1901. 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.

1902. 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,

1903. 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.

1904. 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.

1905. 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.

1906. 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.

1907. Fleabytes

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

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

1908. 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. :-)

1909. 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.

1910. 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,

1911. 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.

1912. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147005 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Frankus

I am not suggesting that "gay genes" cannot be passed on. I am wondering why they are there.

How do you know they are there?

If there are genes that express themselves only in that they cause the organism to be homosexual then I cannot see how they would be passed on. (I realize gay people can reproduce; they normally do not).

That is a big "if" and "normally" only in our culture.

1913. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147002 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:39 pm

There is no such thing as "homosexual sex", whatever gays and Lesbians can do in bed heteros can and do do too and they don't produce any children even when practiced by heterosexuals.

The most profound question of the day

Should I say "don't produce any children" or "don't produce any child"? "Don't produce any child" seems grammatically more correct but doesn't sound right. :-)

1914. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146989 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Frankus,

There is no indication that children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals themselves,--yes, many homosexuals do have children. Until there is any concrete evidence that it does pass on, there is no ground to compare it with hereditary traits such as sickle cell, let alone to find it adaptive advantage.

1915. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146978 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Steve,

Absolutely. All the great ape species show homosexual behaviour. It probably has something to do with support from non-reproducing uncles and aunts for child-rearing couples, and also social cohesion. Well, someone has to write the musicals and design the clothes!

Actually, why must a trait have any adaptive advantage? This seems to be a fallacy of the strong adaptationists. I find "explanations" such as gays are good as uncles sound completely made up and are not supported by any independent evidence.

There has to be, otherwise it would not be there.

I am not an extreme adaptationist (every aspect of an organism has to be selected for), but if we are going to give up on the idea that evolution is going to select for reproductive behaviour, we might just as well give up on evolution altogether.

Homosexuality is not "selected ", it is not even a hereditary trait like baldness,--what is the adaptive advantage of being bald btw?.

Being gay is not the same as being sterile.In many instances they do have children and their children don't turn out to be gay.--there is no evidence that they do. You may say the "gay gene" is recessive, but until there is evidence for that it is just speculation.

While homosexuals prefer having sex with same sex partners, it is not that they are physically incapable of having sex with members of the opposite sex or that they abhor the idea of having children,--some do,just like some heterosexuals too. Historically, in many cultures procreation and sexual preferences are two separate issues. Being homosexual is no big deal if you fulfill your obligation to have kids.

I think we are carrying too many culturally specific assumptions into this kind of discussions,

Edit If we accept the strong adaptionists' premise we can pose the question differently, why are there heterosexuals who want to have sex but don't want children? What is the genetic basis for an absence of the paternal or maternal instinct?

1916. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146779 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:58 am

Did anyone check out the South Park episode where Butters was send to a Bible Camp that "cures" homosexuals for being "bi-curious"? It is very funny.

1917. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146769 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:40 am

I am not trying to say homosexuality is either normal or abnormal. I am just curious about definitions that are qualitative, such as "normal" and how dependent it is on this paradox of the heap.

Normalcy is a purely statistical notion which in itself doesn't have any connotation of good or bad. I suppose Mozart and Einstein were very abnormal, but I suspect most people wouldn't hold that against them.

Being normal can be just an euphemism for wallowing in mediocrity. So I don't really care for being normal.

1918. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146374 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 am

dlitt,

Might not be healthy but it sure makes you feel good. There are lots of things that could make you happy, but they might have a negative side effect.

Well that would depends on what you actually do.

You can't say because someone gets really screwed for doing coke therefore pot is just as bad, For the same reason I would think the "side effects" of religion depends on factors such as the intensity of belief and the actual contents of the belief.

1919. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146364 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 2:10 am

Steve,

I don't disagree with your point about the rapture cults and the evangelical movement in general.

But this is quite apart from whether they believe in is real, This is the kind of fantasies that are actually harmful. I am also not sure whether is fair to say that people who believe in an afterlife automatically give up on this one or wish it to come to an end asap. That is not the impression I get from any of my religious friends.

There is always a gulf between what the dogmas say people should believe and what they actually believe. Since we are talking about people rather than religious texts, we must keep in mind that the human condition is always a lot more ambiguous than logic or religious texts. Human beings are neither rational nor consistently irrational.

