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

Comment #61745 by ? on August 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm

God and Satan can pay for their own relationship counselling like anyone else!

52. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61569 by ? on August 5, 2007 at 8:00 pm

On Homeopathic delusions:

This stuff is so stupid I can't believe it! Its the idea that ultra-small doses of a substace are extremely effective, right? That's just ridiculous! I used to be tolerant of some of this alternative crap, but even in my less agressively skeptical days, that one always floored me.

I just had a couple of glasses of beer; so by their logic, I should be able to go to the sink, fill up the empty beer glass (with perhaps a tiny drop left in the bottom) with water and drink it. Repeat the process a few times and I shoud be extremely drunk.

Nope, didn't work! :)

53. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61567 by ? on August 5, 2007 at 7:32 pm

roach,

Thanks! I see what you mean. There is definately a lot of stuff out there with an overtly anti-science bias.

Some sf writers are actually speculating about "what might be," while others are just using the imagery and language of a certain subculture becasue they like it. Both can be good if imagined and written well.

Unfortunately, there are so many people with such strong tendecies toward irrational beliefs that
they will see anything as justification for their superstitions, fiction or (alleged) non-fiction.

Then, of course, there are a few bad apples who are writing novels and movies about demons, alien abductions or telepathy because they think this reflects the real world! Genre writers who think they are social realists?

54. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61537 by ? on August 5, 2007 at 3:45 pm

I agree with virtually everything in this article except the science fiction remarks.

No disprespect to Dr. Dawkins is intended but if we applied his standards (which seem to be that the only good science fiction is ultra-hard sf) we would condemn not just New Age junk like the X Files but many excellent classics of the genre including most of the works of Ray Bradburry, Philip K. Dick, Samuel Delany and Harlan Ellison.

Not to mention the often interesting fields of horror and fantasy.

There is a difference between fiction as anti-reason propaganda (X-Files, etc.) and intentionally using a fanciful idea as a story-telling device or literary metaphor.

55. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61334 by ? on August 4, 2007 at 6:05 pm

This article made me think of similarities between ID and conspiracy theories and other forms of paranoia. Of course you __can__ interpret any political or economic event as part of the master plan of some cabal of plotters. Its ___possible___ to imagine every personal misfortune as caused by an enemy working cleverly behind the scenes. But does that mean you SHOULD? Probably not unless there is evidence instead of just post hoc rationalizations of a pre-existing prejudice.

56. Who's Minding the Mind?

Comment #61322 by ? on August 4, 2007 at 4:04 pm

This is fascinating. Our conscious thoughts are a product of so many strange layers unconscious processes.

**However, I'm absolutely baffled that there would be so many negative associations with iced coffee vs. hot coffee! "S/he's cold-hearted" vs. "s/he's warm and nice."

Come on, subconscious mind! Show a little imagination!! "Cool" in the pop culture context (a good thing). "Hot" in the sense of sexy (also a good thing). A win/win situation. Or to reverse it, how about cold drink = refreshing vs. hot drink = that person's blood is boiling with rage or they will "burn" (i.e. betray) you? Odd that the one association was so uniform. I guess as an atheist who drinks iced coffee I've got two strikes against me! :)

57. Are antidepressants taking the edge off love?

Comment #61319 by ? on August 4, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Anyone else notice that the psychiatric drug craze has at least one positive social effect for our side?--it got (an admittedly vulgarized) version of the scientific materialist view of consciousness and behavior into the cultural mainstream!

This may not be as impressive in Europe, but its fascinating to hear someone in the US who is normally Evangelical or New Ager attribute human thoughts and feelings to brain function when they or their loved ones are in serious trouble.

Normally they would hate you for suggesting that their precious spirit realm is really inside their skulls (though, to be fair, consciousness is no less fascinating for being rooted in matter). Dualism is fine and dandy until philosophies and ideologies based of it can do nothing to get rid of symptoms that are destroying your life.

My problem with psychiatry is not the theory, its the sloppiness of many of the practitioners. "You doing O.K.? Great! Here's your perscription. See you in 4 months." They are often making their decisions based on little knowledge of what is going on in the patient's life and how the medication is actually effecting them. As has been noted on this thread, finding the right drugs and dosages is serious, complicated business.

58. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61313 by ? on August 4, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Beer-monster-
I see your point about theologians, but some imporatant philosophers were also theologians, so I suppose its legitimate to study them in the philosophy department. Do mainstream universities have specific "theology departments?" I haven't been inside a school for years.

I went to mostly religious schools, but not ones that were so dogmatic that you didn't study "heretical" ideas. However, now that I think about it the atheists they taught were mostly of the kind who's message could easily be interpreted as depressing (Nietzsche, Sartre, etc.) so I guess there was a hidden agenda--"these guys were brilliant, talented and insightful, but look how troubled they were," so to speak. I had to discover the more positive, optimistic kind of humanism for myself.

59. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61198 by ? on August 4, 2007 at 5:52 am

AdrianB: "It couldn't really be atheism, just a tantrum with his god surely."

Great line! And it amazes me that many believers don't know and can't imagine the difference.

A. (an atheist, agnostic or merely another believer in the process of sincerely questioning): Have you ever thought to yourself 'maybe none of this is true?' There is no evidence for it, after all, and it seems to contain contradictions and absurdities.

B. (a hardcore uncritical believer): Why yes, I know what you mean! Just the other month I was very angry at God for not answering my prayers! I didn't go to church that week and considered never going back. I didn't pray for a while and committed a few more sins than usual, and took longer than usual to confess them. We all feel this way about God from time to time, since life is so hard and His ways are so mysterious.

A. Ugh! Gasp! **%#$&!!!!! (regains composure)
You don't seem to understand what I'm asking. Let me try again.....

It seems to me that if there is no empirical evidence for something it should be at least POSSIBLE for anyone to at least imagine or consider the possiblity that it is untrue. But many continue to talk and act as if God could be spotted by a telescope, the effects of prayer are as obvious as the effects of antibiotics and research teams have returned from heaven and hell with ample documentations of their wonders.

Its not so much the ideas themselves that bother me as the inability to distinguish an idea that you choose to accept from something that is a public fact availble to everyone.

60. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60655 by ? on August 2, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I sympathize with those who oppose hate crime laws because of their subjective nature and potential for misuse. However, there are certain types of cases where the concept is philosophically vailid.
--A gang of thugs is blatantly targeting members of an identifiable group for beatings BECAUSE of their membership in that group.
This is more than a mere series of assaults because there are two crimes involved: 1)the attacks themselves and 2) the threat to all members of the targeted minority "stay off the streets or you're next."
---Acts which would be very minor crimes if they had no obvious "message," but which are in fact serious threats and attacks. On a purely concrete level in which you could not consider the ideas of the perpetrator, what is the difference between the Klan burning crosses on people's lawns and a group of punk kids running through the neighborhood setting off firecrackers or setting piles of dog shit of fire? The difference must be the intent to intimidate. I would not want to see the cross burner plea bargain down to a fire code violation.

That said, there are actions in which the "crime" is so minor and the "hate" is so unintimidating that calling it a hate crime is silly. The Koran in the toilet is such an example. The crime is stealing a book. Scarcely a violent crime or felony. The "hate" side is an act of contempt and mockery not violence or symbolic violence. If I steal a pice of notebook paper and the steal a pen and write some kind of insult or hateful remark (but NOT a threat or incitement to violence), then throw the paper on the floor, I have mixed hate with the crimes of petty theft and littering, but it would be rather silly to call it a hate crime.

61. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #60354 by ? on August 1, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Now that I think about it, there's another thing that bugs me about this "Rapture" business! Most of the people who believe in it are standard issue far-right militarists, but if you think for a minute, they SHOULD be utterly apolitical! Wait to be "raptured" and enjoy the ride. Warn others to follow your religion if you care about them and want them to come along. I mean their books actually teach that the world has to get more and more "sinful" before the end. The antichrist with his awful ideas about peace (shudder!) is predestined to rule the world for a season. But then they turn it around and say 'let's fight it, let's keep the stuff that's supposed to happen before Jesus comes back from actually happening!' Wouldn't this screw up god's plan if the antichrist is thwarted by and army of earthly do-gooders?!
Religions thrive on so many layers of contradiction!!!!!

62. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59836 by ? on July 30, 2007 at 7:25 pm

The religious membership statistics issue is interesting because churches are becoming quite desparate to claim a high numbers. To this effect, they define membership so loosely that it is silly. In some cases it is a bit hard to get your name taken off the membership records of a church, since that would mean a loss of clout. Even sects that used to brag about "high standards" and not being afraid to kick people out for heresy or misbehavior don't even require occasional attendance as long as they get to call themselves the "fastest growing religion" or something!

63. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59392 by ? on July 28, 2007 at 11:03 pm

On whether or not Henri is a religious troll:

I definately do not think he is.

As much as I disagree with most of his ideas, they seem to reflect a strongly held, consistent philosophy of extreme indvidualism and the glorification of will and strength. As much as this contradicts the rational, democratic humanism of the majority here, it is a form of atheism.

When Christians take on the persona of an atheist (for example an atheist character in a novel by a Christian) they generally don't seem to get what the words mean and lapse into incoherence.

C.S. Lewis does this repeatedly in his Perelandra science fiction series (which I admit I enjoyed despite its flaws). The Dr. Weston charater does not make any sense after a few pages. Its like Lewis can't imagine what an atheist would say and just starts making him say anything that comes to mind as long as it sounds evil. And Lewis was quite a bit more intelligent and sensitive than your average internet troublemaker!

So lets just accept that some atheists are a little more Ayn Rand or Leo Strauss than Peter Singer or Paul Kurtz.

64. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59364 by ? on July 28, 2007 at 9:44 pm

It shows such fear and weakness on Hagee's part to have to micro-manage the events so carefully---no interviewing the rank and file, no unauthorized questions to the leaders.

Imagine the outcry if Dawkins behaved this way during a lecture. 'You may not ask questions which imply that genetic mutations cannot be benificial. We are here for one purpose: to support Darwinism. I warn you, I have hired a bunch of off-duty cops to deal with people who ask questions like that.'

Obviously, this is the absolute opposite of Dawkins' actual style and value system. I know otherwise decent people who support the religious right and just ignore stuff like that and cherry pick for what they want to hear. Wake up!!!! These leaders are dangerous thugs who should be shunned by everyone.

Look at all the mainstream pro-Israel organizations that foolishly support Hagee. They probably think think they are using him, but he is dragging them down to his level. He'll be the mainstream in a few years if they don't stop him.

65. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59323 by ? on July 28, 2007 at 7:42 pm

I'm rather enjoying the ongoing militant individualist vs. cooperative humanist debate on this thread. Its like watching an episode of Politically Incorrect with Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell as guests!

66. Resisting peer pressure: new findings shed light on adolescent decision-making

Comment #59309 by ? on July 28, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Actually it is pretty interesting in that it is one more peice of info. supporting a naturalistic view of human consciousness. The brains of people who think and behave defferently are structured differently. This poses serious challenges (to say the least) to any theory of a separate, independent "mind" that merely "uses" the brain.

If it had turned out that all brains were more or less identical, we can be sure the dualists (and enthusiasts of outdated "blank slate" theories) would be overjoyed. They would say brain states cannot be the primary cause of behavior since there is not enough variation in the measurable attribues of brains to account for the full spectrum of human behavior. In fact they WERE saying things like that in the days when detailed measurement of the brain was unknown or much more difficult.

67. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59302 by ? on July 28, 2007 at 6:34 pm

I don't see anything wrong with the t-shirts.They look nice, and I can't really imagine atheists using them the way religious groups use veils or
turbans. That would actually be quite bizzare
and unrealistic, wouldn't it?

Amusing to contemplate, though, in a Monty Python sketch sort of way! All atheists would wear the t-shirt everywhere all the time. We would also demand an absolute legal right to do this even in
completely inappropriate settings (a restaurant
that requires formal wear, a workplace that
requires a uniform, etc.). All true atheists, when going to the beach or a public swimming pool must wear the shirts over their bathing suit. Known atheists seen in public without it are to be harrassed by angry mobs.

