151. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14770 by Sancus on December 25, 2006 at 1:36 am

Thanks, Sam!

In later works I hope you explore points 7 and 10 more in depth. The "spiritual" question and the "moral" question are the two great unexplored canvases of atheism. Both are tied to phenomena that people experience every day, so they can relate to those issues directly. They are also open empirical questions, while the other points are more intellectually rational.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

I agree, but I think the only honest reason these experiences can't authenticate such claims is because we don't know much about spiritual experience. There are some unsaid a priori assumptions made in order to separate them from ordinary experience, which consequently prevents much empirical research.

Just throwing out ideas now... Perhaps these assumptions serve a psychological purpose, for if our dreams were freely allowed to intersect with our waking consciousness, we would be close to hallucinating beasts. Spiritual people may be trying, if somewhat aimlessly, to find other intuitive assumptions that help re-separate spiritual experience in a more beneficial way (e.g. for more creativity and imaginative capacity). What other benefits could be in store, when purely atheistic intuitive assumptions are combined with those more beneficial spiritual ones?

152. Oh, we Brits of little faith

Comment #14766 by Sancus on December 25, 2006 at 12:49 am

I think the author is trying to say that Britons did not abandon religion out of intellectual fortitude or honesty. If that is really the case, DV82XL, then no one has won anything.

With Islam at Britain's backdoor and the fear of being "racist" in challenging their religious practices, it seems there really has been no victory against religion. Far from winning and mopping up, it may have become worse.

153. How the Great Atheist got polite society standing

Comment #14764 by Sancus on December 25, 2006 at 12:26 am

In the final paragraphs, Dawkins was quoted saying, "ideally what a scientist should do is enthuse people." He's definitely getting people enthused!

This is the first year I told my family that I'm not attending Christmas mass with them. Had I not read TGD, I might have still told them, but there's no question that it helped make the whole thing much easier. There were no arguments, fights, or father pleading me, "do it for your mother." No guilt-trips. I slowly built up to it recently by letting them know at appropriate times that I was an atheist. I will still celebrate Christmas with them, but I am especially looking forward to it without religion this year. Thanks Professor D.

154. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14761 by Sancus on December 24, 2006 at 11:58 pm

From Mr. Mark:

Sancus asked why I said that this article makes me embarrassed to be an American. I think the answer was given above in posts 19 and 9 in more-succinct and elegant ways than could I.

I suppose I would eventually feel embarrassed, if I kept allowing other Americans to speak for me, too.

155. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14760 by Sancus on December 24, 2006 at 11:40 pm

From denoir

Perle, Armitage, Kristol, Kagan and Bush himself for that matter.

Oh, I thought you were going to name someone credible.

It might sound strange, but actually it is not very difficult to understand. In a country where flag waving is mandatory, waving the flag isn't connected to patriotism. In Saudi Arabia religion is part of the political system - it is mandatory. In America you have the theoretical freedom of being an atheist but you can forget running for political office.

Why?

Yes, this is still very difficult for me to understand. It appears you're looking at this through your own cultural lens. Great Americans in our eyes don't just "forget running for office" if that's their goal, or give up on themselves when the going gets tough. None of us are inspired by people who give up. On the contrary, Americans love an underdog. We are utterly fascinated by them, by the idea that one person with a dream and the heart to follow through with it can change everything. It's a defining element of our mythology and history.

Jesus is represented in America as an underdog. It's so obvious to me that I tend to look past it and forget that it may not be obvious to others. American Christians are moved by the violence of the Crucifixion, because it is the story of one man braving humiliation and torment at the hands of his own peers, and then does what is necessary to conquer death and all that. The particulars of the story are extremely irrational and profoundly weird, but people with little hope in themselves latch on to something.

Christian fundamentalists believed themselves to be the underdog, and they still do, I think. They keep going after "Hollywood," and that will be their downfall, as religion escapes into art.

In places like Saudi Arabia and Europe, there isn't the same cultural appreciation of the underdog. You quote Bush 41 on atheists, as if comments like that would deter an American atheist from running for office. Quite the opposite, it calls us to action. We face an uphill battle, but we're Americans -- that's what we do! Every group who has been labeled unpatriotic or un-American raises their influence over time. Sometimes they do it with the help of religion and sometimes not.

Religion may seem deeply interwoven with patriotism from the outside, but that's because inspiration is deeply interwoven with patriotism, and a lot of Americans find inspiration in religion. I personally don't think that's at all difficult to understand, but if you come from a place where religion is mandatory, I definitely see how that would keep it from being inspiring! Coercion is the antithesis of inspiration.

There's no "new atheist dream" in America right now. It's still intellectualized. What we need is to inspire people. In the mean time, we're very fortunate to have people like Dawkins help us find the courage to even dream about a world without religion.

No, the "manifest destiny" concept was not about permanently occupying other countries. It was about America having a god-given destiny to spread democracy around the world. Although it doesn't go by that name anymore - it still very much exists. It is what Bush meant when he said that god told him to invade Iraq etc America did to Iraq and Afghanistan exactly what it thougts its divine destiny was: a regime change.

Like I said, if only it were true! Bringing democracy to the ME is an after-the-fact justification for a war that had no meaning. There were no weapons of mass destruction, so they had to find some reason to say it wasn't all meaningless. But I'm afraid it was meaningless. Administering the death penalty for apostates is not American-style democracy, not by a long shot.

That's plain incompetence and has little to do with any original planning and intent.

Plain incompetence would necessarily have a lot to do with original planning. If you don't make a workable plan, then you are incompetent at planning!

The point of my original post was to agree with the author of the article that religion is a major component of American exceptionalism. That idea was a component in basically every war that America has been involved in. It is also the reason why America is one of the most (if not the most) militant nations on earth. The fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia may be more radical than the American Christians - but they also both lack the evangelical will to spread the system and the military means to do so. Despite not being the most religious country on earth, I would argue that religious belief in America does the most harm world-wide.