I said in the beginning of my post that the claim that religion is good for health may be true or false, my point was simply that it is a question separate from whether religion beliefs are true and should be evaluated based on evidence, not the philosophical commitment to atheism. I think that would depend on the actual contents of what one believes, not just that he or she believes in some God. You probably get a nervous break down, instead of any health benefit from believing the slave driver, control freak of a God of the OT. But it would be a mistake to think that all Christians believe in such a God, being a Christian doesn't compel one to be a fundamentalist.

1920. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146348 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 1:38 am

dlitt,

As far as I am aware no study ever claims cocaine is good for your health, I think either you are missing the point or I am missing yours.

Koreman,

I don't know if people derive any benefit from a hell and brimstone kind of God, I think it is a favourite atheist strawman, People who derive comfort from belief usually see their God as a source of redemption and forgiveness rather than a cosmic Stalin as described in a literal reading of the Bible. If you want to criticize beliefs, at least make an attempt to understand where believers are coming from instead of always trying to stereotype them with crude caricatures, Dostoevsky wrote some of the most powerful books with religious themes, his was not the God of the American evangelicals.

1921. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146319 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 12:03 am

Brain English

Is this one of those articles that suggests that because a belief in something appears to be healthful. That something then is real?

The answers can be yes and no. Yes, it may be healthful and no, it is not real. There is no suggestion that yes to the first question implies yes to the second. The second question has nothing to do with the point being made,--which may be true or false.

I am not sure why there is always this knee jerk reaction from some atheists of the Dawkins school,--though probably not Dawkins himself. Whenever someone suggests that religion may have some useful functions to some people the immediate reaction is the rhetorical question "Is it real?" Why is whether something is real so bloody important? We don't really know what is real in some absolute sense if you think about it, We have heuristics and some working assumptions that seem to work well in our limited range of existence and that's all. We may only be God's hallucinations in his acid trip, we will all go "poof" and disappear when he snaps out of it,-- but to believe in that requires a leap of faith that I can't do as I have no faith in anything,

Religious apologists often quote Shakespeare,"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", I happen to agree, though to me it works against committing to anything on faith,

Socrates is my hero, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure.(Though I dislike professional philosophers and their pretentious babbles, Socrates was before philosophy became decadent, even though according to Nietzsche he was the source of that decadence by murdering Dyonesis, oh, well..)

We have a lot of little make beliefs in helping us cope, say unrealistic assessments of self or others. I can see many people thinking that happiness is more important than being right. As long as you are not high on fantasies all the time to the extent that they impair your judgments or trying to force your beliefs on others, a little white lie to yourself is fine by me if that makes you feel better,

In some way life is a make belief, we all pretend to be the persons we want to be.

As long as people are reasonable most of the time I have no problem in whatever fantasies they believe in their private world, and it would be rude to do otherwise,

Life is fleeting, it is just a transient dance of energy and waves, there is no need to always take ourselves so bloody seriously.

Nietzsche said it best, we have art so that we don't die of the truth.

I am not trying to rip on you. It is 3am and I just feel like ranting and with a name like English I think you may understand, :-)

1922. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145527 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Is Pathfinder yet another wooter creation? It gives a new meaning to creationist.

1923. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145525 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:11 pm

They should teach ID and creationism as case studies in general courses such as "science and pseudoscience" or "intellectual self defense" which aim at a larger audience than biology majors. I think it is am important part of a general education. Students should be exposed to them and be intellectuallly equipped to dissect their fraudulent claims.

1924. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144956 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:08 am

There is a genetic factor just as there may be a genetic component to the kind of food we like. But sexuality is not genetically determined, it has a bearing but I don't believe that there is a one to one mapping. Other factors are involved. Were the ancient Greeks and many pre Christian pagans genetically different from us? I doubt it.

1925. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144951 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:50 am

Why to they put the back-page button next to the back-space button?! just lost another post.

Oh never mind, I thought you are talking about something else. ;) I feel naturally high if I don't sleep.

1926. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144948 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:46 am

Sorry, just corrected some grammar and spelling. I got carried away when I rant and rave.

1927. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144943 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:39 am

If it isn't the issue then what is the explanation for the Churches stance? If we are not likely to chance then I fail to see how homosexuality could ever be an "attack" on the family

I meant to say it shouldn't be an issue. Family is breaking up because straight couples are divorcing or having affairs with other straight people. I certainly don't think allowing gay marriage would erode it further even in the hypothetical that it opens up more options.