68. The US map of faith

Comment #57546 by ? on July 19, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Is official MEMBERSHIP in a religious body the only criteria for this thing? If so, it might be misleading! Many people remain members of the sect they were born into for cultural and family reasons even if they are very secular. A lot of fundie and Pentacostal types (the backbone of the religious right) have weak ties to organized religious bodies. TV preachers, traveling evangelists and loosely organized "ministries" play a big role. Some of the places on the map are probably red or pink because people were baptized Catholic or Lutheran or whatever and never bothered to officially leave even if they hardly ever go to church. I mean, something has to explain why Manhattan is "redder" than North Carolina!

69. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Comment #48969 by ? on June 9, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Many folks seem to easily internalize various claims and narratives which have been presented to them as authoritative.

Evolution, creation, ghosts, UFOs, advanced brain science and genetics, demons, recovered memories, reincarnation, etc., all have some claim over their inner lives because "experts say...." and "there are a lot of interesting books and TV shows about.."

This is not because they are stupid, but because we are not encouraged to think in any kind of systematic manner. The virtual absence of philosophy and logic in the educational system has serious consequences.

70. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48696 by ? on June 8, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Sounds like the person Devolved talked to was some kind of extreme postmodernist. He should be aware that this type of thinking is routinely criticized by Dawkins and other freethinkers as just another irrational dogma.

71. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48412 by ? on June 7, 2007 at 7:24 pm

"If atheism is a non-belief, then it isn't a view of life."
--Steven Mading

Yes, I think we should all have some term(s) to describe what we ARE as opposed to what we are not. It would, of course, differ according to the individual atheist. Mine would probably be "humanist"(with some existentialist, Zen and Unitarian influence) though I have mixed feelings about organized Humanism.

Militant theist types enjoy presenting "atheist" as some sort of primary identity.

So the fact that you and Stalin are both atheists means you have a lot in common with Stalin. The fact that 90-95% of Americans AREN'T atheists means that you have nothing in common with most Americans.

Of course, this is pure sophistry. The truth is that human beings belong to many categories. We share some of them in common with theists and and some of them we don't.

72. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48136 by ? on June 6, 2007 at 6:13 pm

All right, I could sort of handle his argument for the cultural value of religion, but he really should have explained how the Resurrection is "relatively well-documented."

How is it well-documented?! Claims of miracles or supernatural events were often taken at face value back then; even more so than today. The Gospels refer to many witnesses of the alleged event, but they are the only semi-contemporary documents which actually report it. And they are by definition biased.

It would be different if there were letters or historical records by contemporary unaffiliated individuals saying things like "I met Jesus on the street today and talked to him and was surprised to hear that many people claim he was crucified the week before." Then there would at least be an issue to debate.

73. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46215 by ? on May 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm

To qualify my previous comment, **in MOST parts of modern America and Western Europe(and other relatively stable places)** I wouldn't be afraid of most religious or political groups simply passing them as they go home from a meeting. Obviously, if I was in a place where mob violence aganst out-group members on the street was common, things would be different (just start with the B's as Hitchens would say).

74. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46211 by ? on May 30, 2007 at 3:21 pm

I probably wouldn't be afraid of the 10 men if they were coming from ANY marginally pro-social, orderly activity: any religious group no matter how horrible that does not teach random violence against strangers on the street; any political group except for truly deranged extremists; a Star Trek convention; people who had just paid good money to have a "psychic" do silly cold reading tricks on them, a meeting of homeopathic quacks or UFO gazers... Indeed, pretty much any organized, legal activity would qualify for Parger's silly thought(less) experiment, whatever its ultimate social value. That doesn't mean that I'd put the homeopaths in charge of the city's hospitals or the UFOlogists in charge of NASA.

75. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #45928 by ? on May 29, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Yea, I go to a Unitarian church, too, and get a lot out of it. Its basicly a supportive liberal society and an open forum for the discussion and exploration of ideas of all kinds (philosophical, religious, scientific, etc.)

