301. For God's Sake

Comment #32011 by Riley on April 15, 2007 at 8:08 am

On the topic of weather or not there is a well organized, well funded, and serious attempt
to infuse theology into American government policy, I refer everyone to:

The American Enterprise Institute. This powerful political institute plays a prominent role promoting the merger between religion and government.

I would also like to point out that in this story by Paul Krugman, Monica Goodling (faith-healer Pat Robertson's law school graduate) held the number three position in the Department of Justice! She oversaw the performance of every federal prosecutor in the nation, and yet was only 30+ years old, had no experience as a prosecutor herself, and graduated from a law school widely regarded as among the worst in the country. She was only one of 150 lawyers from this faith-healer law school to be hired by the executive branch of the federal government!

As Krugman points out, this conspiracy theory is not "just a theory" - it's real and represents a serious ongoing threat.


--

302. The Moral Necessity of Atheism

Comment #28503 by Riley on March 29, 2007 at 1:04 pm

I agree and disagree with a lot of what Hitchens has to say . . . the only problem I have with him is that he too often speaks with an air of absolute certainty, often to the point of being dismissive and arrogant on points for which he's factually mistaken (i.e. evolution) or simply by the nature of the suject, he cannot be certain.

I may from time to time fall guilty to this same vice myself, however, I recognize that it's a fault and honestly try to curb such behavior when I catch myself. Hitches on the other hand is gleefully unapologetic and as a professional public speaker has time and money and responsibility to be better prepared.

That being said I enjoyed his thoughts on: God creeating us vs. we creating Gods were thought provoking (to me at least). It's a nice and simple point: If God had made us in his own image, it's hard to explain why the world full of so many versions and images of God. On the other hand, if we created God then the pluralism of god-beliefs we see in the world are exactly what we'd expect. I think it's a good simple point to bring-up in conversation with theist friends. I cherish such tidbits of ammunition.

--

303. Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Comment #27906 by Riley on March 27, 2007 at 7:33 am

The Public Library of Science ( http://www.plos.org ) has published some articles based on research from the "Global Ocean Sampling Expedition".

found here:
http://collections.plos.org/plosbiology/gos-2007.php

The principle investigator on the expedition (Dr. Rusch) has described the diversity of oceanic microbes to be so great and so subtle that standard genomic markers are unable to differentiate between "species".

--

304. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #27177 by Riley on March 23, 2007 at 11:17 am

Daniel Dennet has given some thought about what makes some religions more successful than others and to identifying which of the strategies of successful religions can be appropriated in the cause of spreading a culture of rational thought.

--

305. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27139 by Riley on March 23, 2007 at 9:10 am

David! (aka "The Wee Flea") I'm glad to see that you have come around to the mainstream way of thinking concerning the importance of citing examples and evidence! And even demanding it in an informal chat thread such as this one no less! excellent! I will forever more expect you to uphold a similar standard of accountability for claims made in your formally published letters and books, and expect you to acknowlege that your own claims should be regarded as baseless unless they are accompanied by substantiating evidence and citations.


I have listed several examples of misrepresentations in the following thread of your website's forum:
"FCOS Message Board: Topic: Dawkins- Respect", but your forum has been taken down!!!

So, to give people on this forum a flavor of the run-away misrepresentations typical in your critiques of TGD, I'll cite the following from one of your published "letters" to Dr.Dawkins:

"Dawkins– Childhood Abuse and Gap Theology", by David Robertson (end paragraph):
"[Dr. Dawkins] Your final sentence declares 'Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits'. Of course you don't mean that. Because you draw the line at God. You cannot believe in a God who created the universe (that's a limit). You refuse to believe in a God who raised Jesus from the dead (another limit). And you ridicule the notion that this God could communicate with human beings through his Spirit and his Word (another limit). [...] Indeed you want to replace God with humanity."

I find this quote particularly amusing because not only does it demonstrate gross misrepresentation of Dawkins (i.e., not only is the above TGD quote taken out of context, but in order to correctly represent Dawkins position in the book, you need to replace "believe in" with "assume a-priori, the existance of", and add "without evidence" at the end of each sentence above), but I'd like to draw partucular attention to the final sentence; It is more of an accusation than a misrepresentation, but I point it out because it's ironic in its almost perfect description of what, in effect, religion does.

Christians, for example, claim that the words they write down in books are not their own words, but are in fact God's word. They claim that the will to codefy their morality into law is not their own will, but is God's will. So who is it again, that is replacing God with humanity? Clearly, in effect at least, it's you David.

--

306. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27121 by Riley on March 23, 2007 at 7:59 am

scottishgeologist wrote: "Once you start 'proving' stuff, it drops from the 'supernatural' to the 'natural" and therefore in a different frame of reference. Believers on the other hand DO accept the idea of a supernatural, which cannot be proven by empirical evidence.

