. Given the degree to which they have reinforced tribalistic enmities and stymied the application of reason in the public sphere, religions, specifically of the fundamentalist variety and especially the Abrahamic faiths, need to be sharply criticized and have their political influence curtailed. This of course should not be through any direct restriction upon religious practice, but through a shift in our cultural attitudes which permit these practices and the beliefs they derive from an unwarranted degree of special treatment.

I can understand the perception of a coarsening of our culture which motivates many to call for a return to traditional values. I see a great degree of peddling of media and other products which appeal to the most ignoble of human traits in place of more enlightening, ennobling fare. But I do not see this as due to a weakening of religious faith. Rather it is largely due to an overemphasis upon profit motives in our economics and cultural changes which have weakened parental involvement in children's lives.

What is required is a new movement toward a sense of responsibility on all levels. Responsibility in the raising of children, responsibility towards our communities, and responsibility to the greater good of our species and the biosphere which is our life support system. There is not necessarily a need for religious faith to motivate this, though some people may be reinforced in it through their religious or spiritual traditions. We must find a consensus that we, all humans on planet earth, sink or swim together, and learn to pragmatically work together. Religious fundamentalism is only a detriment to that, and those who directly or indirectly support such absolutist ideologies are doing great disservice to the future for their descendants and all of humanity.

24. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64582 by sabre_truth on August 20, 2007 at 7:41 pm

I believe strongly in the power of contemplative habits of mind. In life, we are presented with many obstacles and challenges, for ourselves, our loved ones, our fellow human beings. Turning inward we can find a peaceful mental space wherein we can more readily call upon those positive emotional resources such as compassion, courage, determination, and equanimity which allow us to face challenges in an effective and dignified manner. Different people have different styles of approaching this inner sanctum.

Perhaps I would prefer that our political leaders did not attach themselves to supernatural beliefs in their style of turning inward, or did not have to hypocritically claim allegiance to such beliefs. But if in their prayer they are able to call up strength from within themselves, then there is some worth in their prayer. I completely disavow this atheistic allergy to the contemplative mode of thinking which sneezes violently at the very notion of calling upon the noblest of human qualities just because it appears cloaked in superstitious language.

25. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63744 by sabre_truth on August 15, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I think that Mark Steel is wrongly attributing a certain kind of absolutism to the critiques of religion by Dawkins, et al. He is not alone in this perception, as evidenced by many of the "I'm an atheist, but..." criticisms of the New Atheists' arguments. The misinterpretation is principally that they are saying "Religion is the only cause of problems in the world, and other factors play no role." Related to this is the misperception that these authors claim that all religious belief, in all circumstances and contexts, is equally harmful.

I think this arises, in part, from wrongly conflating two separate claims which they are in fact making: One, that religious beliefs are unjustified from the standpoint of evidence-based rationality; and two, that these unjustified beliefs have been a major motivating factor in much destructive behavior. Certainly, argument in support of the second claim is not argument in support of the first. Whatever the consequences of religious claims may be, they have no relation to the truth value of the beliefs themselves. However, the first claim as to the irrationality of the beliefs themselves does form part of the explanation for why they are divisive and lead to those negative consequences. This connection can appear to suggest that what is being argued is that because of the inherent irrationality in religion, it leads inevitably only to harm, and in the absence of any other contributing factors.

What is perhaps responsible for this error is that the vehemence with which the New Atheists' present their claims makes them stand out within a discourse dominated by the view that religion is only incidental to the conflict and carnage with which we see it associated. These authors have chosen to emphasize the deleterious effects of religious faith largely because our discourse has by and large either denied or minimized those effects. Thus their "conversational intolerance", to use Sam Harris' phrase, appears as a simplistic pointing of fingers to religion, and religion alone, when in fact no serious argument is being made that social, historical, political, and economic factors play no role. They are simply asking us to quit giving religion a free pass, to hold it accountable for its non-negligible damaging effects.

Steel makes the mistake of misconstruing the argument as being a black-and-white religion OR other factors question, and throws in with the other factors side, even after he has acknowledged that the influence of religion has been harmful at certain times. This appears self-contradictory, and is evidence that the only real disagreement is over the degree to which various factors should be emphasized. By emphasizing the harmful effects of religion, the New Atheists are choosing to focus upon a factor which has been swept under the rug in our excessive desire to avoid offending religious sensibilities. They do not need to waste time mulling over the numerous other factors which have been and will continue to be explored elsewhere.

26. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62812 by sabre_truth on August 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I would take issue with the comment about people who describe themselves as spiritual, but I can understand that he is defining that word differently from how I use it, as are many, if not most, of those who call themselves spiritual.

I use the term spiritual in distinction to religious or superstitious, but as encompassing a dimension of experience which lies outside the immediate application of strictly rational modes of thought. The spiritual is the dimension of meaning and purpose. I find the enjoyment of music and art to be spiritual in this sense. I do not have to give a rational explanation for why I enjoy and feel enriched in my life by those things, nor do I expect anyone else to. This is not to say that there cannot be scientific investigation into those modes, but when I am admiring the intricate beauty of nature it matters not a whit to me whether or not these feelings have any relation to evolutionary fitness. The experience itself is non-rational, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Does this mean that experiencing the beauty of the starry sky is going to make me believe in astrology, or the drama of a thunderstorm evokes a worshipful feeling towards Thor? Certainly not, but these and other experiences do inspire me and give me a sense of wonder at being alive in this magnificent world. That to me is the truest essence of what it is to be spiritual.