Whilst there are those who might be unsure, or might like either sex equally, I think most people pretty much know where they stand. There is no need to experiment when the difference in reaction between meeting a male and a female is so stark.

Oh, I disagree. Some people may think they are straight because there is such a big pressure to conform. On the other hand there are deviants such as yours truely who may think that they are gay because they like to be different. While I like man I cannot say I am completely uninterested in women. Sexuality is more fluid than the modern puritans would want us to believe. As Julia Caesar said, " I am a husband to every woman and a wife to every man!" Bravo.

I am an unapologetic homosexual. I hate it when people try to blame it on the genes. It is pathetic IMO. If I like bananas more than oranges do I have to excuse myself to say that I was born that way?

1928. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144936 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:25 am

Well, I think this assumes that sexuality is changeable.

I think that is not even the issue. So what if it is changeable? It doesn't follow that anyone should change. Again I think this presumes a moral judgment. We don't ask whether baldness is changeable or not, or whether people desire to change. So why is it even an issue whether gay is the result of nature or nurture?

Why don't they blame straight people having affairs for ruining families?

I wish more straight people would "experiment", we believe in science don't we?

1929. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144883 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 12:46 am

MAXD

OH this might offend someone, or this might scare person x, or on and on and on. I think it is high time we stopped trying to shut people up because we are...offended, or hurt or frightened by what they say. Instead our first response ought to be fighting back with better ideas.

I think the law is pretty clear about offensive and hurtful speech and threatening speech. If someone calls you an asshole you may be offended or hurt but it is not against the law. The police will not take action against the offender. However if someone tells you he is going to beat you up or kill you, then it is a criminal offence. Making threats doesn't go under free speech.

I don't see why that distinction cannot be applied in the present situation. I think your objections are just red herrings. I never said broadly hurtful and offensive speech should be outlawed and in fact I explicitly said they shouldn't be. I was specific about threats and persecutions,with the caveat that the details would have to be worked out by lawyers.

EDIT: It is easy to say that it should be up to Joe citizen to debate the bigots when Joe citizen is not targeted. To you hate speech that incites violence against gays is probably just an abstract idea open for debate. For those who may be on the receiving end it is not abstract at all. There is nothing debatable about my worthiness as a human being.

1930. The atheist delusion

Comment #144870 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Anthropological and historical data certainly would give you some insights about human nature. For example if someone argues that patriarchy, or private property or whatever is human nature you may be able to find societies organized along different principles so demonstrating that these features are not inante.

Economics text books postulate a certain human nature, namely the rational profit maximizer aka greedy bastard. Since they make the bold assertion I think they should be expected to produce some evidence.

There are situations where you may not have a clue about what the right answer may be , but even limited data would allow you to rule out a lot of wrong ones.

1931. The atheist delusion

Comment #144867 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:44 pm

TCT

I think the scientific method should be applied as long as it is feasible. Even when it is not formally, a rational discourse that insists on corroborative evidence, to the extent that it is possible, is still desirable provided we don't put more faith into what is warranted by the data and our tools; it is not all or nothing.

My view is that our methods become more limited as complexity grows and as the questions we ask become more detail. But in a limited way Dr.Benway's principle still applies, provided we know not to ask questions beyond what our tools can yield meaningful answers; or if we have to, take the answers with a big grain of salt.

I think I am somewhere between you two.

1932. The atheist delusion

Comment #144860 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:48 pm

There's still careful observation and description, and corroboration. That's what Darwin did. That's science

Actually Darwin's analysis of evidence may not have passed mustard by today standard. To get an idea linear regression was developed by Francis Galton, Darwin's contemporary as a rather cutting edge technique. You can imagine how primitive Darwin's statistical tool box would have been and I am not sure if he actually tested hypotheses in the formal way biological scientists today do.

Also, an old earth was in direct conflict with the best of 19th century physics. Darwin conceded that Kelvin had dealt evolution a fatal blow with his calculation of the earth's temperature. Even then Darwin stuck to his gun because of well, his gut feeling which he developed through his field work.

