1551. Fleabytes

Comment #148284 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Dr. Benway,

The invasion of Iraq is just one example of how powerful people who aren't thinking clearly can use fear and God-talk to persuade others to hasty action. We have to break the spell that goes: "He believes in God, so I can trust him."

I am not so sure how much did God talk figure into support of the Iraq war. From what I gathered it was about WMD, "stopping Hitler" and a bit of 9/11 inuendos.

You are right that when communities got freak out they would act in hysteria, but 1) nationalism is more potent than religion in these instances 2) I am not sure about your thesis that a by and large reasonable person who just believes in a God in some ambiguous and general way would become a fanatic because he has a prior, wishy washy belief.

You said in your previous post that the murky believers project themselves into their belief systems, which I think make sense. But if that is the case the religion is just a passive vehicle, if the person becomes a crazy ethnic cleanser, it wouldn't be because of the screen. Something else has to change the movie that was being projected on it.

Finally, I don't think having a belief in God means you are categorically incapable of carrying out evidence based thinking. Indeed most "murky religious people" are rational on most decisions where such thinking is required.

1552. Fleabytes

Comment #148280 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 2:26 pm

This is REAL. This is one of the reasons I think even moderate religion can be a problem. It provides cover for this kind of Murk.

As I explained she was wrong. There had to be a lot of middle of the road Christians supporting same sex right up here based on the polls, otherwise the numbers don't add up.

That means she cannot generalize, It is something peculiar to the U.S., or some parts of U.S., not murky believers in general.

1553. Fleabytes

Comment #148276 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 2:16 pm

I am not talking about phelps, and I am not talking about Canada. In the UK we have Bishops directly trying to influence politicians and the government. They are working to hold back rights in all kinds of ways,

As I explained it didn't work at all and it actually backfired on them pretty badly.

People pick from religious institutions what they feel comfortable with. Of course, on birth control, the Church can't be right. But because they feel gay people are a bit odd, then the Church is clearly right.

I just don't find it convincing. Suppose you are a punk who wants to beat up on some gays I don't think the thought of whether you will get absolved at confession on Sunday would even enter into your calculation.

1554. Fleabytes

Comment #148272 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Individual views can be dealt with better if they don't have institutionalised support.

But now you are talking about religious institutions rather than individual believers. It would be like trying to make the point that Catholics all have 10 kids because the Church bans birth control. Then you look around and see your Catholic neighbour has only one child. The error in this reasoning is that most Catholics (in the developed world anyway) don't give a shit to what the Pope says about condoms and pills.

(BTW If faith is truly private there shouldn't be organized churches at all.)

With some exceptions, Churches are against homosexuality in some ways. But I think it is pushing it to say they "cover for" gay bashers except for the likes of Phelps. Moreover, when the bashers themselves are not even religious I don't see how you can pin the blame on Christianity. Machismo cultural norms may have a lot more to do with it,

Religion simply doesn't play that big a role in everyday life in Canada like some of you think, I suspect it is the same way in most of U.K and Europe as well. The U.S. is just a very peculiar outlier for the developed countries and I don't think it should be used as a model.

1555. Fleabytes

Comment #148262 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Dr.Benway,

But middle-brow murkies "just know" God doesn't like butt sex. They'll vote for anti-gay policies. But to your face they'll say, "Oh how nice that you and your partner got married!"

I can only speak to my country. Before the same sex marriage vote was passed in parliament the polling result of the public indicated a roughly 50-50 split over for and against. Out of those against more than half said that they actually had no problem with civil unions for gays, they were just hung up on the word "marriage".(Since the bill was passed the support had gone up quite a bit)

On the other hand, if you poll Canadians on their religion I think something like 70% or more(?) say they are Christians. So there must be a lot of "murky Christians" going along with same sex marriage. The Anglican Church of Canada also supports it.

So, I don't think you can generalize.

One should also ask how many non religious people may have a problem with same sex marriage and gays in general. I read of incidents of gay bashing in my city where some yahoos went on a Saturday night with base ball bats to beat up on gays. To my best knowledge none of these people were religiously motivated.

1556. Fleabytes

Comment #148257 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm

TCT

Bunting is talking about something else than the kind of third person reality that can be investigated by science. Her religious belief is a bit like Shakespeare, as Dr. Benway puts it. Hence it is about first person experience and is subjective, not reducible to science any more than you can apply the scientific method to literary criticism.

Hearing Bunting I have the feeling that the supernatural aspects of the religion is not the main part of her belief. It sounds like an add on or something that just comes with the package.

I heard her debate with Dawkins, it was actually quite frustrating because they were talking about different things. Dawkis was trying get her to admit believing in the virgin birth but clearly that kind of objective truth is peripheral in her belief system, When she said "subjective truth", it means something like what you get from literature rather than science.