Since all the congregations are self-governing and autonomous, its hard to make generalizations. I've heard of some dominated by liberal Christians, some that are almost like New Age sects and others that are purely humanist and drop the name "Church" for "Fellowship" and are somewhat hostile to the ones that continue use of religious language.

My local group is a huge, messy mix of everything and we pride ourselves on debate and disagreement. You can pretty much come out and say that you find certain ideas absurd and people will debate it with you instead of getting "offended" and withdrawing.

76. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44984 by ? on May 25, 2007 at 6:07 pm

goatboy--
Interesting point; we couldn't know what it was like to be an infinite being.

But at the same time, any being who is omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent would by definition KNOW what harm its actions/inactions cause AND be capable of doing something that would cause less harm or promote more happiness.

Its not like us inadvertantly stepping on a small animal or someone in authority making the best decision possible and it happens to cause harm (a police officer who shoots an unarmed suspect who appeared to be armed, a doctor who makes a wrong but reasonable diagnosis).

77. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44966 by ? on May 25, 2007 at 5:21 pm

On the topic of whether or not a god could possibly be a good thing (if there was evidence) discussed by goatboy and others:

Process Theology comes the closest to the idea of a genuinely benevolent deity. This is view that is popular with liberal Christians and Unitarians.

I attended a lecture on this and it was interesting. Basicly, God is supposed to not be omnipotent in the present, but is an emerging force of order and reason and goodness gradually manifesting itself. Historic Christianity is admitted to be very flawed, if we keep saying "look how bad the Bible is!" they can just say "we know; that's why we moved on."

I was pretty fascinated when I heard the talk, but now that I think more about it they dealt with entropy very poorly, assuming this "God" or "Force" would overcome it. The science was very early 20th Cetury--evolution="progress" as people usually mean it/social progress equated with evolution. Also, there just isn't any evidence such an entity exists, no matter how sophisticated they make it sound.

78. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44959 by ? on May 25, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Hitchens poses a unique problem to the Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh gang. Their only talents are glib talk, colorful insults and acting tough. Hitchens is a master of those minor arts AND he's genuinely smart and well-informed. Also, as an experienced journalist he's actually seen the world instead of sitting behind a microphone all his adult life.

79. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44877 by ? on May 25, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Liberal religion has a lot of problems, as Hitchens and others have noted. But at least liberal churches and temples are nice places where one might, as the people in this story did, hear and educational talk in the company of nice people.
'How horrible!' thinks this writer. 'They don't hate themselves or outsiders!!!' They listen to people who disagree with them!!!!!'
That's the thanks they get for trying to be civilized and humane.

80. Exorcism exercise for fired-up faithful

Comment #44856 by ? on May 25, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Sorry to see this happening around the world. In the U.S, the idea that demonic posession is both real and quite common is widespread. Many of the most flamboyant religious leaders (pentacostal and evangelical) promote this with great energy and talent.

There is a good book *American Exorcism* by somebody named Michael Cueno which studies this in detail. He is a practicing Catholic and does not discount the possibility that posession is real in some rare cases(I do!). But, this actually lends credibility to the book.

He's not supporting a secular agenda--just looking at the various ministries and their claims.

He finds absolutely no evidence after meeting with hundreds of people and witnessing many exorcisms and deliverances of all Christian faiths.

I think he's a sociologist and the book explores the question of WHY people actually WANT to believe this stuff and bend the evidence to call any slightly unusual event or emotion the work of a demon. He emphasizes the abdication of personal responsibility as well as the intrinsic allure of such an exotic subject which has been in a lot of movies.

From his book and my own conversations with people who fall for this, the fad seems based on the following line of "reasoning"
1. The devil is the cause of bad and weird things so......
2. anything that disturbs or threatens me must be directly caused by the devil and ......
3. when I get "delivered" I feel better for a while so this is evidence that it works, however...
4. Later I feel just as bad (or more bad things happen) so....
5) this is merely proof that I need MORE exorcism or deliverance.