As it happened Kelvin was wrong, but his error,--indeed the error of 19th century science,--was revealed only in the 20th century with the discovery of nuclear reactions. I wrote a brief reveiw here
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2360,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Alan-Colmes-Show,Fox-Radio-Richard-Dawkins-Alan-Colmes,page3#144833

So I am not sure if Darwin was the idealized scientist in the sense you understand the scientific method.

EDIT The world of animals, plants and dead bones is still simple comparing to the complexity of modern societies. Animals don't have opinions for one thing, or if they do Darwin wouldn't have known.

1933. The atheist delusion

Comment #144856 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Whether this is reality or not is not a question we can answer.

No, not in an absolute sense of course. But if your models allow you to make correct predictions and fit nicely with each other and corroborating data then I would say they capture some intrinsic aspects of reality. There is no a priori reason why these models have to be consistent.

I think a more relevant point is that in practice Dr. Benway's idealized scientific method may be quited limited in applicability.

First of all, we can never examine all evidence that is theoretically possible because it is infeasible to collect all the data. Data are very expensive and hard to come by. So even collecting "sufficient" data is a severe problem for many important, real life problems.

Secondly, in most real world problems it is impossible to run controlled experiments. If you have good enough data you can to some degree "control" for the factors using statistical methods, but there is a limit to what they can do. In reality usually quite poor. Statistical tests are like microscopes, without controlled experiments these tests tend to have very low resolutions.

Even though in principle we should apply the scientific method in the manner Dr. Benway described, in reality there are severe limitations because in many real world problems we have insufficient information as well as poor instrument to decipher the information.This is what sets the "soft sciences" from the hard sciences. No BS here. Just a fact.

Finally, only relatively simple statements concerning human affairs can be casted in scientifically testable hypotheses. We have to be dealing with things that in some sense can be neatly isolated conceptually so that they don't get entangled with too many things not accounted for in any humanly tractable model. If you look at journals in the social sciences you would notice quantitative research are usually conceptually unsophisticated,--and sometimes methodologically dubious,-- because statistical methods cannot handle very complex problems in human affairs.

EDIT: I have rewritten the whole post to streamline my points.

1934. The atheist delusion

Comment #144830 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 8:25 pm

SPS

There are promising alternatives to capitalism in ParEcon and ParPolity.

Sorry, ParEcon is bullshit. It is not the place to go into a thorough review of Michael Albert. It suffices to say that you can't get anything off the ground in that kind of a society because the entire world will grind to a halt as people are too busy having meetings. Anyone who thinks that you can have a planned economy that delivers while at the same time with no centralized planning is a little bit off.

Even if feasible,--which I don't think for a moment it is except for some self selected, small communes of the willing,-- parecon would be the worst totalitarian nighmare ever dreamt up by well meaning demagogues, worse than the Soviet Union ever was.

One thing is that Michael Albert doesn't seem to have any idea of private v.s public. Your life would be an open book for everyone to read.. Oh.. Bonzai, please fill up a form in the begining of the year to tell the neighbourhood committee how many rolls of toilet paper and condoms you want to consume this year..Hey, why are you ordering a new dildo again, did the old one break? What did you do with it? We got to improve the workmanship in the future..

On Michael Albert's site people were actually debating whether parecon would create hiearchy by leading to the dictatorship of the "sociable",--busy bodies who like endless meetings,--and whether sex work should be considered community service,--there will be no cash so presumably no prostitution. I kid you not.

The kind of "participation" that Albert dreams up is the worst arrangement ever. Everyone has a little bit of input in some huge, monstrous project. A lot of hassels but in the end the outcome will resemble no one's vision because so much bargaining and compromise involving so many parties have gone into it, all individual inprints will be lost in the end. Individuals will be even more powerless in this system and certainly a lot more frustrated.

1935. The atheist delusion

Comment #144818 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 8:09 pm

MaxD

One can have a suspicion of what the best course for some thing is and then say we are moving in the right direction without believing in some Marxian vision of history.

Actually Marx got that from Hegel. Hegel thought that a global, true, perfect Christian theocracy would be the destiny of history. Marx turned it around, while still accepting the Hegelian doctrine that history was moving in a difinite direction, only it was heading for a secular utopia instead.

1936. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144772 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I think an important part of education is to have your preconcieved ideas challenged. It would be a sad day for education if teachers are afraid to teach the scientific truth of evolution because they have to "respect the religious sensitivity" of the pupils. In other words to hell with evidence and facts if they sit uncomfortable with the Bronze age myth that the pupils happen to subscribe to lest their feelings get hurt.

