1. Genetic Engineers Who Don't Just Tinker

Comment #55898 by J Steven on July 12, 2007 at 7:40 pm

mmurray writes: "Why stop there? Why not modify poor people so they don't mind being poor and hungry ? Modify people who have to work in mines and factories so they enjoy it ? Modify people so they don't mind doing what the government asks them to do ..."

I think my point is somewhat different. Belief in the supernatural does not in my mind appear to be the same as hunger, poverty or even obedience to the government. In fact, I think it is a bigger issue than that, since almost everyone agrees that it is good to alleviate hunger, good to reduce poverty, and good to question the government (at least some of the time, depending on whether your party is in power or the other guy's is). Most people do not, it seems, feel it is good to question the belief in the supernatural.

Belief in the supernatural appears to lead to fundamentally unhealthy ways of thinking about the world that results in misery and destructive behavior. You either agree with this statement or you do not, but there isn't much of a middle ground as others much more capable than I have explained elsewhere.

The point of my intentionally provocative question then is essentially, "how much do you believe this to be true"? I, for one, feel it is as absolutely true as my skeptical mind can accept (for now). So then the question becomes, IF we had the capability to come up with a permanent solution to the elimination of an acknowledged harmful, chronic condition (since you can only treat, never cure it), would you!

I would.

Of course, this assumes that belief in the supernatural is NOT inextricably linked with things we value considerably more and that are not acknowledged to be harmful. I think of Dennett's comments regarding music.

By the way, I feel (like serrano above) it is more honorable to overcome your biological hardwiring than to eliminate it. I'm merely interested in how much the readers of this site are convinced that belief in the supernatural is harmful and therefore how far people are willing to go to negate its harmful effects. And frankly, if it's honor versus the preservation of modern civilization, for me civilization wins.

2. Genetic Engineers Who Don't Just Tinker

Comment #54620 by J Steven on July 8, 2007 at 7:26 am

Clearly the beginnings of a revolution. How long before the Supers start yowling about "playing God"? Venter is a pretty strong personality, so I'm sure he'll have fun with them...

More seriously, as this technology gets more advanced, we can anticipate a scale-up to synthetic mammalian biology. Assuming that synthetic human biology could be achieved, and assuming that the biologic underpinnings of religious/supernatural belief had been identified and explicated by that point, and further assuming that said biological underpinning could be reduced or eliminated by crafty engineering, my question to the readers of this good site is:

Is it more honorable (substitute "desirable" if you're more comfortable with that) to have the hardwiring for supernatural thought and reject it consciously, or to have said hardwiring drastically reduced or eliminated biologically and thus lack the need for conscious rejection?

3. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54166 by J Steven on July 5, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Ah yes, but of course God was Smart Enough to make sure that He Created the brain to make it look like we have scruples without Him when in fact our brains wouldn't even exist unless He had been there to make them and give them...ok, waitaminute, I'm getting confused.

Seriously though, this research is fascinating. However, evidence clearly is not the real issue (though I would love to know if a similar effect could be found in other primates). We need to educate, advocate, and propagate!

4. From a Few Genes, Life's Myriad Shapes

Comment #52969 by J Steven on June 28, 2007 at 8:03 pm

It bears repeating:

"I'd take the awe of understanding of the awe of ignorance any day."

Thank you Mr. Adams!

5. The Great God Debate

Comment #50064 by J Steven on June 14, 2007 at 7:46 pm

At the very end, Roberts makes the following comment: "The thing that I believe is that if one has a faith basis for morality, in fact, there is even greater warrant."

This quote points to a central point that I think is part of the key to appealing to the non-fundamentalist believer (or liberal or whatever you want to label it). Essentially, Roberts is saying "Well, you're good but your good is tenuous. MY good is rock-solid because God says so."

A lot of people are only nominally believers. It seems to me that they are that only because they seem to think of being religious as an intrinsic good. Many, including myself and others on this site of course feel the exact opposite. The key is that we not only have to raise the consciousness of others about religiosity and faith, but change the moral labeling of religiousity and faith.

For example, many "normal" people thought NOTHING AT ALL of slavery in the early history of the United States. Some even thought of it as good because the slaves were somehow better off being taken care of by their masters. Nowadays anyone professing such a view would be seen by others (rightly) as either an irredeemable bigot or hopeless naif.