1557. Fleabytes

Comment #148252 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Murkiness will not disappear until the scientific method, critical thinking and human fallibility are foundational to education.

I don't think so. Science doesn't speak to subjective experience in a first person way. There is nothing "postmodernist" in saying that subjective experience is subjective,

EDIT
If anything the murky believer,--unless he is also a Post Modernist,-- does agree that there should be a common ground of rational discourse regardless of one's belief, which is unlike the fundamentalist who insists that Biblical authority,--based on his interpretations,--should trump everything else. Accepting the universal is exactly opposite to POMO

1558. Fleabytes

Comment #148250 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Dr. Benway,

I disagree. God = final authority. Nothing says STFU in an argument better than, "I just feel God really wants..."

That may be in theory, but unless you are a fundamentalist you may not be so sure that you do know what that final authority's opinions are.

I am afraid you are making religious beliefs to be more coherent and consistent than they actually are for many "murky" believers.

1559. Fleabytes

Comment #148248 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 1:05 pm

TCT

This is the product of a post-modern education

Well I don't know if I understand your point correctly. But I will try to address it,

To my understanding "post modernism" means the doctrine that there is no objective truth, that everything is subjective, just points of view.

Now since we don't believe God exists, there is no objective truth about religion in the first place. I don't see how it is "post modernism" to say that religion should be confined to the private realm as relevant to the believer's private experience, whether he calls it revelation or whatever.Experience is subjective.

From the theists' point of view, the idea that revelation is private is as old as Christianity itself and there is nothing "post modern" about it. Within the theistic framework that just means God speaks to you in a way that addresses your particular situation. There is no requirement to reject objectivity wholesale.

1560. Fleabytes

Comment #148242 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Dr.Benway,

As usual your points are logical and concise, But then to what degree can you impose a "logical" and linear structure on something which is in some fundamental sense illogical and convoluted? I find your view a bit too black and white,

When I say faith should be private I mean exactly that. When it translates to actions, those actions have to be justified on rational ground other than just "God told me to", I don't think I am yielding too much to the believers.

1. Confidence. It's not ok to assume that one's uncorroborated personal revelation from God is actually and undoubtedly from God. The brain plays a few tricks on all of us.

It is not different from people having too much confidence in their judgments in general You can be over confident for all sorts of reasons other than religion.

On the other hand, if you talk to the "murky" believers they would actually tell you that they are not always so confident about their faiths. They experience doubts, uncertainties and they are often not sure what they should make of a situation. Is this really a message from God? Is he silent?. In their language, faith is a struggle and a journey, It is not just having infinite confidence, quite far from it.

I think you are unfairly imposing the fundamentalist model on all religious people. That strikes me as simplistic, If these people are so confident they would have been fundamentalists in the first place,

2.Egocentrism. Just because it seems self-evident to you that ham is forbidden by God desn't mean everyone has the same "inner knowing" or intuition.

Again, religion is not the only source of egotism and religious people have no monopoly on being judgmental and unforgiving, Indeed I find many "rationalists" here quite judgmental and egotistic in their own ways.

Sock puppetry: your God, like your appendix, your farts, or your dreams at night, is actually a part of yourself. Saying "I humbly submit to the Lord" is like saying, "I humbly submit to a part of myself," which, frankly, is the opposite of humility.

I have no general disagreement there, except that you seem to think religious believers only get their ideas through scriptures and introspection, I think this is a caricature, Unless they live in isolation they do have a shared experience with humanity. Religion in the "murky" form is often just a visualization aid and a short hand for experience and feelings that cannot be clearly articulated, but it is not to say that these feelings are completely alien to non believers.

Blank checks: the ineffable unknowable has to stay that way. No fair getting specific or concrete about the mind of God at a later date.

This is a replay of 1. See the response above.

1561. Fleabytes

Comment #148220 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 11:19 am

Dr. Benway,

Not in talking snakes of course. But in what? Belief in what?

Whatever "God" represents for them. Whatever personal revelation they receive,

1562. Fleabytes

Comment #148216 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 11:03 am

SWRB

That's not entirely true - faith is seen by many in Canada as the Achilles heel of the Federal Conservatives and is often seen as the reason (the "hidden agenda") they might not achieve a majority in any future election - but many will vote for them exactly that reason

Since Harper took over he put a gag order on the religious right and the social conservatives in general and talked mostly only about economics and scandals and he got in, The Alliance and Reform before that were lingering in opposition for decades. I think that actually proves my point, Very much unlike the U.S. overt religious piety doesn't pay in Canadian politics,--except for Alberta, as noted.

EDIT

Stockwell Day became a national laughing stock for believing in creationism and he was slaughtered in the election. That alone tells us we are different from the U.S. Now he does get a cabinet post under Harper but you can be sure you won't hear any bible thumping from him in the near future,

1563. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #148210 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 10:37 am

In this case the guy is an associate professor of social work and the paper was published in a social work journal so I am not too surprised.