What the hell has happened to intellectual integrity? Cultural relativism has certainly gone too far.

1937. Two More Fleas

Comment #144686 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Hello,

There is a nice picture in your link which shows a bunch of grown men wearing funny caps, down on their knees and giving heaven the arse as a gesture of piety (mooning God?). The heading of the article is "the atheist delusion". There is something disconnected between the title and the picture. I wonder who is deluded.

1938. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144678 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I am surprised that anyone would take the scientologists seriously. I am going to start a religion of computer worshiping saying that we are all simulations in master X-B170 so that I too can get tax write offs.

1939. The atheist delusion

Comment #144676 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Scull in a washing machine,

Zara,

Don't defy me. I beat you before, I'll beat you again.

What the hell is this? The gladiator?

1940. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144662 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Sanderson said the British government is taking over funding of about 100 Islamic schools even though they teach the Koranic version of creationism. He said the government fears imposing evolution theory on the curriculum lest it be branded as anti-Islamic.

Excuse me?! This is the most stupid thing I have read.

1941. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144641 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Other than saying evolution is wrong what is the central "theory" of creationism? What are its positive contents?

Let's say by some disaster the creationists are allowed equal time in the biology class room what are they going to say? I mean, it would only take a few second to finish their syllabus because it is just one sentence "God did it."


Looking at the bright side like the Monty Python advised, at least you can save some money on text books if these clowns get their way and exams are going to be really easy.

1942. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144625 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Its not a coincidence that people lose their religion when they learn properly about evolution, learn properly about the history of their church and the History of human societies and culture. When they learn about the brain.

Well education attainment in general (probably except theology) does correlate negatively with religiosity. It doesn't have to be a science education.

Now I don't think it is just learning facts such as evolution doing the trick,--though it is certainly important,-- education level in general also positively correlates with other factors that would undermine religiosity such as being urban middle class and a higher likihood of working in socially more liberal environment and so on.

Though I am not aware of any study, but I suspect that a highschool drop out in a major city is less likely to be religious than a highschool drop out in the rural area. "Aculturation" seems to be an important factor. "childhood indoctrination" is a part of acculturation but it is far from being all of it.

Across the globe societies that have more accessible education also tend to have better social safety nets, thus eliminating the role of churches as providers of services.

Education can be a proxy for a lot of things. That's why in social reseach sophisticated statistical techniques have to be used to untangle these relationships.

On the other hand, many creationists apparently are engineers.

1943. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144618 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Goeff,

I think where we disagree is the proportion of those who are "born again" or whatever, as against those who are brought up with it.

Yes, I think you underestimate the proportion because the U.S. is primarily an exporter of make in the U.S.A born again Christianity so conversion from it within teh U.S. itself is probably less appreciable.

But if you look outside the head quarter of evangilism inc. a quite different pattern emerges.

Within one generation South Korea changed from a Buddhist country into a major centre of evangelicalism in Asia.

Another example is the massive conversion of Catholics to evanglical Christian sects in Latin America. These are not just minor changes with a few people converting here and there, they are big. Some Priests are saying that the Catholic Church is facing a crisis there. Since these are traditonally very strong Catholic countries the childhood indoctrination model certainly breaks down completely. Mind you for the outsider they may all be "Christians" but there are a lot of major doctrinal disagreements between the RC Church and the evangelicals.

Of course, it's difficult to quantify "how religious" someone is, but, to use a more global example, lifelong Muslims seem no less intense than recent converts, to me.

Well even within the same country, say Pakistan, the degree of religiosity differs drastically across regions and socio economical classes. I certainly think there is a big difference between Bhutto and the guys demonstrating for Mohammad cartoons. Muslims are not monolithic.

Also, even for the "life long believers", the intensity of religiosity may rise and fall, sometimes rather drastically depending on life's circumstances.

A model for religion is not very good if it doesn't take into account of degree of religiosity, for then "being religious" wouldn't be a particularly informative label.Though I am not a social scientist, but I do know that it is common sense in the social sciences not to attribute single cause to complex phenomena such as religion. That's why, to the extent that it is feasible, techniques such as multiple regression and path analysis are used to discovered the relative strength of various factors and how these factors may influence each other in some kind of complex loops. To attribute religion entirely to childhood upbringing (or any single cause for that matter) is a complete non starter.