Saudi Arabian citizens laid waste to our largest city. For decades they have travelled to various Muslim countries in the ME and SE Asia to gather people for religious violence. They have indeed caused great harm world-wide and have done so through exceptional evangelical will.

You say religion is a "component" of American wars, and I guess I'll let that slide. War is a quintessential life-and-death struggle and people often find help in religion.

Manifest Destiny was about expanding American borders and gaining new territory permanently. It was not "colonialism" as you're used to it. Manifest Destiny was about bringing new states into the union, expanding congress, and letting more people vote for the American president. It was not about subjugating people to the tyranny of European monarchies and emperors. It was about spreading religious freedom, not any particular religion.

Unfortunately, that's not what's happening now. I'd be so much more optimistic, if Manifest Destiny was back. We are literally in a worst case scenario, kowtowing to the Islamic equivalent of Manifest Destiny and its religious oppression.

156. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14677 by Sancus on December 24, 2006 at 6:21 am

Before I go on, denoir, I just wanted to address an earlier point.

Take the Iraq war. Economic exploitation? It's called introducing a free market and free trade.

Who has been describing the Iraq war this way? I'd like to read them, because only a few months ago I was troubled to read that Iraq has no banking sector. None. The Iraqi troops are being paid in cash, and they have no means of wiring a transfer to their families, so they must walk on foot to their homes. This is especially problematic, because Iraqi soldiers are easily targeted and killed by insurgents this way. It is deeply troubling, and I would think that some ordinary banking that you and I so take for granted would go a long way to helping them and their families.

My goodness, if only it really was about trade, things might be a lot better. Unfortunately, it is far worse, since Iraq appears to have been about nothing at all.

That's just religious commitment on the part of the state. The Saudis may be religious fundamentalists but they don't see themselves to be chosen by god to change the world and bring the 'Saudi way of life' to the rest of the planet.

Forgive me, but this sounds very strange to my American ears: that you would dismiss the significance of a nation having any religious commitment at all, and then proceed to argue that the United States, world famous for separating state and religion, is the clearest example of a nation where religion and patriotism are deeply interwoven.

You understand where my confusion is coming from, right? I recognize we are probably experiencing a cultural misunderstanding.

"Manifest destiny" was indeed an American phenomenon that existed around the same time as European colonialism, but we no longer have it today. I'm not sure what anti-American propaganda you've been reading, but if we did have a manifest destiny, we would have taken Afghanistan and Iraq and installed our own governments. The tragedy is that we did not even restrict their constitutions to separate Islam from government, so now we have in Afghanistan a legal system that murders apostates, and in Iraq a civil war between those vying for the superiority of different methods of interpreting hateful Islamic law for the new Iraqi government.

So, really, it is much worse than you think. If only things were as good as your simplified argument. We would have enforced a constitutional separation of church and state in Afghanistan and divided Iraq up between the coalition, annexing specific areas and installing our own permanent governments, establishing a beachhead against Islam. Instead we gave more power to Syria, Iran, and the insurgents by telling them in advance that we were leaving and let the oil fields burn.

I was just thinking -- it is quite ironic. People look at this crazy world, searching for purpose and meaning, and erroneously find it in religion. An atheist looks at the meandering American policy in the Middle East, searching for purpose and meaning, and erroneously finds it in religion. How much better off we would be, if it were actually true.

157. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14668 by Sancus on December 24, 2006 at 4:40 am

From denoir:

It's not a simple question of nationalism. The notion of a divine purpose and approval is essential. And there is no clearer example than America where religion and patriotism are deeply interwoven.

Really. So the Saudi Arabian national flag, which consists entirely of the words, "there is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," and a sword, does not represent a clearer example than America where religion and patriotism are deeply interwoven?

158. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14666 by Sancus on December 24, 2006 at 4:22 am

From Mr. Mark:

Yet another article that makes me embarrassed to be an American.

Why?

I don't mean why be embarrassed. I am embarrassed by my president, local schools, and a number of other things, so I can understand. But, why are you embarrassed by this article? Or any article that you didn't contribute to writing?

159. What I found out about God

Comment #14665 by Sancus on December 24, 2006 at 3:48 am

jbannon, thank you for your reply. Even if I knew one to exist, I would not surrender my sovereignty to an omnibenevolent God either. Sometimes, I think, that I would be so deeply exasperated by the idea that one person would provide everything for me, including the things I ought to provide myself, that I would wish such a person to give me a wide berth. Indeed, I am pleased that this would be the case.

160. What I found out about God

Comment #14613 by Sancus on December 23, 2006 at 5:16 pm

From jbannon:

I think some people need to switch their irony meters on before reading the comments about Donald Rumsfeld. John Humphrys is not a fan of neo-conservatism!

Okay, but I still don't think it's truly ironic, since Rumsfeld's words are characteristic of someone blatantly forcing himself into an "agnostic bubble," and we know what kind of danger that leads to, right?

161. What I found out about God

Comment #14608 by Sancus on December 23, 2006 at 4:22 pm

I admit that I have not read this article. I scrolled down, saw the first comment, and then read backwards to the penultimate paragraph about Rumsfeld. So am I making an ad hominem argument for not wanting to read this?

My goodness, any layperson of war whose experience basically consists of playing the earlier Warcraft games knows that you must secure borders and resources when you conquer new territory, or else that territory will be lost to neighbors who are poised to take the spoils. And that much more risk is taken with a smaller invasion force and few allies. And most importantly, that you do not alienate your own intelligence service and try to find security in a bubble of agnosticism.

Which this man seems to be in.

162. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14601 by Sancus on December 23, 2006 at 3:53 pm

From franknhonest:

To put it simply, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to destroy your conscience.

Rank silliness. The only way you could believe this is by not being honest with yourself. Indeed, not being honest with yourself and believing in the Holy Spirit is what leads to a loss of conscience in the first place. Denying the Holy Spirit is to stop ignoring your loss.

163. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #14497 by Sancus on December 22, 2006 at 6:11 pm

From the author, emphasis mine:

The interesting question is whether there is a kind of respect that goes beyond this minimal law-fenced live-and-let-live yet stops short of either a hypocritical pretence of intellectual respect for the other's beliefs (the currency of much inter-faith polylogue) or unbounded relativism. I think there is. In fact, I would claim that I know there is - and most of us practice it without even thinking about it. We live and work every day with people who hold, in the temples of their hearts, beliefs that we consider certifiably bonkers. If they seem to us good partners, friends, colleagues, we respect them as such - irrespective of their private and perhaps deepest convictions. If they are close to us, we may not merely respect but love them. We love them, while all the time remaining firmly convinced that in some corner of their minds they cling to a load of nonsense.

The author is overlooking that New Atheists are merely asking people to think about what they practice.

164. The problem with secularism

Comment #14495 by Sancus on December 22, 2006 at 5:40 pm

The apparent precision of the gravitational constant does not need an explanation, at least not right this minute. Until further developments, it just means that our universe seriously kicks ass.

165. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14490 by Sancus on December 22, 2006 at 4:58 pm

From JohnC:

I agree parents should not have the right to deny their children science education (including biology), but sadly they do - after all, that is what home schooling is all about.

No, that's not what homeschooling is all about. You evidently are aware of next to nothing but the sensationalism. Although, I will not continue to defend homeschooling, because I believe there are still better alternatives.

As for Islam, the post-colonial Arab world clearly has its own set of problems but the existence of Islamism provide no kind of excuse for the lunacy of American evangelicals. Let's start by cleaning up our own backyards.

Did you say you lived in Europe? Islam is exactly what's on your backyard. France will be a majority Muslim country in only 25 years.

From Edutheria:

You are misconstruing Sancus. As I understand it, he is saying that neither parents nor the government have the right to coerce kids. In contrast, you are saying that the government ought to, nay has the responsibility to coerce parents into coercing their kids to be educated as the government sees fit (which, of course, may vary depending on the character of the regime the hapless family happens to be under at the time).

Yes, this is what I meant, and the thought of those layers of coercion makes me tremble.

I hope that, after this conversation, we all at least recognize that prejudicing and belittling young people by using the word "teenager" as a pejorative only serves those who wish to control youth -- the religious.

166. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14484 by Sancus on December 22, 2006 at 4:19 pm

Robert, Islamists will murder apostates regardless of what happens to Israel.

167. The Only One in Step

Comment #14481 by Sancus on December 22, 2006 at 4:08 pm

Thanks for the link, Nikki. When reading McIntosh's views, he seemed to me like a person terribly frightened at his own lack of knowledge about the universe. While an average scientist may humble herself before the difficulty of the task, and an excellent one may boldly introduce new salient ideas, McIntosh quickly prostrates himself to the safety of a literary work.

168. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14276 by Sancus on December 21, 2006 at 9:16 pm

When I was young, I found education about freedom frustrating and even revolting, to be honest. Why? Because I wasn't allowed the liberties I was being told to appreciate. It was like being taunted.

Dawkins started TGD with the priceless "I didn't know I could" quote from his wife about when she was a child and miserable in school. We should do "I didn't know I could" sorts of things. Upon knowing that you can do something, when previously you didn't, there is a precious feeling of choice and liberation. It is a feeling that is far more valuable when had young.

Young people should know that they can talk to their parents and teachers about how much they don't like their education. Sometimes greater freedom is given to people who just ask for it.

169. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14274 by Sancus on December 21, 2006 at 8:41 pm

From Cholmonedeley:

I'm not sure who's debating the correlation between religiosity and crappy social conditions, or the dangers of patriotism.

This discussion seems to have stemmed from my reply to the tenth post. I should clarify -- I am more bothered by the idea that Fedler would apologize for anything on behalf of me and my friends.

What a twisted notion, that seems to me, that he would furthermore feel sorry for people exercising their religion peacefully. Deplore them, yes. Criticize them, yes. Feel the need to apologize for them? That is very warped.

170. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14272 by Sancus on December 21, 2006 at 8:24 pm

From JohnC

A most interesting range of responses by, presumably, Americans wanting to disconnect the patent social psychosis of mass fundamentalist Christianity from the society that produces it.

I intend no such disconnection and it seems Edutheria does not either. He explicitly agreed with you when he said this:

Surely you are correct; the individual freedom of the evangelical movement is the key to its success, which is only a testament to the power of individualism. It only shows how free individualism is more dynamic and powerful than coercive collectivism.

You even quote this passage later, as if to support your mistaken introductory point. It gives no support.

Later, you say this, which troubles me:

They do have a right, I suppose, to deny their kids a science education...

They have no such right. For even supposing that they would, I genuinely fear you almost as much as I fear fundamentalist Americans. Children have every right to consent to their educational experience and are not to be treated like the property of their parents.

The "religion problem" in the US is not some inexplicable imperfection on the face of an otherwise perfect society. It is a product of that society.

No one has said that it is an inexplicable imperfection. Atheist Americans who care about liberty only do so, I think, after arduous and painful realization that we are living with a gigantic necessary evil, but one not so big that vocal and intelligent free people will not snuff it out. Many have to come to the conclusion, as I have, that our youth are not allowed the rights and freedoms they need to live happy and fulfilling lives as adults. It is a complex problem and I hope we can agree on a desire not to trivialize it.

Finally, the greatest "religious problem" is Islam. During my years in America I have suffered quite a batch of foolishness from religions, including bombings of abortion clinics. However, I never witnessed the collective cry to murder people just for converting to another religion, or the other atrocities so deeply horrifying that I personally find them unspeakable. I have to let others who have the courage to type them out say them for me, for the apostasy "crime" already makes me physically ill.

171. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14267 by Sancus on December 21, 2006 at 7:26 pm

Thanks for the reply, Professor D!

peterg123's posts should have been marked as "troll" and disposed of for their obvious slander and incitement to conflict through unreasonable discourse. Trolls feed on attention and starve rather quickly on none, ladies and gentlemen.

Jared, your list was really funny, but it's best not to give the other camp ideas. ;) "Bouquet" is so innocently poetic, and atheists so stereotyped as mean-spirited people, it's ingeniously hilarious.

What I use instead is consistency. If I follow my principles, then my life actions will show a consistency, the core of my actions will be quided by this consistency, and upon examination, all actions will be seen as deriving from this consistent application of my principles. This gives me flexibility in how I can express my consistency.

Yours is a more elegant way of putting it, Logicel. Since I see loyalty as a consequence of honesty, I don't value loyalty for its own sake either. Someday, I'd love to talk to you more about this in depth.

172. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #14249 by Sancus on December 21, 2006 at 4:25 pm

Logicel, Judith Rich Harris is also an Edge.org contributor. Her answer to the 2006 question for a "dangerous idea" was about this.

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_6.html (Scroll down a ways)

173. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14236 by Sancus on December 21, 2006 at 3:22 pm

From derwent

If that's ALL your country was doing, I don't think there'd be a problem. Besides, nobody wants to take away your right to "think weird things", but a line must be drawn where someone attempts to inflict their weird thoughts on others.

Where in this video are audiences held captive to the beliefs of others? I'm against compulsory faith schooling for sure and compulsory schooling in general, but I saw none of that in the video.

This knee-jerk patriotism and paranoid obsession with individual "liberties" at any cost is not healthy. Some people just don't seem to understand that, when taken to extremes, the rights of one individual inevitably encroach on the rights of other individuals.

Where are there extremes here? I see people putting on plays, making movies, and going to porn conventions. Maybe extreme porn?

The language you've used here is much like some theists would use to defend their indoctrination techniques - "You can't tell me how to raise my children! You can't tell me how to do ANYTHING because THIS IS AMERICA!" It's a selfish, petulant attitude and I think the teenager metaphor is quite apt.

The language I've chosen here is passionate. Yes, I'm passionate about liberty.

You also stated what I believe is a contradiction -- you denigrate teenagers while at the same time dismissing the rights of parents to raise teenagers. Well, who's ultimately responsible for the teenagers? Teenagers own their own lives. Every time you prejudice teenagers, you not only hurt them, you do none of us any favors.

From JohnC:

You can't give up anything to an imaginary being.

They are still losing it. No one else may take it, but it is given up, nonetheless. It pays to remember that no one can give up what they don't own.

174. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14025 by Sancus on December 20, 2006 at 7:39 pm

About sports, Yorker, it's too bad because sportsmanship is such an important trait to learn. Competition never has to make people feel like losers, but challenge us to improve and discover our unique natural talents. When a winner is made to feel bad for his talent because of a sore loser, that's about the worst thing I can think of. Apocalyptically depressing, even.

Playing on the comparison to Hitler, we can probably sum up his entire life as that of a sore loser, all the way to his death. I fear that sore losers will destroy us all. I want to be compassionate to everybody and send my heart out to all, but sore losers stomp on it. Their goal is to make you feel guilty for improving yourself and nurturing your talents. Is there anything more deeply sinister?

Luthien, I consider your view on education essential. I was fortunate to attend a Montessori school for pre-school and kindergarten, before I was spirited away to a standard age-segregated religious school. I'm convinced that those Montessori years influenced me more than any other education I've had since. I loved it and the saddest day of my life, literally, was when I had to say goodbye to my friends there. I can clearly and vividly remember it, easily. Some of my friends were more than a year older than I was, and I had the freedom to accelerate my learning and be alongside them. How horrible it was to leave -- I didn't understand why I had to leave! And I still don't.

175. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14020 by Sancus on December 20, 2006 at 6:46 pm

From Fedler:

I would like to extend my apologies on behalf of all of us rational US citizens on 'this side of the pond'. Unfortunately, our country is a bit like a belligerent teenager. We may do the right thing eventually, but only after doing to the extreme all the stupid things we can think of. It's a generalization, but I think it fits.

It doesn't. Belligerence is not wrong just because it comes from teenagers.

Furthermore, I'm an atheist American and I do not in any way apologize for these people. No way will I ever, ever do anything but take pride in my country's protection of the right to think weird things and assemble peacefully. If you think you can apologize on behalf of me and all rational US citizens, and are not a duly elected representative of the US, you have precious little appreciation of American liberties.

176. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14017 by Sancus on December 20, 2006 at 6:33 pm

I love how Christians hate Hollywood, because they're only emphasizing that religion is aesthetic fantasy. They actually think Hollywood is their competition. Perhaps religion can only survive in artistic form -- theme parks, video games, music, movies, and role-playing. The porno-pastor is troubled by the thought that in 20 years only a small percentage of people will call themselves Evangelical Christians. No worries, I'm sure that a God that kills kittens will survive in a perverted MMORPG.

The video ends on the question of ownership, or more specifically the question of who owns the children. The interviewer reads a letter from a young person who emphatically states to the people around her, "you do not own me, God does."

Is there any question that the problem atheists face is ultimately about youth rights and ownership?

Well, and Platonic theory of art as a means of controlling the young.

177. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13880 by Sancus on December 20, 2006 at 12:01 am

Most of it felt funny and almost playful, to compare atheism with religion. It's so absurd that I saw it as a kind of gentle parody. How fun it would be, if that were actually the case. Atheists could dress in robes while burning various chemicals and sing songs! Do chemists sing?

Anyway, it finishes with the Dawkins comment well. What is there to replace religion when it's taken away? Since Dawkins is working on a program that will examine New Age pseudo-science, he must already realize the reality that many people do indeed search for something else after they leave religion.