Well in medicine that is a bit strange, I must say.

1564. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #148207 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 10:31 am

I believe it got published.

I heard in the social sciences you can get paper published with very small sample size such as, gasp, 15 if you have something interesting to say, what qualifies as "interesting" probably depends on intellectual fashion,

Now another thing about the social sciences is they often do statistical analysis on data that don't generalize beyond the sample, So the whole discussion of statistical significance is really moot. You can only talk about statistical significance if you conceptually embed your sample in some kind of ensemble (population) and seek to answer "how typical are these findings in the population?" But the question would be pointless if the sample is all that there is and there is no conceptual ensemble to embed it into,

EDIT I was told by people in the know that to some extent this is a number game, Government agencies now want "evidence based" research to allocate fundings, so if you write a qualitative paper about say, the mental health of seniors in old folks homes to argue for better fundings in these facilities, you will be ignored. But if you pile them high with numbers, nevermind the numbers are just telling the same stories and the report is probably not really sound statistically, they would open up the purse string.

1565. Fleabytes

Comment #148200 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 10:21 am

SRWB

Admittedly, this is my read of attitudes and letters in the local papers, etc. NOT scientific by any stretch. But one can sense a hardening of support against that great Canadian love of multiculturalism

Actually prayers in the legislation is largely a symbolic issue, I don't think most Canadians are too worked up one way or the other.

This is how we are. We pay lip service to religion in some formal occasions just like we pay lip service to the Queen, but religious piety, as well as the Monarchy,are tightly confined to a very narrow ceremonial role which they cannot overstep.

Politicians who openly profess faith would be viewed with suspicion and would disqualify themselves from national politics. The only exception to this rule is Alberta, aka Texas of the North and some rural ridings that only produce back benchers.

As for "multiculturalism", that is a vague word with different meanings to different people. In Canada it is largely successful and it is not like what is carried out in the same name in the U.K and Europe, Ethnic identity is not binding here, one can slip in and out of multiple identities,

The recent debate on "reasonable accommodation" is not about multi-culturalism perse, but about to what degree institutions should cater for religion. There is no question that it started because many are fed up with special demands from Muslims, but the discussion is framed in such a way that it applies to all religions and ethnicity and immigration are not mentioned, I think this is again a very sensible Canadian approach, When proposal for Sharia was shot down in Ontario, all religious tribunals were simultaneously stripped of their legal status.

1566. Fleabytes

Comment #148182 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 9:01 am

SRWB,

Big kerfuffle recently about whether catholic politicians should receive communion if they support, or vote for, issues which violate RC teachings/beliefs

As a Canadian I want to clarify. Yes, some Catholic Bishops did make the threat, specifically over same sex marriage, but it didn't go down well with the public and the media, they soon had eggs all over their faces and we heard nothing more from them. Catholic politicians such as Paul Martin, Jean Chretein (both former Prime Ministers) were on the record supporting ssm. Martin even made it a big election issue.

Just because the Bishops tried to influence politics it didn't mean that they stood any chance of succeeding. They can always attempt.

In the recent Ontario provincial election, the Conservative party suffered a humiliating defeat and its leader couldn't even keep his own parliament seat, This was all because they promised to fund faith schools.

I think we need to be vigilant against the mixing of religion and politics. But let's not exaggerate either. In terms of the influence of religion the U.S.is unique and we are not anywhere like it.

1567. Fleabytes

Comment #148178 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 8:48 am

Steve,

Do you know how much their theology really affected their interactions with people?

That depends. For counselors and therapists I think they wouldn't initiate a discussion on religion because they deal with people of all faiths and no faith,

But if you do want to talk about religion they would give their opinions.

I was having some problems adjusting to being alone and away from home in my first year and I got mixed up briefly with a bunch of fundamentalists. At the same time I was seeing the Catholic nun counselor for other things. I told her about the fundamentalists I was hanging out with and their views on the bible and God etc, that got her started. She basically told me that these people were very ignorant and she gave me books on Biblical scholarship to read. The prison Chaplin also told me that he would try to set the fundamentalists straight in his work if the issue comes up.

1568. Fleabytes

Comment #148171 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 8:32 am

Steve,

The Murky "Pure" Theologists will claim that they are just academics, and doing good work increasing "understanding". I don't think they have much responsibility because few understand what they do

You are probably right in general, but there are exceptions,

The theologian I mentioned was a prison chaplain. There are also sophisticated theologians in jobs such as counseling, social work and so on, One of the most liberal theologians I encountered was a Catholic nun who was a student counselor in my college when I was an undergrad.

There are ways for them to influence people other than through the pulpit, Unlike the run of the mill preacher, these people often have professional degrees besides their theological credentials so you probably don't find them making a living giving sermons in churches.