81. Angry atheists are hot authors

Comment #44448 by ? on May 24, 2007 at 7:18 pm

I wonder how the poll cited in this article was phrased.

Polls with simple all or nothing questions (example: "I am an atheist____ I believe in God___--check one of the above") show believers as an overwealming majority and pundits use them to imply that orthodox belief is the norm.

Sets of questions that allow for doubt and complexity would probably show a more interesting and realistic picture. How strong is their belief? How specific? How personal is their God-concept? Do they pray (expecting an answer)?

82. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44194 by ? on May 23, 2007 at 3:20 pm

There is nothing wrong with the hands in the air posture of the folks in the above photograph. I also tend to do that when being robbed by a dangerous lunatic.

83. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44181 by ? on May 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Dawkins has often attacked simplistic attempts to make "Darwinism" a philosophy about how we should live our personal lives. Also, one of the main reasons for meme theory is that Dawkins realizes very well that genetics do not explain every aspect of human behavior. The article is cute, but stuff like that bugs me. If he wants to make fun of shallow pop-Darwinism, make fun of writers who actually promote it.

84. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44177 by ? on May 23, 2007 at 2:27 pm

"Dreams of teeth and rivers of silver and gold.."?! God likes David Lynch movies, apparently. Was there a backwards-talking dwarf. '(spooky backwards, then dubbed forwards voice) Heal...their...teeth...'

85. Shark virgin birth mystery is solved

Comment #44169 by ? on May 23, 2007 at 2:09 pm

___Enlightenme said:
"I do hope the scientists left the deceased shark in the tank 3 or 4 days..just in case."

Ha-ha.:)
What will it "ascend into," though? The sky doesn't have enough water.
Jaws VI: The Second Coming

86. Prayer can improve physical health

Comment #43775 by ? on May 22, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I couldn't help notice that the article starts out by simply reporting about the studies and then speculating about naturalistic explanations like the placebo and meditation effects.

Then it bends over backwards not to offend anyone with even the mildest hint of skepticism. About 1/4 of the article reports the opinions of religious people as if these opinions were more or less on par with the studies' actual findings (not that these findings were all that impressive, anyway).

87. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43488 by ? on May 21, 2007 at 5:44 pm

I would be much more impressed with these type of moderate religious arguements if the writers seemed genuinely outraged and hurt by the harm religion causes.

If I were a member of an organization that included a strong faction of bigots and thugs I would constantly lobby the leadership to kick them out (or else I would leave). I would not care much if outsiders criticized my group until we got our act together.

If I were the leader of an organization which was not violent or reactionary in its own right, but resembled (or was an offshoot of) others that were, I would do everything in my power to distinguish my version of it from theirs and would never for one second give the impression that we were on the same side.

These apologists don't do that (at least not consistently). Their main aim seems to be trying to disarm the criticism coming from outsiders, as if that were the real problem.

88. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42992 by ? on May 20, 2007 at 8:40 am

Ryan.Vilbig
Thank you for your comments. I don't deny the possibility of the things you are talking about, I just don't see any evidence for them. Catholicism is a fascinating religion and I admire some Catholic intellectuals for their embrace of evolution their abilty to conceptualize the spirit world in more sophisticated terms than many other Christian religions.

However the priciple of Occam's (sp.?) Razor, for me at least, casts much doubt on the need for explanations outside of the observable universe.

Even the big issues such as consciousness and morality which once seemed so mysterious are now being largely explained through science. The idea of supernatural or spiritual entities that guide the process from behind the scenes does not seem to be necessary, though as a matter of personal faith I can see the appeal.

As for Dennett, I like his books, but am not some uncritical "follower." He has always been a naturalist/materialist, and with Breaking the Spell, he was applying existing scientific knowlege from many fields to the study of religion. The "Spell" he was trying to break was the idea that religion cannot be studied objectively or by those without religious experiences, thus his famous "Martian Anthropologist" stance. There was little if any hostility in the book that I can remember, but I'll go back through it and see.

Do you know of any good books that deal with these problems from a religious point of view?

89. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42977 by ? on May 20, 2007 at 7:44 am

newatheist makes some great points about the fear of death as a motivator for belief.

