101. God grief

Comment #42057 by ? on May 17, 2007 at 2:36 pm

People always cite the "he attacked Mother Teresa" thing as either a way of saying he's gone too far or else to brand him as some eccentric misanthrope who will attack anything for no reason (even...even...'gasp! sputter...Mother Teresa!!!!!) but I have seen few believers (even very liberal ones) take an honest look at WHY he attacked her. She has almost become a deity; people can't think clearly about her. For one thing she just didn't do all that much for the poor (and a lot to hurt them like opposing birth control)! Free Inquiry did a piece on an obscure Indian Humanist group who has done infinitely more to help India's poor than she ever did. The "Mother Teresa saved the poor of Calcutta" meme is incredibly strong.

102. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42042 by ? on May 17, 2007 at 2:08 pm

What's so immodest about the two in the photo? They're covered from head to toe! They need a giant shield over the entire bike?!!! Insane.

103. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe

Comment #41203 by ? on May 15, 2007 at 4:02 pm

This blatant born again Christian evangelizing makes the "Creation Science" thing especially laughable. Why not accept anybody who believes that the universe was created a few thousand years ago in a short period of time by a supreme intelligence?

It would still be ridiculous, but the presence of a few deists, ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, literal-minded Hindus and Shintoists, members of various small cults, etc. would give the thing tremendous public relations value.

Then the next time they went before the Supreme Court, they really could say (without looking like liars) look we're not a fundie Christian front group, we're really just a bunch of diverse people who happen to think this way.

They would at least become a pseudo-respectable pseudo-science. Alien abduction group members don't have to sign a confession of faith as far as I know.

104. Nothing sacred: Journalist and provocateur Christopher Hitchens picks a fight with God

Comment #41192 by ? on May 15, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Hitchens sometimes uses names and titles in a way that challenges our implicit acceptance of power structures and established ideas.

In an article a while back he refered to the new Pope as something like "Mr. Josef Ratzinger whom Catholics call the 'Pope'."

To much of this sort of thing could get annoyingly postmodern, but Hitchens just does it enough to make me smile and think "yes, what is a "pope" or a "king" or a "prophet" really except someone who is called that by lots of other people and acts the part?

105. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe

Comment #41138 by ? on May 15, 2007 at 2:36 pm

This is bizzare--not because of their religious beliefs per se, but because they obsessively dress it up as science. Real insecurity.

Out of the mainstream religions only fundamentalist Protestants (and maybe their Muslim counterparts) seem to do this.

The only analogy seems to be with cults like Scientology. The whole "its not religion its scientific truth that is suppressed by wicked outsiders!" thing. Ugh!

106. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41128 by ? on May 15, 2007 at 2:19 pm

On the America Online welcome page they have news articles with the title or subject of the article and right below it line that explains a little more of what it is about.

For Falwell they did an ironic bit of sloppy editing (the kind Jay Leno goes in for when he makes fun of newspapers) that probably implies more than is intended---either that or they have a real smart-ass on the staff:

Evangelist Jerry Falwell Dies
He mixed religion, politics...

Well, I always knew that was a deadly combination!

107. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40419 by ? on May 14, 2007 at 9:16 am

Too bad she didn't stick with the initial thought experiment about since it was the only interesting thing in the article. A similar hypothetical was done by a man named Louie Savva wo runs a blog called Everything is Pointless (everythingispointless.com). He's an atheist and (no surprise given the title) something of an existentialist. He asked about whether you would save a gorilla or a human from a virus if you had a limited supply of a drug and could only save one. I may be wrong but he seemed to think that saving the gorilla would be cruel since the human would have a much greater understandning of what was happening to him/her and the the person's family would also grieve on a level far beyond that of other gorillas. Savva seems to take a view of consciousness similar to Daniel Dennett and in many articles has argued that the case for self-consciousness in animals is very weak (I disagree with this). If I have misrepresented his views, I apologize--I've just started reading him. My point is that there are many possible secular answers to these type of questions. A Marxist, a preference utilitarian, an existentialist, a social contract theorist, etc. would all have good reasons to save the human. There is no "secular view" or "atheist view" on these things. There is really no "religious view" either. The story of Noah (a myth, of course) shows more interest in preserving each species from extinction than saving every possibe human. If that story was true, babies would have undoubtably been among the drowned. I would save the human because I am not only part of the same species but part of the same community of laws and ethics. Saving a human's life in an emergency situation is something generally agreed upon as the ethical thing to do. It is a norm that can be shown to have value across the board. The author of this article seems to be going farther, of course with the special, separate soul idea and the demonization of those who disagree with her.

108. Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual

Comment #40180 by ? on May 13, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Haggard makes an appearance in the documentary movie "Jesus Camp" which is an expose of the religious far right. A young boy aspiring to be a preacher goes to the big Colorado megachurch and gets advice from him (I guess the boy should have picked Dawkins as a role model). Before this, we see a clip of Haggard's sermon which is about---you guessed it---the evils of homosexuality. Everyone should see this movie. It really exposes some weird crap.

109. Hitchens and God: a book review

Comment #40158 by ? on May 13, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Hi, I'm new to posting on RichardDawkins.net, but I've been reading it for some time.
I am in awe of Al-Shawaf's review. Since he is writing to an sensible audience (Skeptic magazine) he doesn't have to play the "wow this guy has some wild ideas!" card. Insead, we have the beautifully honest remark that "this is not some bilious tirade." The review is somewhat critical, but the reviewer is careful to point out that Hitchen's main points are based on principles like Ockham's Razor and Popper's rejection of untestable hypotheses. Of course, such principles are generally accepted (among the educated, anyway)as guides to clear reasoning and avoiding fruitless circular thinking. In the "mainstream" culture, even people who are interested in Hitchens' and Dawkins' books often miss this and start in on "he's so angry," "he's so radical," and other personal observations.

110. The God Delusion

Comment #40153 by ? on May 13, 2007 at 11:17 am

I think many people in the wider humanist or freethought community are too hard on Rand. Sure, there is much to criticize (and some stuff that is truly horrible like her attacks on anyone who has different tastes in music or art as being an irrationalist or "mystic"), but at least she provides an introduction to a non-supernatural worldview to many young people who might not get it otherwise. Hopefully they question HER dogmatic elements as well and move on to other books. But that's what most readers interested in serious ideas will do. Her hardcore followers have a little "cult" but its not like it has any real power, huge numbers or a building on every street corner.

111. A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

Comment #40144 by ? on May 13, 2007 at 10:50 am

While I don't go in for conservatism of any kind, I've always had a soft spot for John Derbyshire. He seems like a very reasonable person who is deeply interested in history, science and literature. His opinions on any given subject strike me as based on experience, study and critical thought--and are subject to revision. Conservatism for him is more like a general stance or orientation, not a rigid ideology or blind party loyalty. It must take courage in his circles to take a moderate position on abortion and admit that he is no longer a practicing Christian (and that he wasn't very orthodox or devout even in his churchgoing days). I understand he gets bombarded by religious hate mail at times, as well as attempts to "convert" him. Maybe the right will drive their good and smart people out.