1569. Fleabytes

Comment #148164 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 8:23 am

Yeah, and my friends say being gay is the least of my problems..

1570. Fleabytes

Comment #148157 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:58 am

Dr.Benway

However, in a friendship with such a believer, when the mood felt right, I'd gently try to raise his consciousness about the problem of narcissism.

I understand what you mean. But since I am pretty nacissistic in other ways I am not in the position to call others out on that. :-)

Steve

That is interesting, but surely illustrates how detached theologians can be from ordinary believers. This is surely far too sophisticated an approach - would a typical believer accept or understand this?

Actually Ronald DeSousa did bring that up during the debate, seeing that the theologian was an overall sensible chap and there was nothing he could get him on.

The reply was that it took time for a more enlightened version of faith to filter down to the pulpit, and this process have been going on throughout history.

My own view is that, while it is probably frustrating to see the slow process at work and there are set backs from time to time like some local Anglican Churches breaking away from the mother Church over same sex marriage, but this process has to be allowed to continue.In many instances it is probably more effective than the shock treatment that atheists sometimes prescribe (But then I am in Canada, which is overall very secular anyway, here we actually have Catholic politicians campaigning on same sex marriage, on the yes side.)

At least we shouldn't view "moderates" such as this theologian as the enemy and "fundamentalism enablers", we can be allies on many issues that actually matters.

EDIT Just cleaned up some typos. Dank, what happened to the preview feature??

1571. Fleabytes

Comment #148153 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:44 am

Adam, apparently just means "man" in Hebrew.

1572. Fleabytes

Comment #148146 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:28 am

Dr. Benway,

Strategically, the murky position is likely a necessary transition between belief and non-belief.

Actually, I think there are many who do settle comfortably in this position.

I am not sure if it will lead to non-belief. In fact it may strengthen belief in my estimations. I think by avoiding the clash with reality that fundamentalism necessarily engenders, the "murky", post modern position makes believers feel more comfortable about their faith and they don't have to withstand as much cognitive dissonance.

But it's a deception and we shouldn't kid ourselves about that. It only pretends to give authority to scripture. It doesn't acutally give any more authority to scripture than to Shakespeare.

Ah, but a price for adopting this position consistently is that faith has to become entirely private, the scriptures would indeed have no more authority than Shakespeare except to the believer.

I was attending a debate between an atheist (Ronald DeSousa, if you know who he is, he was on this year's beyond belief conference) and a Christian theologian.

It turned out that it wasn't much of a debate because the theologian took a position similar to what I wrote above while the atheist speaker's ammo were specialized to deal with fundies. The theologian was very slippery to pin down (unlike Jesus, bad pun)

Afterwards I had a little conversation with the theologian. He said something that I think made a lot of sense and I can certainly live with. He said if Christians wanted to bring their values to public policy debates such as abortion, same sex marriage and stem cell research, they would have to be able to frame their positions in secular terms and argue on those grounds alone, otherwise they should be ignored and written off as yahoos.

1573. Fleabytes

Comment #148138 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:09 am

Steve,

. Does it sound like an actual voice, or the feeling that you might have heard a voice, or what?

I don't know. Don't forget that I am just another heathen. :-) Maybe you want to try some magic mushroom to simulate it. :-)

1574. Fleabytes

Comment #148134 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 7:00 am

Steve,

What I am after is how the individual guidance by God is given. What it feels like.

It is a qualia, not describable, you have to experience it yourself. So are you ready to take that leap of faith? Have you ever bungie jumped? Don't worry, relax, God will be there to catch you.

How persuasive do you think I am?

1575. Fleabytes

Comment #148128 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 6:49 am

Artful,

OK, let me help you out in answering these guys. Here is what I would tell them if I were a missionary:

Guys, the message is not in the text alone, like it is just lying there for you to inspect passively.

The Bible is the living word of God. It is spoken to us even today, individually.

Revelation is private and the meaning of the words can only be drawn out through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The message is not the same for everyone because each person is different, each seeks different things. Accordingly God inspires each of us in different ways.

You certainly don't expect God to treat us so shabbily by giving us a one -size fit all answer, do you? Each of us is special in the eyes of God.

To get the meaning of the words as it is spoken to you, you have to engage the text and struggle with it, it is a spiritual journey. God wants a relationship with each of us, not to present us with a reading comprehension exam, the Bible is only a prop. By nitpicking over the passages you guys are missing the forest for the trees.

In the end it doesn't matter, the important thing is all different routes lead to the same destiny. Christians may disagree over the specific interpretations of a verse and its context, but the true seekers will get the central message. God opens the eyes for those who seek.