If religion calmed people's fears enough to let them face reasonable danger but left enough fear intact that they still avoided unreasonable risks, I guess I could see the "survival advantage."

A stone age hunter might have thought, "I don't want to die, and that big horned animal could easily kill me if I'm not careful, but if I die trying to feed the tribe, I will go and live in a place of honor with our ancestors." These thoughts take the edge off the fear, but he is still very careful. Someone unable to take these self-soothing thoughts seriously might be more restricted by fear.

On a related note, gods and magical systems also claim to offer help in this world and this can offer comfort if you are conditioned to believe these claims and accept post hoc explanations and subjective confirmation as valid (which everyone does unless trained not to).

I have also experienced a lot of intense anxiety and can relate to newatheist's childhood experiences. Though I used to be very devoted to religion, after reading Breaking the Spell I know that I was always more of a believer in belief than a real believer.

Thus, religion did not comfort me as it did many other people, and I had to grow up and learn to think for myself before I could develop ways of taking comfort in an uncertain world and a finite life.

That said, I think there is a lot more to the appeal of religion than the fear of death, danger, etc. Religious myths and cosmologies excite the imagination and seem to explain everything about everything. Most people never unlearn circular reasoning, so the appeal of these explanations lingers.

90. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #42813 by ? on May 19, 2007 at 8:15 pm

But political identities are so vaguely defined. "Agression" or "intelligence" may not be perfectly measurable, but they are much more measurable than "tendency toward left-wing politics." That could be anyone from a writer deeply concerned with civil liberties issues to a poor person voting for a leftist party that promises more welfare spending or a thousand other types of person each with their own set of individual traits and motives for joining that cause.
Take any trait that is likely to be hereditary and one can easily imagine a person of any broad political grouping having it. Leftish groups I have belonged to have members ranging from flamboyant hippies to rigid Marxist ideologues to mild mannered, tolerant professors.
Now when it comes to rather small, eccentric political groups there may be more of a "type of person" who belongs to it, just as extreme religious cultists seem pretty similar. Saying that Opus Dei members and fundamentalist Protestants have a lot in common beneath the skin is one thing; a "Catholic" or "Protestant" gene is another.

91. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42796 by ? on May 19, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Its funny for me to hear accounts of highly supersitious, literal-minded Wiccans who are no better than Scientologists.

Not that I doubt these stories, its just that the handful of them I have known seem genuinely *less* theistic than any other religion other than Zen or Theravada Buddhism. Kind of organized pantheism/nature enthusiasm with metaphors borrowed from various mythologies.

But I guess the moderate Wiccans only serve to encourage the "fundamentalists" who see fairies in trees! :)

92. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42793 by ? on May 19, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Mostly brilliant, but his worldview is a bit of a "mixed bag" (as is everyone's).

The bad: Dismissal of philosophy. Did it ever occur to him that his precious Hume is part of a tradition of skeptical, rational philosophers--not some sort of mysterious, stand-alone exception in 3,500 years of silliness? Not to deny that much philosophy is cold logic-chopping and/or quazi-mysticism. Also the "meme-bashing." Can he really read a book by Dennett or Blackmore and not get the concept?

The Good: Pretty much everything else! The idea of the appeal of religious belief as a type of all-purpoese, ultiamte explanation was great. We are creatures who like a nicely drawn conceptual map and answers to every question.
It takes a lot of effort to overcome this and say "I don't know," "it depends," "This is the best possible answer, but it is based on evidence and may change in the face of new evidence."
I loved the anti-telepathy stuff. If the parapsychologists want us to re-write nearly EVERYTHING known about biology, physics and cognition, they'd better come up with something more than anecdotes and the occasional statistical anomaly.

93. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #42779 by ? on May 19, 2007 at 2:12 pm

People are soothed and calmed by all sorts of things (meditation, fantasy, etc.) and this can have a positive effect on their health and performance.
If the guy who did the study is merely reporting what the data says or what he thinks it says about the ACT of a PERSON engaging in prayer that's fine, but admit that it says nothing about the metaphysical claims of religion.
Also, so similar studies on yoga, gardening, having pets, other hobbies, and other things people generally find centering and positive. Then control for the fact that religious people because often gain a great deal of social support and actual aid from their church.
Compare, say, people who meditate for a half hour each day and have lots of friends and a satisfying family life with people who pray every day and are in similar circumstaces. Then,of course, have a control group of people with similar support systems and lifestyles who do neither. Substitute "meditation" in my example with "high level of political activism" or "secular charity work."
I doubt that prayer is in some special category. Its one of the many things people use to structure their lives and try to transcend their problems.

94. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42633 by ? on May 18, 2007 at 7:34 pm

It reminds me of the line in TGD about how horrible it would have been if Shakespeare had been born a little earlier and had to write morality plays for the Church. Religious themes have inspired some great art, but they can be limiting as well. How many times can the Annunciation be painted before it loses any interest it might have had (and it must have been painted about a million times)?

Also, I checked out the site that this article comes from and they actually had someone leave a comment about "Hitchens believes in laws of nature, how can he not believe in a law giver?"(not an exact quote)

My, oh, my......
"law" meaning a consistent pattern observed in nature vs. "law" meaning a command. Strange how some people never develop basic reasoning skills.

95. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42611 by ? on May 18, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Apologists like this one harp on the "inspired great art" theme all the time. That's kind of a weird thing to base an arguement on! Give any sophisticated culture any set of visually interesting stories and they could inspire great art. Classical paganism did the same thing. His arguments are so general and could apply to any religion so I was surprised when I got to the end of the article and found that he is a conservative Christian. From the first few paragraphs I would have guessed a "believer in belief."

96. Antarctic 'treasure trove' found

Comment #42179 by ? on May 17, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Does this stuff remind anyone else of H. P. Lovecraft (classic American horror, sci-fi, fantasy writer)? Weird discoveries in Antarctica, strange life forms where no one expected them, carnivorous sponges .........

97. Navy vet: Chaplains tried converting me

Comment #42167 by ? on May 17, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Oops, I misspelled "chaplain," insulting Charlie Chaplin, and that Humanist Chaplain from Harvard.

98. Navy vet: Chaplains tried converting me

Comment #42163 by ? on May 17, 2007 at 6:29 pm

The biggest part of the problem is the hardcore fundamentalism of that part of America, but there is also a general lack of manners from those who don't understand the idea of a conversation being appropriate in one setting and not another. I talk about controvercial issues with all sorts of people, but I get to know them a little and see if they are receptive to discussion. Some seem to treat ordinary public settings as if they were the stage of some sensationalist talk show. "Don't Jews believe in Jesus?" blurted out in a hospital setting. Absolutely barbaric. And probably coming from a person who would see the mere existence of atheist books in a bookstore or Richard Dawkins on TV (or biology taught in a biology classroom) as agression. As for being told that he did not resist the chaplins "strenuously" enough--that is just obscene. THEY should be the ones REQUESTING to talk to HIM and leaving immediately if he says no! At least the Navy has implicitly given him permission to throw the bedpan at them or something if they don't go away.

99. Antarctic 'treasure trove' found

Comment #42090 by ? on May 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

"Even if the Noah's Ark story were true (of course it isn't), Noah would not have to collect aquatic life to save it from a FLOOD!"-mikelpearce

You wouldn't think so, but I think there are Creationists (Noahists? Genesisists?) who actually say things like this. They treat the flood as if it were some kind of nuclear holocaust instead of just a bunch of rain. The details are unclear as always. They have the planet reduced to a lifeless hunk of rock except for Noah and Company. THEN they seriously argue that a wooden boat would have survived it all!

100. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #42072 by ? on May 17, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Dobson can't understand why things are so messed up in the troubled nations of the Middle East. After all they suppress "indecent" literature, are very religious, have a strong patriarchal family structure, homophobia, and probably lots of corporal punishment of disobedient children. No permissiveness there! They've done most of the stuff he has always advocated and more. And why is he a foreign policy adviser now, anyway? I've never heard him talk about anything but his weird right wing theories of psychology.