101. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69953 by sidfaiwu on September 13, 2007 at 10:20 am

You are right, Janus, the PZ Myers' review is much better and does address the central points Haidt makes. He is especially effective at refuting the 'religionists are happier and healthier than non-believers' argument.

Note that the US is currently suffering the social and international consequences of its recent domination by the religious right, and that atheists are, if not an actively oppressed minority, a minority that is urged to be silent. I would be absolutely gobsmacked if surveys showed that we were happier than Christians about this state of affairs.

Myers is less successful in other areas of his criticism. In one case, he accuses Haidt of equating religion with a moral system. Haidt is a little bit guilty of this. Statements like, " Don't dismiss religion on the basis of a superficial reading of the Bible and the newspaper" certainly don't help. But I believe he thinks that religion provides a moral system and Haidt wants us to recognize what is good in those provided moral systems, not the really the whole religion.

Myers rightfully goes on to question whether those moral systems are good as a whole, but this is not a refutation of Haidt's position, which only calls for recognition of the portions of those moral systems that have actual merit.

Myers also writes, "This section reads like an unconscious echo of the tired canard that atheists are amoral." Nowhere can I find were Haidt suggests that atheists, new or otherwise, are amoral. I hope that this was a misunderstanding of his position and not a misrepresentation.

The last thing I'd like to take issue with is Myers statement, "We also get another familiar trope, that the New Atheists are just another religion with heresies and orthodoxies and unscientific thinking."

Again, Haidt doesn't suggest that the new atheist movement is a religion. As David Sloan Wilson said in his review of Haidt's article, "Religions are not the only belief systems that can become detached from reality. Political ideologies, intellectual movements, and even scientific theories can also distort the facts of the world to promote a cherished cause." Haidt is suggesting that new atheism may be guilty as a different type of belief system, not a religious one.

102. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69935 by sidfaiwu on September 13, 2007 at 8:13 am

I am familiar with Jonathan Haidt's work and find it quite insightful. At the very least, it is a fascinating look into the moral thinking of conservatives. It was a mode of thinking that was a complete mystery to me up until watching Haidt speak at the 2007 New Yorker Conference (http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt), (shameless plug time) which I blog about here: http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=33.

Anyway, I'm afraid that Sam Harris missed some of the main points Haidt was making. First, Haidt rightly accuses the new atheist writers of sometimes rationalizing emotional reactions to religion. The first four paragraphs of Harris's response are good examples of this; they reek of an emotional gut reaction and not cool reason.

NOTE: This doesn't mean that the new atheists don't have good arguments. As Haidt writes in his essay, "The passions of Dawkins and Harris don't mean that they are wrong, or that they can't be trusted. One can certainly do good scholarship on slavery while hating slavery."

Harris goes on to write, "Despite Haidt's suggestion to the contrary, it actually matters what people believe." I could not find where Haidt suggests that what people believe does not matter. If someone can find it, I would appreciate it.

I have more thoughts but not enough time. I may return to these thoughts later.

103. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69716 by sidfaiwu on September 12, 2007 at 10:53 am

Once this form of censorship becomes institutionalized, can I work for the Ministry of Truth? Thanks.

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

Comment #65209 by sidfaiwu on August 23, 2007 at 7:31 am

Here's the two cents that I donated to CNN:

As with many terms associated with religion, 'faith' is poorly defined. Originally, it simply meant trust or belief that one will do one's duty. In the 14th century, the term was used to describe religions as 'faiths'. Since then, more and more has been attached to that term. Now it almost exclusively means 'trust in God'. Based on the sub-questions, this seems to be the meaning of the word CNN had in mind when it asked "How strong is your faith?" So the question really is asking "How much do you trust God?"

Considering the classical problem of suffering, I trust God very little. God is said to be both omnipotent and omniscient, yet God permits intolerable levels of suffering. God is supposed to have both the power and knowledge to prevent things like the Rwandan Genocide, the Bubonic Plague, or the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. All of these events and countless others have caused untold amounts of the worst kinds of human suffering and misery. All of these events could have been prevented if there were an all powerful and knowing God; and would have been if God were trustworthy. How strong is my faith? It is weak, very week; for I do not trust God to care for us.