Of course I don't believe in any of that and I don't expect the tenacious atheists here would swallow it either. But I think it is a better answer than what you've gotten so far. If you cannot beat them on objective ground, go post modern all the way. :-)

1576. Fleabytes

Comment #148121 by Bonzai on March 22, 2008 at 6:27 am

To me it doesn't matter whether Artful interprets the Bible metaphorically or literally, I take it for granted that it is fiction, A more important question IMO is what kind of moral lessons he draws from it.

It is ugly, no, it is god damn aweful.

I see he has not responded to my post6617.

P.S. Is artful = ADH?

1577. Fleabytes

Comment #147907 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Pathfinder,

Doctors misdiagnosed my parents: specialists, consultants, experts with inflated salaries that would make El Fayed blanch. God help me if I were in the care of SOME of those on RD net. But then I deserve it anyway, don't I?

So doctors, specialists and consultants all make diagnostic mistakes,--which is not uncommon actually,--but you are sure you were not mistaken in evaluating the evidence of what you claim to be a miraculous healing of hp.

I didn't accuse you of lying intentionally, I was only saying that your retelling of the tale is not a reliable source of evidence. Even for an honest witness, memory can be distorted and people often see what they want to see. But you have to admit you did hurt your credibility by trying to play games here right in the begining,

BTW, it seems that you only read the first sentence of my post and went ballistic while ignoring the rest of my points.

1578. Fleabytes

Comment #147890 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Artful

Bonzai, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that there was not a
specific act of rebellion on the part of a single human pair, and that the human race descends from that pair. There was an explicit command from God which was wilfully disobeyed.

As regards origins, human beings (homo sapiens sapiens) clearly coexisted with other humanoids. Exactly what the nature of our genetic compatibility with these species was is still up for grabs.

Come now. You are basically saying since everything is up for grabs you are at liberty to make things up a you go along. What's next? Maybe Noah's ark was just a lab full of DNA samples.

History is littered with examples. Where do you want me to start? Which failed utopia would you like me to refer you to?

To add to Eilli's rejoinder, let me ask you this.

Would you say your child should forever be treated like a minor because he made mistakes growing up? We make mistakes but we also learn from them, it is the natural and sometimes painful process of maturing, It applies both to individuals as well as to civilizations.

It is only justified to treat your adult child forever like a minor if he is mentally handicapped so that he can never grow beyond, say a mental age of 10, If that is the case it would be tragic but you as the parent don't have a choice and surely wouldn't wish for that so that your child would be forever dependent on your love,

Your rhetorical question would only be germane if we are intrinsically unable to manage our affairs like the mentally handicapped child.

But unlike human parents, God had a choice.

If he created us in such a way that we are like mentally deficient children to keep us dependent on him, it proves the depravity of God beyond all pale. It is like a father or mother doing something during pregnancy to ensure that the child would be born with a brain damage so that he would never be able to live independently. When the child does screw up, it would be cited as a validation of the parents' foresight that the child can't live alone without their "love".. I hope even you can see how sick that is.

1579. Fleabytes

Comment #147867 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Artful

The story of the garden of Eden can be poetical and symbolic with regard to its detail (the Garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, and so forth) and yet absolutely true with regard to it showing that humankind chose, collectively to rebel against God, and every human being since then succumbs to the temptation to set him/herself up as sole arbiter of their destinies, turning their backs on their Creator.

So if there has been no instruction to obey and God didn't show up until such a late time why was it a "sin" to disobey an absentee God who gave no clear instructions? How could you "rebel" against something that you have no idea exists and have not been given any command? What was the purpose of torturing Jesus to death to atone for non existent sin?

I am afraid the whole Christian doctrine of redemption by Christ falls apart without a reasonably literal interpretation of Genesis.

More fundamentally, what's wrong with setting ourselves as arbiters of our affairs? Do you want your children to be forever moma's boys who can't make any decision about their own lives? I think your interpretation of the "fall",--a standard one,--fails in guilt tripping us, but only succeeds in showing your God to be a very possessive tyrant whose "love" for us is that of a stalker or a spiteful ex-boyfriend, If one treats his love ones and children in this Godly way he would be given a court order to stay away from his "objections of affection" and rightly,

1580. Fleabytes

Comment #147860 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Pathfinder,

The problem is, the disease I'm talking about tends not to be that prevalent in the West.

Thanks for acknowledging that science is more effective than prayers, by a huge margin,

1581. Fleabytes

Comment #147850 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Pathfinder,

What have i got to do to convince you MIRACLES HAPPEN? Whether Christian, Muslim, Jain or whatever? I work on this by a process of elimination and you MUST, by now, have realised how much I despise religious charlatans! 99.9% are fakes. But surely, SURELY, science cannot answer everything? Give me some leeway, please. Doctors make appalling errors: I can evidence my own relatives here. Do they not rule out competing hypotheses, reduce everything to the simplest explanation once all has been reviewed?

Do you expect us to believe in miracles based on the second hand account by you, someone who posts anonymously on an internet forum and has obviously misrepresented himself from the beginning?