1944. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144568 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:51 am

JanChan,

I think they do worth debating at least in the school setting as the students in the audience might mistaken a refusal to answer as inability to answer.

1945. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144561 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:37 am

Geoff

Take the recent PEW survey, for example; conversions & immigration don't materially affect the fact that non-christian religions are statistically negligible in the US.

But that was not my point regarding immigrants. Overall the (first generation)immigrant population is small so even if there is a 100% conversion it probably won't show up on the national wide survey for a large country like the U.S.

The point I made was that many people seek religion when they undergo big changes in their lives, go through times of uncertainty or find themselves in vulnerable situations where they need emotional supports, social network, friendship and reassurance. Immigration is a scenario where all these happen.

What actual data show, at least for my own community,--Chinese in Toronto,--is that this community is a lot more religious than the general Canadian population and the population from which they come,--primarily Hong Kong or mainland China. The data also show that many were non religious before they arrived, they were converted to Christianity afterwards. "Childhood indoctrination" is almost a non existent factor in these cases.

I think that answers the question why some people become religious much better than a national survey that gives you just a numerical break down of nominal beliefs.

While surveys in particular demographics rarely generalize in all their details, but I think the findings of my local Chinese community do provide some broad insights into why people embrace religion,

1946. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144536 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:08 am

TCT,

Thanks for the link.

1947. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144531 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:55 am

You downplay "looking at the numbers", but surely that's the most important fact? Take the recent PEW survey, for example; conversions & immigration don't materially affect the fact that non-christian religions are statistically negligible in the US.

You didn't address my point. Read the first paragraph. Childhood upbringing explains nominal religious affiliations,--which is all that the numbers show,-- but they don't explain the intensity of belief, which I think is not that strong if you simply go to Church on Sunday or do Friday prayers. The numbers don't explain why some people become very religious while others don't in spite of the same general cultural background and upbringing,

I said it is not germane to just look at numbers, not that it is not germane to look at numbers at all.Numbers have to be interpreted.

EDIT Christianity,--especially evangelism,-- is spreaded primarily by adult conversions in Asia and Africa where it is growing most rapidly, So I think you are very wrong in saying that this is only a small factor. I am talking about globally, not just the U.S,

1948. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144525 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

We should grant the public at least a common sense grasp of methodological naturalism.

Apparently some U.S judge ruled that Bayesian arguments are not acceptable in court, I will try to find the reference.

1949. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144518 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:20 am

Spinoza,

If we had been born in Constantinople, the most of us would have said: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." If our parents had lived on the banks of the Ganges, we would have been worshipers of Siva, longing for the heaven of Nirvana."

If you grow up as a Muslim, you can probably identify with other Muslims who share your upbringing and language and probably know you since childhood more than say, a Zoroastrian. So if you need religion because of those human factors I described in my previous post you naturally would go for some version of Islam rather than, say Zoroastrianism.

I don't think it is very germane to just look at the numbers, As you told others on other threads many times, correlation is not the same as causation. Upbringing certain explains a lot (not completely, see below) about the particular religion one subscribes to, but it doesn't explain why he is religious in the first place. I will grant that it is a factor, obviously, but I have problem with saying that it is a main factor or the only factor. The "cultural" believers usually are pretty relax and are just nominal believers, not the seriously religious type. So are they really "indoctrinated" if they don't even particularly care what they were taught?

There are a lot of adult conversions because of the activities of missionaries for example. Why does the sales pitch of the preacher work? You can't explain that based on childhood indoctrinations.

I also wrote in another thread, many immigrants became religious after they emigrate. Again childhood indoctrinations fail to explain that.

1950. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144508 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

T.H. Huxley wrote a really nice article called 'We are All Scientists' drawing out the routine use we all make every day of the same ways of thinking which characterise science. I would say that getting people to feel ownership of the scientific method, and to recognise the power that it has in their own lives, would be a positive step.

I don't know about that. Most people know the wonder of technology and many creationists are engineers,

I think it is a common mistake to think that science is just about gadgets (see point 1 above) but religion is about answering "big questions". It is not a bad thing to alert people to everyday science, it is worthy goal in itself, but I am not sure how that will persuade people to give up religion. The priest has no problem to go to a doctor or a computer service person who uses "naturalistic" means to fix his problems.