This is the same thing we, and I do mean we, must do to the idea of faith. Hitchens says it most clearly of anyone in professing to be an "anti-theist". It is not simply the absence of belief (think the typical, white, citizen of the early U.S. regarding slavery with little to no opinion on the matter) but a direct opposition to a harmful idea (think the abolitionists who raised the consciousness of the citizenry).

Most people have probably not received a progressive alternative to religion. It is up to us to create one.

6. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #45661 by J Steven on May 28, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Is this the same Chris Hedges who wrote "American Fascists"? If so, this article is (unfortunately) in-character, in that he seemed to subscribe to some sort of fuzzy-headed liberal pick-and-choose reading of Christianity.

If the readers of this website have not read the aforementioned book, please do so. I am, as you all know or can piece together, a conservative Bright (nevermind Hitchens' abhorrence of the term) and this book scares the hell out of me.

Pun intended.

7. Navy vet: Chaplains tried converting me

Comment #44230 by J Steven on May 23, 2007 at 7:33 pm

RE: the comments of both Fedler and Iowa Guy

I grew up in Iowa City and didn't see much actual religiosity. My parents raised my sisters and I Catholic but neither of my parents were confirmed; for them it substituted as a sort of "hey, be good and try not to harm others" education. In fact, I remember my friends and I specifically quizzing/mocking our catechism teacher for the obvious and glaring contradictions in the bible.

Anyway I don't think anyone here is trying to generalize, but my experience even with farm folks (in Iowa? who would've thought!) was that religiosity was similarly more of a practical matter than it was some sort of well-thought theology. That is, we want our kids to be good, and religion preaches to be good (never mind specific dogmas), therefore let's teach the kids religion.

What I'm getting at is that though I certainly tend towards the antagonistic, I think the real way to win this ideological war is to engage with the fence-sitters and the people who never really have been challenged, just like my parents. A lot of people (everywhere, including Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, etc.) just never get shaken out of their reverie, never have the chance to see the truth, but would be glad if only someone bothered to take the time to do it.

Someone has to do show them how to substitute religion, which is part of the background for most people, with irreligion.

Also, my mother worked at the VA in question (no longer), and she said that the events mentioned seemed pretty extraordinary to her (she taught me to be skeptical). Too bad if they're true though (echoing bluebird's comment).

"Come on and fight, fight, fight for Iowa...!"

8. Mr. Deity

Comment #29030 by J Steven on April 1, 2007 at 8:48 am

Everyone should check out the unscripted interview Brian Keith Dalton has posted on his website:
http://www.mrdeity.com/interview.html

Very funny, plus Dalton explains why he started the series of shorts. Apparently he's working on a regular 30-minute series! That would be tremendous.

9. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29023 by J Steven on April 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

This can't be a hoax, mainly because there appears to be a (barely) discernable point. The article seems to be saying that there are feminist (non-?)narratives that the web typifies. That is, linearity = male, nonlinearity = female.

Or maybe it's (a la the gratuitous reference of Heisenberg) classical, "totally" definable = male, "intuitive", ineffable, not totally definable = female.

I suspect no one with a girlfriend or wife would doubt this.

Anyway, just more drivel. Perhaps being a provocateur, but it seems that besides the postmodernists, few disciplines border on the parody of "Christian physics, Islamic mathematics" etc. as often as feminism seems to, i.e. there is scientific knowledge and then there is Woman Knowledge!

10. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25193 by J Steven on March 10, 2007 at 7:05 pm

"...the other side is wondering, 'Hey, how come he's not eating children and setting kittens on fire?' "

That's primarily because kittens don't believe in intellectually shallow tripe that they subsequently use to persecute each other. No Siamese versus Persian Crusades, or long-hair versus short-hair jihads. Food, spots in the sun, keeping clean and otherwise keeping to yourself...though we are animals we have a lot we could learn from our "lesser" brethren.

11. Understanding Genetics - Daniel Dennett Interview

Comment #25191 by J Steven on March 10, 2007 at 6:54 pm

I aspire to be as well-spoken, understated, yet (devastatingly? I'd like to see him go head to head with some of these Super-yahoos we've been encountering) effective as Mr. Dennett. In fact, half as eloquent would suffice.