Everyday we hear stories about apparent miracles and supernatural occurrences for which we don't have access to all the details.

Under careful investigations 99.9% of these turn out to have perfectly good scientific explanations, it is just that they are not immediate clear.

So what happen for the remaining 0.1%? The apparent absence of naturalistic explanations can be due to a many reasons. It may be that we don't have enough data, or the data are corrupted. I can't rule out that they are indeed some new phenomena that we don't know,--it is a given that we have no perfect knowledge and science is not the Oracle of Delphi. We can indulge in all kind of speculations all of which are as valid or invalid. It might be God, ghosts, spirits, aliens, CIA experiments or some kind of unknown psycho-kinetic effects, radiation fields etc, I just don't see how one can be sure that it is God or demons given that usually it is not very clear what happen in these rare events,

However, if it is indeed God who performs such "miracles", he could have reproduced them when scientists are actually looking just to make the point that there is something worth investigating, if for no other reasons. Why does he always have to work in such a furtive way and reveals himself only to those who are not trained to evaluate evidence competently? Also curing disease for one or a few individuals in some far out places seem to be not very grand for the supposed creator of the universe. He could have done it a lot more efficiently, say by not creating pathogens and viruses in the first place. Why would he need to reveal himself so clumsily through sideshow tricks and only in front of very tiny audience?

1582. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147812 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 10:15 am

These loonies should invite Ted Haggard along to be cured. Funny, though, he being so close to god, I would have expected an instant conversion to being straight.

Ted said he is cured. :)

1583. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #147630 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 3:06 am

Evidently there are a substantial number of people who don't have religious affiliations, but pray anyway. Who or what the hell are they praying to? :

No religious affiliations can be interpreted as not belonging to a formal religion. There are people who don't belong to a recognized religion but still believe in some God, just not the God of the Bible or Quran, or the Gods of conventional religions.

1584. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147626 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 2:58 am

Gordy

You're not exactly doing yourself any favours with that analogy! Some people might see it like that, but personally I don't think homosexuality should be compared to a disease or dysfunction, and I'm sure you don't either. Can I suggest left-handedness as a better analogy? It's relatively infrequent but common enough to be considered normal and it doesn't cause any ill effects..

That was not "my" comparison. The point is for those who have a problem with homosexuals, saying that it is born doesn't make it less problematic. They can still say it is a "condition" like fetal alcohol syndrome which requires treatments. In context that would be the appropriate analogy. because that is what they would think. Left handedness is what you and I might think of.

Secondly, I used fas because you did write in your excellent post that even if gays are born that way it doesn't necessarily imply it is purely genetic, other circumstances associated with birth or pregnancy might be relevant. Left handedness seems too cut and dry genetic.

1585. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147535 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 9:25 pm

I'm very sorry if I offended you - I certainly didn't mean to

No, I wasn't offended, I was just making a general point, I might come across angry because it is the internet and sometimes it is difficult to discern people's mood, especially when the writer doesn't communicate very well. I was not angry or offended, I was just a bit annoyed but not by you personally. The "we don't choose to be gay" plead is commonly made by gays themselves so we have nobody else to blame if we come across as pathetic,

Well even if homosexuality cannot be unmade,--like fetal alcohol syndrome,--there will still be efforts from idiots who would tell you to "manage" your "condition" with prayers and perhaps chemicals. I just don't think "we were born this way and cannot be changed" is a very compelling argument for gay rights. Whether we could change or not is besides the point. Why should we in the first place if we don't think there is anything wrong with it?

1586. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147520 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Gordy,

it shouldn't matter whether homosexuality is normal or not (and even if it did matter, given that at least 5-10% of people are gay, it is normal as far as I'm concerned). But I do think there is a dangerous misconception that homosexuality is a choice..

I cheer the first sentence but I am disappointed in what follows.

Why is it a dangerous misconception? A misconception may be, but why dangerous? The implication is that somehow homosexuality becomes more excusable if it is not a choice.

It shouldn't matter one bit whether homosexuality is by choice. It may very well not be, but so what if it is?

If homosexuality is undesirable then it is undesirable whether it is choice or born."Blaming it on the genes",--or mom's hormonal level when she is pregnant with you,-- is hardly very empowering because the haters can still say it is a born disorder which needs interventions. Fetal alcohol syndrome is not a choice either, If you tell them a "cure" is not possible they can still insist that homosexuals need ongoing therapy or something to manage the "disease".

If it is not undesirable why do we feel compelled to insist to others that we don't become gay by choice as if we have fetal alcohol syndrome and ask for sympathy? You don't need sympathy and understanding unless you think you are somehow having problems for reasons out of your control,

Do I hear people insisting that they like garlic because they were born that way so they can't help it? Maybe they were, maybe they were not but no one would care because no one thinks it is a problem to crave garlic.