Unlike Logicel, I forgot who Liddle was and might have otherwise predicted his sentiment. Liddle presents one of the only legitimate questions to atheism that, so far, vocal atheists like Dawkins have not answered. I will repeat the question, "what replaces religion when it's taken away?" This question more than any occupies the mind of someone who has just left religion, "what now?" Maybe Marxism or nationalism?

From Sam:

The common denominator between naziism and communism on the one hand and religion on the other is blind acceptance of certain teachings that are seen as the answer to everything, as well as blind obedience to an absolute, infallible authority.

There's something more important than that. Both ideologies consider people's lives property of the state. They both reject the notion that individuals can, or much less should, own their own lives. This is especially pertinent because religions do the same. Monotheistic religions all believe that God has a claim to our souls and that individuals do not own themselves. We have here a solid and undeniably essential connection between these rueful ideologies and religion, yet the most vocal of us seem to be ignoring it.

I made a similar comment the last time Liddle's work was posted on this site, and Logicel followed up with a very beautiful comment.

And as for the frequent question put to atheists, what will replace religion in our lives -- find out for yourselves -- we did.

Religious people, along with Marxists, fear the responsibilities of self-ownership. They believe that moral actions will not result, if people allow themselves to take responsibility for their own actions. The reality is that this is the only way morality can be possible.

The link I provided in that old post is dead, so for people who missed it, or for anyone who hasn't seen it but would like to see more information about how morality can be reconstructed through self-ownership, here is a very simple animation.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

178. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #13872 by Sancus on December 19, 2006 at 10:35 pm

Martha, I have no idea what you're talking about, but the link wasn't working so I changed it. Hope that clears up your confusion.

179. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #13858 by Sancus on December 19, 2006 at 7:47 pm

So right, Logicel.

After the broccoli moment, Hill asked Dawkins about religion as a community phenomenon rather than a parental one, and he very interestingly denied saying that. He's unnecessarily overestimating the power of parents. Why?

Early humans roamed in tightly knit bands. Life expectancy was very low and mothers often died as a result of childbirth, so parents did not often survive long enough to raise children. There's no reason whatsoever to think that parents had such maniacally privileged power to command the thoughts of their young over the group.

Moreover, it is demonstrably incorrect believe that young humans are so weak they would walk straight off cliffs without mere words from their parents to guide them not to. The visual cliff experiment conducted by Gibson and Walk is almost 50 years old. It's even used in psychology courses as an example to showcase the scientific method.

This is from the overview of a psychology course at the University of Kansas (emphasis mine):

http://www.continuinged.ku.edu/isc/previews/psyc/psyc333_lesson.html

Eleanor Gibson and Richard Walk were interested in studying depth perception in young children. They devised an experiment using what they called the visual cliff. A long checkerboard tablecloth was stretched across a table, down to the floor, and 3 or 4 feet out onto the floor. A large piece of clear plastic was placed on the table. The plastic overlapped the table and was suspended as far out as the tablecloth on the floor. Seven month old infants were placed on the table. The infants crawled to the edge of the table but would not crawl out "over the cliff" even while being enticed by their mothers to crawl further. Gibson and Walk concluded that 7 month old infants had acquired depth perception. Researchers hypothesized that depth perception was acquired in combination with the ability to crawl. However, later researchers placed much younger infants on their stomachs first on the table and then on the plastic which hung out over the "cliff." They found that infant heart rates increased when placed out over the "cliff." Thus, children's depth perception developed earlier than had previously been thought and was not dependent upon crawling. Creative observational methods often allow science to make advancements. Your text outlines five steps in the scientific method: 1) Formulating a research question, 2) developing...

Babies have very poor coordination and some of them may indeed have poor depth perception and walk off cliffs accidently, which is why it's important to watch them, but it has nothing to do with religion. Dawkins has a point that children have a valuable ability to trust their parents, but it does not go that far. Dawkins is exposing his irrational parent side, which in key times is commendable for a parent. For a scientist it's gibberish.

180. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13853 by Sancus on December 19, 2006 at 6:53 pm

Definitely, Martin! Personally, that's why I don't think Intelligent Design is such a bad thing -- the minute people try to bring religion into science, the light of science will shine it right out.

181. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13849 by Sancus on December 19, 2006 at 5:59 pm

From J.

I'd be interested to know what other people would have written instead. Do people approve of the 'The Good Samaritan' approach? Does the letter concede too much, or not enough? Does it accurately or positively represent non-believers? What place is there for a de-converted Ted Haggard within secularity and how might we go about winning such a man over in the first place?

Since I value honesty just about more than anything, I would have written something about the dangers of the closet, how the closet hurts everybody, and not just the people in it. The closet hurts family, friends, and in his case, work. I would have said that we atheists have a lot in common with him. We also suffer the dangers of the closet, hurting our relationship with our family and friends when we pretend to go along with their beliefs. I would have said that we know a little bit about how he feels, and express hope that he understands us a little bit more. Then I would invite him to the idea that any faith that guides him to so much dishonesty is one that should be abandoned.

Andrew Sullivan, probably the most popular gay writer on the blogosphere, had similar advice about the closet. However, Sullivan is Christian, and does not make the atheist connection. In my message to Haggard, I would make that connection, and tell him that being gay does not mean rejection from society. Being in the closet, however, assures it, since you are rejecting yourself from society. It is right to fear life in the closet.

"Sancus" is the name of the Roman god of honesty, loyalty, and oaths, so if I believed in a god, it would probably be him. Taking oaths and signing documents are practically religious experiences for me. I find this especially valuable on the Internet, where my name will be easily searched and cross-referenced for what might be eternity. For this reason I'm slow to signatures and contracts, but quick to defend them afterwards. Loyalty and integrity are the natural consequences of honesty.