Being able to calmly throw out gems like "the enforced ignorance of the young" (absolutely accurate) is what I like most about him. Sometimes you need the strong stuff balanced out by the friendly, smiling but equally on-point approach to get the fence-sitters.

12. Ayaan Hirsi Ali Feature

Comment #24639 by J Steven on March 7, 2007 at 7:43 pm

neander writes: "...by joining the AEI...she runs the serious risk of supporting other religious agendas". What do you mean?

I am a libertarian and a Bright and haven't ever found the AEI to support much religious. I could be wrong, since I generally hear of them in the context of economic policy, but I would be interested if you could point out what you're getting at.

In any event, utilizing the resources of any organization to get out a message hardly legitimizes any other message that same organization may espouse. That would seem to indicate that it's an all-or-nothing proposition to subscribe to supernatural explanations for the world. That is, you're either a Bright liberal or a Super conservative.

I would be a perfect example of being a Super (relative) conservative. My beliefs are founded solely reason and a preference for individual liberty; those things are not mutually exclusive.

I think anyone or any organization willing to get out a message condemining irrationality and abhoring an uncritical worldview should be applauded, whatever the caveats.

13. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23971 by J Steven on March 3, 2007 at 8:43 pm

This is in response to some of Yorker's comments, from #9 above.

"...I have heard the same arguments used repeatedly, after a while it becomes boring and certainly non-productive"

This is exactly the problem in engaging with most religiously-afflicted individuals. The arguments themselves don't take on too many differing forms, so after awhile each "side" knows what the other will say and all parties talk past one another.

What we (Brights of all stripes) need to do is devise a program to counteract, and hopefully head off this tendency. I happen to think that (compulsory?) education in ALL "faiths" is one very good idea that has been espoused on this and other sites, especially since that immediately dilutes the effect of any one faith meme while simultaneously strenghtening the rational meme.

A terrifying (to me) article appeared in the Wall Street Journal today (Saturday, 03 Mar) about children that adopt religiosity to a much greater degree than their parents. A secular humanist couple had a child, only 15, that somehow picked up the religious gene and was apparently calmly detailing to the correspondent how his parents were going to burn in hell. This is a terrific problem in my opinion. If we cannot even protect our OWN children, then something must be done.

I would love to discuss with anyone interested ideas on programs that could be developed to combat this issue. Incidentally, I would imagine this is the exact thing that the RDF would support.

Thoughts, people?

14. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21156 by J Steven on February 7, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Here is my comment to CNN:

"Your recent piece on dicrimination against atheists brought an important problem to light, where it should be.

However, your panel discussion afterward was unbecoming of a news network of your calibre. The fact that an ESPN analyst was the voice of reason on your panel (with no offense whatever to sportscasters intended) was a travesty. The other two panelists presented themselves as nothing short of unenlightened and un-American bigots. I sincerely hope this was more a function of their limited time on-screen than their sincerely-held ideas. However, the panelists' discussion merely served to prove the point of the piece -- atheists are irrationally persecuted for implicitly threatening the beliefs of others out of all proportion!

As a Bright, I can tell all your viewers, listeners and readers that I live a moral and ethical life because of, not despite, the fact that I trust evidence and reason and not supernatural and evidentially-unsupported superstition. I hope in the future you will seek to balance panels so they can actually enlighten your viewers and not spread theist hatred and propaganda."

I think an important point to note is the undercurrent in almost all discussions with theists is the assumption that atheists are immoral. I try hard to live a moral life (a la Spinoza, if I may be so bold) and also take care to make that point, as unsanctimoniously as I can muster, whenever I discuss my views with others (especially if I don't know what their opinion is). My feeling is that one of the keys to (de)converting others is to stress this.

A helpful book I have read and reread is Erik J. Wielenberg's "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe". I strongly recommend it for those that seem to encounter the same that I have. I would love to hear comments from those that have already digested this book.

15. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #19825 by J Steven on January 30, 2007 at 4:50 am

I can't help but hope Benny's schtick is an elaborately crafted ruse, sort of like Frankenstein (David Carridine) in "Death Race 2000"...