I am gay but I don't feel there is anything wrong that I have to look for excuses. I have nothing to explain or apologize for.

1587. Fleabytes

Comment #147289 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 5:40 am

Not that I'm trying to add fuel to the fire or anything, but he also said that science will NEVER be able to explain consciousness without God.

Maybe science will never be able to explain consciousness to our satisfaction, that is a possibility.

But "God" is not an explanation of anything at all, it is making up stories as you go along.

It is precisely a strength of science and it doesn't have answers to all the questions because unlike religion, science does have standards. If science accept any made up, hand waving "explanation" like religion does just so that it can pretend to have an answer it would be as worthless as theology.

It takes honesty to admit that you don't know. To invent a name for ignorance and call it "God" and pretend that you know is cheating.

1588. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #147274 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 5:19 am

I disagree. Given that an atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods, it doesn't matter how that was arrived at.

Actually I think Tumara has a point. A non believer is simply someone who doesn't have religious belief. But it is not necessarily the same as someone who doesn't believe. He or she may not have thought about it at all. Many non believers are like that, the question just haven't crossed their minds, or if it does they don't particularly care about it.

Then there is my brother.

He doesn't believe in any God but he has a lot of weird superstitions like Feng Shui, horoscopes and ghosts. He also doesn't buy evolution but he is not a creationist either since he doesn't believe in any God. So what is his explanation for the the human origin? He cheerfully admits that he doesn't have any. He thinks that it is a stupid question and that both the evolutionists and creationists are crazy to think that they know the answer. On further interrogations he admits that he actually doesn't know the first thing about evolution, though he does seem to know about creationism. Strange.

He calls himself a "free thinker",--according to his definition of course,-- though he sounds more like a "non thinker" to me.

1589. Jesus saves

Comment #147145 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Jesus saves? Is that a new discount store? Woo hoo!

1590. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147133 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Skull in washing machine

This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.

Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise)

Nietzsche was a great writer. I love his passion and his extravagant, bombastic style. He was the embodiment of the Dyonesian impulse. However,you also have to read him with a big grain of salt, knowing his tendency to exaggerate to grab your attention.

To say that humanism is "Christian morality" presumes Christianity invented its moral code while quite a bit of it is actually universal. We don't need any alleged "revelation" for something basic like the Golden Rule, we discovered them through living with others. We knew them long before Jesus,

Religion often only provides a metaphysical framework to codify and express ideas that have already been around.

1591. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147129 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Eric Blair

BTW, many if not most forms of Christianity support the secular state, not least in the US where separation of church and state helped spawn a wide variety of churches and create the most religious people in the West.

This is an important point to be made. Indeed the vast majority of Christians do support political secularism even though some would like to influence public policies through lobbying and political campaign,--which is their right in a democracy. Even Jerry Falwell's followers distance themselves from ultra extremists like the Dominionists who call for a full blown theocracy.

One does not have to be an atheist to know that theocracy is a bad idea. In fact under a theocracy people who happen to believe in the wrong faith or the wrong interpretations of even the right faith (Sunni v.s Shias for example) are often more persecuted than those who don't believe in any faith at all. I think at least in the West many theists of all religions do realize that,

1592. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147090 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Goldy

Homosexuality is not that openly admitted in China now, is it? At least, that's the impression I get from my wife.

Your wife is correct. But it is a rather recent phenomenon apparently and a lot have to do with guess, missionaries, Some sociologists actually did detail studies of attitude change regarding homosexuality in Chinese societies and found that a century of missionary penetration into China has drastically changed the attitude of many people regarding sexuality (and other things too).

Interestingly the rural people, who have less exposure to Western influences are often less against homosexual behaviour than those who are educated. They often don't even have a name for it.

I heard that actually Hong Kong is a lot more intolerant towards gays than mainland is nowadays, because of the strong influence of Christianity.

P.S. In the traditional Confucian universe, apparently it was a much worse offence to have heterosexual affairs outside marriage than same sex affairs,--at least for men. The reason was that same sex affair didn't result in "illegitimate children",--a horrible term,--which would upset the whole family and clan hierarchy.

1593. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147079 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm

MaxD

yes lets trot out a single sample to disprove what appears to be a statistical rule.

I did not. I asked you about the sample size of the studies you mentioned but you choose to ignore it,

Foraging behaviour in Solenopsis can be affected by the change in a single gene.

I think that is a very simple behaviour in the sense that you can pin it down, Sexuality is much more fluid across societies, time and cultures as anthropological data show,

A relatively simple few HOX genes make the difference between me having a head or not.

Having a head or not is not a behaviour.

'm not saying that human sexuality is so simple a case but it could be and there is no reason to take a stance on it one way or the other yet.

I think there are two issues,

1)Whether it is genetic and

2)Whether it is adaptational.