Now more generally, the message is rather long. Passersby would find shorter statements much easier to read and sign. If the goal is to get as many signatures as possible, shorter messages are almost a necessity. When a Wiki attracts a large group, the outcome can be a very lean and unusually impressive work, something that no one individual would or could probably ever write.

I'm still thinking about signing the letter, but I'm more tempted by what a bunch of atheists could do to pen a message together. It'd be so fun and interesting. We could really use it, too.

By the way, what is the collective noun for atheists? "Bunch" seems kind of disorganized. Saying we're "brights" only seems to highlight individuality, pun intended, but perhaps we can keep the sunshine. How about we say, a "ray" of atheists. :)

182. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13643 by Sancus on December 19, 2006 at 1:34 am

Thanks, Logicel! Safari apparently doesn't support that, at least in the 10.3 version I'm using. Until the next Mac OS comes out in a couple months, I'll just write in TexEdit.

J., I think it'd be great if, the next time you did something like this, you put it on a Wiki before sending it. That way it might reflect a broader viewpoint and bring more secularists together.

183. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13462 by Sancus on December 17, 2006 at 9:38 pm

Didn't Dawkins himself state that gullibility and the necessity to believe and act as you were told was a valuable genetic trait in young people and thus evolved. Please correct me here if I am wrong...nothing worse than misquoting someone.

He did, but when he said this in TGD he admitted to being an amateur in child psychology. He emphasized a number of times that he is not attached to this specific view but is simply encouraged by the idea that evolutionary biologists should be looking for the origin of religion as a byproduct.

Dawkins is on the right track, although he forgets the very valuable predisposition of young people to rebel against oppressive individuals in their environment. After all, if young people are so gullible, why are they so conspicuously uncooperative? My 2-year-old nephew almost does nothing but take pride in his defiance, and he is not the victim of Marylin Manson or unsavory hip-hop lyrics. Youth indoctrination is very, very difficult and even when we resort to such methods as segregation and unabashed slavery to schools to overpower them, it doesn't work very well over the long term.

That young people would just adopt the religion of their parents simply because their parents tell them to is not credible. Now, the religion of their community? That is something different. Parents have a great deal of power over children, but they do not have the power to command their children to jump off a cliff merely because of religion. Society, on the other hand, is quite powerful, and its ability to reject people must not be underestimated. If everyone in your tribal community told you to jump off a cliff for religion, it does not matter if you actually do take the jump, because either way they have rejected your life.

That's why this denial of the Holy Spirit is so significant. Many of you brush aside the possibility of Hell, but it really is Hell to willfully face rejection from your community and the powerful institutions that young people must face. It will cost them their lives as they know them, and indeed this is punishable by death in many countries. Denying the Holy Spirit means facing down the very powerful and highly evolved system of captivity by community. Some of you are worried that this will be interpreted as an attempt to subvert one social order of indoctrination with another. You are right to be worried, because the only way to escape that catch-22 is by allowing young people their rights.

I wrote a somewhat lengthy critique of Dawkins here but it was lost when I hit submit, since the website timed out my login. It's more important to underscore my thanks to Professor D. for coming to the aid of young people and raising consciousness about indoctrination. I suppose it's quite understandable that he does not realize that he's opening a pandora's box of civil rights and challenges to social order, or else he might be reluctant to do it.

184. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13449 by Sancus on December 17, 2006 at 7:12 pm

John01, a free copy of this DVD is hardly a reward, considering that the denial of the Holy Spirit makes watching this DVD completely superfluous.

Your comment is more reasonable than jonjermey's, however, who said in (80. Comment #13306):

I wish something like this wasn't necessary, but I think it is. Children - especially teenagers - are biologically programmed to behave like the people around them. If they are going to change they need exposure to people who are obviously and unrepentantly different.

What is it with the ageist pseudo-science in this thread? I certainly don't remember behaving like the people around me when I was a teen. If I did, I'd be far worse off for it today. I sincerely hope you reserve at least a modicum of sovereignty and self-determination for these people. How dare you dismiss their courage. Your ignorant viewpoint is exactly the basis religions use for indoctrination, as well as the systematic segregation and prejudice young people must endure.

185. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13313 by Sancus on December 17, 2006 at 1:51 am

Good move on nabbing it before Dembski takes it down. It's funny for all the opposite reasons.

The front page design for this "overwhelming evidence" site practically looks paramilitary. It says, "join the OE army." And people say atheists are militant?

186. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13296 by Sancus on December 16, 2006 at 9:48 pm

Words cannot describe how much I admire the courage of these young people.

To those of you who think this is "childish" or "immature," you appear privileged not to know what it's like to have your emotions held hostage to the absurdities of your community's religion.

Denying the Holy Spirit in any fashion causes very real consequences. One atheist teen I used to know was ganged up by at least six of his Mormon friends and physically dragged to church while he struggled and his family watched. Although the reaction may not always be physical, denying the Holy Spirit still means resisting the very real and very powerful forces of your friends, family, and community. If that was not already too difficult, these are the least powerful forces.

The most powerful force is the one you face alone. After you have been encouraged and nurtured since birth to explore a personal relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, the anguish of rejecting so many of your internal thoughts and emotions as self-imposed delusion rivals Greek tragedy. The feeling of being completely manipulated, betrayed, and deceived as an innocently trusting child, especially after one has learned to reflexively feel guilt and shame at such thoughts, is perniciously degrading. If you're strong enough not to feel like a fool every morning, you're kept awake at night by the haunting echoes of your education, Pascal's wager, and any other justification for God as your mind frantically searches for something that will ensure that you will not rot in Hell for eternity.

Indeed, there is nothing to ensure that you will not rot in Hell for eternity. We cannot prove fairies in the garden, but with equal force of reason we cannot prove that sadistic and powerful fairies are not there, waiting patiently for the moment of your death to light your soul aflame and purge you of every ability to know joy. The atheist case suddenly does not look very strong and the resulting fear is a formidable force that does nothing to welcome rational skepticism.