To answer the sub-questions we must first examine what it means to have strong faith. One who has strong faith is one who trusts God before everything else. Some people have strong enough faith that they trust God over their own survival instincts and are willing to suffer and die for God. Others trust God more then their own senses and rationality, as can be seen in the ID (aka creationist) movement. Some trust God more than their own moral intuition and are willing to harm and kill others because the so strongly trust what they believe God wants. This can be seen in our own country were people are banding together to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law based on nothing more than their faith. It can also be seen in the 9/11 hijackers who trusted God enough to kill themselves and thousands of US civilians. So asking the question "How strong is your faith" can be akin to asking "How strong is your hate", depending on what the individual believes God wants.

Faith is not always equated with hate, though. There are many people who believe that God wants them to care for the poor, for instance. In this case, a strong faith will lead to good acts. But the specter of believing that God wants harm brought on the world looms over all people of faith. For this reason, government and religion should be kept as separate as possible. It is also for this reason that religions have come under attack in today's society. Religion requires constant and targeted criticism to help prevent the misuse of God's will.

105. Rational Atheism

Comment #64887 by sidfaiwu on August 22, 2007 at 7:40 am

First full disclosure: I am a big fan of Schermer and am a member of the Skeptics Society.

Next, the most recent edition of Skeptics, which Schermer founded and edits, was largely a tribute to Richard Dawkins and the contributions he has made to skepticism.

Now I get to my opinion. Other than the unfortunate misuse of the term 'militant', I think Schermer has some good points. Much of it is a point that I've made a number of times: there is an important difference between being right and being effective. Using insults and taring other people down is ineffective, even if it is deserved.

Lastly, I can strongly identify with his quote of M. L. King's in this context. I am not an atheist, yet here I am, a theistic brother, present here today, and I have come to realize that my destiny is tied up with your destiny. And have come to realize that my freedom is inextricably bound to your freedom.

106. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #64878 by sidfaiwu on August 22, 2007 at 7:15 am

How much do you want to bet that someone on Fox News will pick this up and say "See! CNN caters to the Godless!"

107. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63501 by sidfaiwu on August 14, 2007 at 3:33 pm

So who designed the Prime Designer? ;)

Really this is just a techie rehash of the classic brains in a vat idea, popularized by The Matrix. All of our 'reality' could just as possibly be the dream of some being.

What I find interesting about this post is the implications it holds for RD's arguments that our universe is not designed. For the sake of argument, suppose that we are a simulation as described in the OP. Then our universe would, in effect, have an intelligent designer. Since we can know nothing about the universe which this Designer inhabits ("Let's cut then number of dimensions in half to save on computation time") , the ultimate origin of the Designer would be forever unknowable by us.

This situation is logically possible. On the other hand, David Hume (and more recently RD) has shown that the appearance of design doesn't guarantee the existence of a designer. So, metaphysically speaking, we are left not knowing whether there is some sort of Designer.

This has been the metaphysical problem I've been thinking about for that past few months. ID is definitely not sufficient to prove the existence of a Designer, but neither is its refutation sufficient to prove the non-existence of a Designer. The conclusion I am starting to come to is that metaphysics is interesting, but useless when it comes to producing knowledge.

108. Don't vote for ignorance

Comment #60970 by sidfaiwu on August 3, 2007 at 7:59 am

Hello Brian! Yep, it's me. There are no other 'sidfaiwus' as of yet, though I did find a 'faiwu' avatar that belongs to someone else.

Neando has been gone for quite a while, but Mohamed is still at it. Gasmonso has been MIA for the most part, but he promises to return soon.

I've been tempted to give up as well. It's tiresome to repeat the same rational arguments in response to their inane arguments. But thanks to learning new and better arguments at places like this forum, it manages to stay fresh. Also, since I find the sort of ignorance shown by the candidates described on this post so dangerous to democracy, I find it always worth fighting for.

109. Don't vote for ignorance

Comment #60957 by sidfaiwu on August 3, 2007 at 7:11 am

I am certain that these candidates are taking a Hobbesian (in the sense actually meant by Hobbes in Leviathan) approach. They are likely faking their beliefs to garner the votes of the 'pious' masses.

What amazes me is that these same Christian voters completely ignore the fact that Republicans often act in opposition to the main message of the Gospels. In those stories, Jesus spent a lot of time preaching about the dangers of greed and wealth and the virtue of giving to the poor. He spent no time preaching about the age of the earth, homosexuality, and abortion. Yet while giving lip-service to these later issues, Republicans continue to give tax cuts that favor the wealthy and cut back programs that assist the poor. How very un-Christian of them.

The ignorance of the voters is even more astounding. Not only are they ignorant about science, but they are ignorant of their own precious myths.