For 1) I think that it is very likely that there is a genetic factor. But to say that there is a gay gene is pushing it, There is evidence that, for example, the hormonal level of the mother during certain stage of pregnancy may have to do with the sexual preference of the child.

Sexuality, to the extent that it is genetically affected, may be the secondary expression of many different genes acting through specific environments and the individual genes involved may not normally have a lot to do with sex.

We don't know to what extent sexuality is affected by genes, a lot of unwarranted cultural assumptions come in when people stray away from hard data. For example, exclusive homosexuals (probably exclusive heterosexuals as well) were relatively rare historically. How much of that apparent clarity we see today is the result of the pressure to "pick a team and stay with it"? Bisexuals apparently are ostracized by both straights and gays alike (even though more so by straights)

2) I think there is no evidence it is adaptational at all. As you have clarified my point, even if we accept the claims about identical twins it is still just a horizontal match, there is absolutely no evidence that I am aware of that shows homosexuality propagates vertically and gays do have children.

1594. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147067 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm

MaxD

It can't be too much more complicated, or unlikely. Other behavior patterns seem terribly affected by the presence or absence of certain genes, sometimes single genes.

What are other behaviours that you can exactly pin down the genetic origins other than some simple ones?

Homosexual behaviour were a lot more widespread in pagan societies such as ancient Greece and ancient China. It is unlikely that they were drastically different from us genetically.

statistical likilhood goes up with identical twins

Have you look at the actual papers? It seems it is very rare that you can find identical twins raised differently to participate in that kind of studies. The small sample means that their statistical tests probably have very low power. Cartomancer's identical twin brother is straight. They share all physical attributes but not their sexuality, so I am afraid it can be much more complicated than things like eye colour and nose shape.

1595. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147050 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm

If homosexual men rarely father children, homosexual genes should dwindle to the low frequency expected from recurrent random mutation, a frequency below one in a million. Even if Kinsey's estimate of one in ten is high, there can be no doubt that the abundance of homosexual men is too great to have stemmed from recurrent mutation alone.

This is a completely wrong premise. It is only true that "homosexuals",--depending on how you define it,--rarely father children in our society.Whether one fathers children and sexual preferences are separate issues. In many societies marriage and having children are/were a duty rather than a quest for self fulfillment,

Homosexuals are not sterile,--hence the stupidity of the "sterile uncle theory",--nor do they hate children, There isn't much in the way of procreating if they have to do the job and get it over with, just like many heteros who marry the people they don't feel sexually attracted to for whatever reasons.

If for some disaster most the world's population are wiped out and there is a great need to repopulate the world I would think many gays and Lesbians will procreate as well.

Homosexuals do have children but there is no evidence their children are more likely to be homosexuals themselves. Until someone come up with that kind of evidence all talks about the adaptational advantage of the "gay genes" are pure fantasies of the pan adapationists. They look at a human trait X, usually in a way filtered through their own cultural biases,-- and decide that there must be an adaptational explanation and make up ad hoc stories to make it sound plausible, That is more like religion than science,

EDIT
The pan adaptionist myopia reminds me of some Freudians. When they see a baby going for the mother's breast they would make up some complicated sexual innuendos as a way of explanation. It never occurs to them that the baby is just hungry.

1596. Fleabytes

Comment #147030 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:35 pm

I mean two socks that don't form a pair.

1597. Fleabytes

Comment #147028 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:32 pm

I've seen Brits, Canadians and Americans do it too; tends to be age related!

Not if you wear different socks. I am only in my early thirties. :-)

1598. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147026 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Bottom line is that it's completely illogical that this invisible guy decided to invoke homosexuality all the sudden, right in the middle of something pure political, extremely important for a moment for whatever non-divine reason.

I am thinking about Lot. If the people who invoke Lot as evidence that "God hates fags" are right about the Bible's message the implication would be that raping women is acceptable to the big cheese. That is a lot more disturbing than men having sex with each other, whatever your hang ups are.

1599. Fleabytes

Comment #147019 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 5:20 pm

As everyone knows, you never wear socks with sandals.

Unless you are German...then it's de riguer!

I do, I am not German and I wear different socks too,

1600. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147009 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:54 pm

the hippocampal studies might suggest there is a genetic component

Three possible rejoinders

1) Correlation is not causation, there may be a correlation of the presence of some structure and certain behaviour but it doesn't prove one causes the other.

2) Having a "genetic component" is not the same as saying that there is a gay gene. I think the connection leading from genes to sexual behaviour is complex and convoluted, it is not like your eye colour or nose shape.

3) Because of 2) I think it is premature and wrong headed to speculate if there is any adaptative advantage for homosexuality, it can be the secondary expression (by-product) of a whole bunch of other unrelated things.

Like I said, gays do have children even in our society though less common and there is no evidence that their children are more likely to be gay themselves.