The Holy Spirit may not be real, but the fears and gauntlets one must face in denying its existence are. The Rational Response Squad is for the greatest courage I know. If you do not agree, Sam's posts bear rereading, especially when he quotes another Sam named Harris. He addresses the impregnable argument that perpetual torture may await him with astounding courage.

From: http://richarddawkins.net/article,139,Reply-to-a-Christian,Sam-Harris

If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I have persuaded others, many close to me, to persist in a state of unbelief. They, too, will languish in "everlasting fire" (Matthew 25:41). If the claims of Christianity are true, I will have realized the worst possible outcome of a human life. The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me should suggest to you just how unsatisfactory I think your reasons for being a Christian are.

I'm proud to stand with Logicel and other defenders for the youth right to speech and opinion. I also share her optimism for the Internet's ability to intellectually liberate young people. If only I had this when I was young, I might have found the courage much sooner. And forgive the morbid reminder, but it must be said: this is punishable by death in many parts of the world, even in Afghanistan, a country we were supposed to have liberated. These young people are cause for celebration.

187. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13056 by Sancus on December 15, 2006 at 7:57 am

Rand goes way over the top. It seems like she was trying to say the same thing Nietzsche said, but Nietzsche said it a hundred times better, and I think Rand realized that.

I agree, a libertarian is apolitical. I don't belong to the party and honestly I don't even vote (there are no candidates with libertarian issues where I live and my district has been gerrymandered in favor of Republicans anyway). I see libertarianism as something that intersects all parties. Civil libertarians tend to be on the left and fiscal libertarians on the right, although this balance appears to be shifting.

I just saw your post about Youth Rights on that other page. That was the high point of my day, maybe of my week! Those of us who remember seem like a very rare bunch. I have only met a precious few online who are even remotely interested in Youth Rights issues. I cherish the delight of meeting another, so thank you very much. :)

188. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13028 by Sancus on December 15, 2006 at 5:27 am

Wow, you two are quick! I was making edits and took out some of the libertarian advertising (didn't want to make it too political).

I look forward to your posts too, Logicel. :) I think the Libertarian party is in a state of flux as it gains new advocates. A lot of the old guys think the new guys are ruining it because they want to do things like legalize marijuana. There are so many things Libertarians want to do, so I suppose everyone has a pet issue. It's the herding cats analogy again! I'm optimistic that libertarian causes will find their way into the mainstream somehow, though. What about you?

Jared and Sancus, how do you bold face our names in your comments? I think it is very useful and want to do it also.

I think we're both using the bold HTML tag. Here's a reference sheet: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/

Some of them might be disabled on the server here. I also use the "blockquote" tag whenever quoting text.

189. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13023 by Sancus on December 15, 2006 at 5:05 am

pholt, I have not actually seen anyone try to defend postmodernism from anyone, much less Richard Dawkins. If you ever find any such instances, I'd love to see them.

190. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13018 by Sancus on December 15, 2006 at 4:35 am

I agree with Jared and Logicel. It would be nice to see more discussion of this nature. It does not need to be political or legal. It could be a moral discussion on the value of liberty. Then it'd be a discussion on real Enlightenment values.

Has anyone read "Not One More Death?" This is the first I've heard of it, and Demers says that in it Dawkins addresses what Eagleton calls the, "global capitalism that generates the hatred, anxiety, insecurity and sense of humiliation that breed fundamentalism." It appears that Dawkins rejects the war, but does he really address capitalism? I don't know about you guys, but I think fundamentalism appears to breed "hatred, anxiety, insecurity, and a sense of humiliation," just fine on its own.

From mroren:

This review begins with the observation that the Liberal Leftist do not seem to embrace TGD as one might expect, due to their mutual disdain of the fundamentalist positions. I'd like to know why that is?

I think it's because the left believes that it can use the moral system of the religious to persuade it toward socialism, and it does not want to alienate a potential ally. The majority of socialists appear to be moderately religious or at the very least "spiritual," so their disagreement with the religious right is not religious. Far from doing away with religion, they want to use religion to inspire them.

It is an effort that is doomed to fail...hopefully. Fundamentalist Christians at least maintain some belief in the sanctity of choice. One must choose to do good, not force the bourgeois into doing it for you. Up until now, we have been fortunate that the religious right has protected liberty. Now, they've decided that the world's going to end and are giving in to power.

One of the primary functions of religion has been to bridge the individual and society. Removing religion, from the perspective of a believer, is analogous to removing an actual bridge and asking the believer to jump in the river and fend for himself.

Atheists have difficulty bridging ourselves with society. I think we are correct in thinking it's because those of us who are out of the closet are so few. The believers think it's because we're helpless and lonely without God. The socialist left appears to agree that we're helpless and has bought wholesale into the notion that government can act as our bridge between individual and society. Marxists look to government to take the place of religion.

We don't need monolithic institutions to bridge individuals with society. Individuals choose their friends and need no help or justification. Government must protect that freedom, not legislate it. The left has forgotten the Enlightenment values of Locke, Jefferson, Kant, and Adam Smith, and religions never really learned them in the first place.

191. The Race Goes On!... (extinction of the Baiji Dolphin)

Comment #13001 by Sancus on December 15, 2006 at 2:30 am

Katana, not just the three gorges, but other dams seem to be credited as well. From a BBC article last June:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5122074.stm

"There is massive human population pressure, industralisation, overfishing. Boat collisions have had a huge impact, then there's bycatch, and various dams of which the Three Gorges is just the best known."

192. China's white dolphin called extinct after 20 million years

Comment #12998 by Sancus on December 15, 2006 at 2:20 am

20 million years? Wow. I thought 60,000 was considered old. The Yangtze's pretty huge. Since they're a shy species, maybe there's still hope?

193. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12785 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 9:02 pm

Dawkins said that children must be gullible and believe everything their parents say or else they'll do something like walk over a cliff. This has actually been demonstrably refuted by child psychologists, who have taken newborns and exposed them to glass-covered pits and drops, and observed that they avoid them.

Of course, it is still not responsible for parents to allow newborns to be near any exposed drops, since it does significantly raise the chance of accidentally falling into it. Newborns have very poor coordination after all. :)

Dawkins is certainly right, in that children have a very strong survival instinct to listen to their parents, but they also have a very strong survival instinct to rebel from their parents, especially when their parents become dangerous or oppressive. Every civilization since Greece seems to have regarded this as problematic in children. Modern liberal societies are only now waking up to a little known civil rights movement...

http://www.youthrights.org/

Don't get me wrong, I think Dawkins has already done so much for youth rights by raising consciousness about labelling young people with religions. The blanket assumption that the youth are gullible sort of rubs me the wrong way, though. Youths are segregated from society and held captive by various institutions, including the family. They do not need to be gullible to accept religion when it is forced onto them.

194. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12764 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 5:47 pm

The association of modern atheism with Stalin and Mao has long got out of hand. I plead with anyone reading this to loudly stand against this association by revealing that Stalin and Mao are closer to religious figures than they are to modern atheists not just because of dogmatism, but because they share rejection of self-ownership.

It is the denial of the right for an individual to own herself that is the common and shared cause of both religious and Marxist injustices.

195. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12615 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 12:39 am

This is a good argument, but it relies more on faith than on reason, precisely what Dawkins, as a rationalist, would wish to avoid. It is of course possible, even likely, that the results of IVF will eventually improve, but we cannot know this for certain in advance of all experience.

As long as economic growth remains healthy and stable, we can be as certain that IVF will improve as we are certain that the sun will rise. We have enough experience to know that progress is possible, so, "in advance of all experience," is equivocation.

The author accuses Dawkins of being an "old-fashioned rationalist," which is inaccurate. Dawkins, like most scientists today, endorses a modern mix of rationalism and empiricism. He considers the evidence, and encourages the rest of us to as well.

The tone of this article is frustration that Dawkins is simplifying and even trivializing the problems of the modern world. Since the author is non-religious, I suspect this is actually frustration at his realization that religions simplify and trivialize the problems of the modern world. He does not express this frustration toward religion, however, because he considers that a quixotic endeavor. Earlier he expressed the merits of resignation. Here is a man who has resigned himself to the folly of religion.

To keep himself from feeling pathetic, he sees resignation as a generally virtuous sign of maturity.

The realisation that 'having it all' is not a realistic possibility, that every pleasure entails foreclosure on other pleasures, that hard choice is always necessary and that reality always bites back against those who refuse to make such choices, is an important stage in the achievement of maturity. Oddly enough, the acceptance of frustration is the precondition of happiness. One way to avoid permanent misery is not to demand more of life than it can yield.

When applied to the resignation of certain human affairs, a famous atheist had a word for this view -- slave morality.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_morality

Slave morality begins in those people who are weak, uncertain of themselves, oppressed... Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power vis-a-vis the strong by treating those qualities that are valued by the powerful as "evil," and those qualities that enable sufferers to endure their lot as "good." Thus patience, humility, pity, submissiveness to authority, and the like, are considered good.

Theodore Dalrymple should not suffer the backward attempts of the religious to defend their dignity from imaginary tyrants who are long dead in the free world. He definitely should not embarrass himself by preaching the supposed maturity of resignation. He should instead confront an author who would have found him immature, Friedrich Nietzche.

196. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #11976 by Sancus on December 8, 2006 at 8:00 pm

Even the religious are better than Chopra. They are at least atheists of the gods in other religions, but Chopra believes in them all.

197. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11872 by Sancus on December 8, 2006 at 1:19 am

'Oh,' he says. 'I think that it is incidental that Stalin was an atheist. I don't think that Hitler was. Stalin did his deeds in the name of a kind of Marxism, and you can argue as to whether that's a religion or not.'

Isn't that the point, I suggest. That with one set of values removed, another will always fill its place? That if you remove religion, there is a gap which will always be filled —

Well, now, here he does have a point. And a very good one. Atheists are "morality leeches" to some extent. We mooch our morality from the traditions that fathered us. People literally tend to get their morality from their parents, but also from people around them when they're young. Everybody leeches their morality to some extent.

Atheists have an opportunity not to leech. We don't have to look at what's already being practiced. We can found our morality on something new, something that we all agree is important to us -- self-ownership.

To say that there is no God is to say that God does not own us. This may at first seem obvious to us, but to believers, the basis for their morality is that they do not own themselves. They believe someone else owns them, a father figure in their head. Saying we do not believe in God is to say that we own ourselves and do not look to be owned by others. That is the basis for our morality.

For more, please visit the following link.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

and usually by something worse than belief in a deity? Are we ever worse than when we feel ourselves to be unconstrained masters of our domain, answerable to nobody but ourselves?

Yes, we're worse when we're answerable to an entirely imaginary being, or to a non-imaginary tyrant, or to the majority, or anything other than the basic ides of human rights based on the principle of self-ownership.

We're much better off when we're answerable to ourselves, and the principle that everyone owns his or her self -- no slavery to dogma, or philosophy. No domination, no war, no harm, no theft. But lots of voluntary mutual consent.

'I agree with you that I have not sufficiently explained that.

Please visit that link? :)

198. God's Inbox

Comment #11871 by Sancus on December 8, 2006 at 12:57 am

So what does the pope's email say? Does anybody know latin?

199. Atheists for Jesus

Comment #11614 by Sancus on December 6, 2006 at 12:30 am

Holy crap. I didn't know this article was going to be about the singularity!

Professor D., if you were moved to "the core" by the good Holloway, you must check out Ray Kurzweil's theory of evolution... his latest book is "The Singularity is Near" and you can see a sample chapter at www.singularity.com.