You hit the nail directly on the head with this one scottishgeologist. Science makes no distinction between the supernatural and the natural - science is simply concerned with falisifiability (testibility).

The term "supernatural" is just a suggestively misleading term for: "that which cannot be proven". Believers such as the "The Wee Flea" (aka David Robertson) claim that science is incomplete (or biased) because it does not include "supernatural evidence", but when you break this claim down you can see just how utterly and absurdly ridiculous his complaint and claim is:

1) "supernatural" = "that which cannot be proven"
2) "evidence" = a basis for proving the truth of an assertion.

So, this above key objection made by David (aka "The Wee Flea") and others concerning science can be summed up as: They think "that which cannot be proven" (e.g. the supernatural) should be an acceptible basis for proof!

Also, I've taken the time to read and examine carefully some of what David has written about "The God Delusion", and have noted that on the infrequent occasion that David actualy addresses one of Dawkins' arguments directly, and substantively criticizes it, he usually misrepresents the Dawkins argument to the point of being intellectually dishonest.

----------------

Concerning labeling a child "middle-class" versus labeling a child "Christian":

1) There is a doctrinal philosophy invovled in being a Christian. There is no doctrinal philosophy involved in being "middle-class". That being said, I would still agree with MartinSGill that labeling a child "middle-class" probably isn't a helathy thing for the child either as it might unnecessarily limit the child's self-image and thinking.

2) I've re-read this chapter of TGD now for the 4th time, and so I say with some confidence: Dawkins in his book does not describe the teaching of a child about God to be child abuse, any more so than teaching a child about the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus to be child abuse. In fact, Dawkins states no problem with the idea of teaching the bible as literature - he in fact encourages it! But, teaching children about religious and political philosophies is distinctly different than labeling them as adherents.


--

307. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26956 by Riley on March 22, 2007 at 3:06 pm

MelM,

Actually, I think I have gained some traction arguing with believers and here's a list of a few things that I have learned:



1) The problem that I think most atheists run into is that they don't realize (or accept) that there is a language barrier that needs to be crossed before a believer can be reasoned with. The language of faith is a language of feelings. Certain words and phrases just feel like they mean something. So I suggest learning to speak the language.

2) Also, related to communicating in the laguage of feelings, I have learned that many believers must (it seems) at all times be full of good postive feelings - you can't expect to get them to give up their good feelings without giving them a replacement something to feel good about. As such, you wont get much traction by simply arguing against something, you need to also argue at the same time for something else.

3) I have come to accept that "god" can mean all things to all people, so I don't even argue "god". Instead, in fact, I like to use "God" as a powerful metephore (meaning whaever I want it to mean) to add feeling to my arguments . . . in much the same way that preachers do, or Einstein did.

4) I try to limit my attacks to religious claims that wholly venture out into the magisteria of science and reason - where they can be slayed, not just wounded.

-----

Here is an example of an argument I use that focuses on attacking the claim that The Bible is the "Word of God":

"The Bible is a parochial message, limited by language, and geography, and time, and in a medium vulnerable to counterfit and misinterpretation. God on the other hand, through His Creation, has provided direct access to all people, of all times, and of all places, in a medium impossible to counterfit and which reveals its truths in an unmistakable manner. What an affront to God, and an act of extreme hubris it is to suggest that the authority of God's Creation, universal and timeless, should be usurped by your personally selected book. "

And I might follow this up with:

"Ironically, when we put aside our personal hubris that we know God and know what God wants and simply observe and learn from God's Creation itself, we learn a lot: we learn how to feed the hungry, cure the sick, bring the dead back to life, and even more ironic still - when we humbly submit our prideful claims to that same processes that has proven itself unparralled in its ability to substantially reveal the truths of God's Creation, we find that we also have a universally applicable tool-set with which to resolve conflicts and potentially as such (to the extent that this tool-set is adopted) enjoy peace on earth."

yes, I'm an optimist.

---

308. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26814 by Riley on March 21, 2007 at 8:01 pm

cheshirecat, your posts have been reduced to nothing more than flailing rants. It's unfortunate because I enjoyed your first posts.

Of course I know that Gould was the first (or at least, most prominent) person to articulate the idea of non-overlapping magisteria. However, this notion only works so long as religions aren't making claims about the testible world. In an ideal world, religion and science could co-exist in these non-overlapping magisteria, but unfortunately there are hundreds of millions of people promoting the truth of their religious-based claims and these claims intrude dramatically into the magisteria of what is scientifically testible (i.e.: creationism, Intelligent Design, young earth, effecacy of prayer, faith healing, etc. etc. and etc.). And our cause (me and whoever else agrees with me) is not to let such claims slide unchallenged into schools, into the basis for lawmaking, and into moral arguments.


I'd also like to throw-in my voice of support for comments made by iwentdowntotheriver concerning "irrational atheists".

--

309. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26739 by Riley on March 21, 2007 at 12:46 pm

First off, cheshirecat, a question: In cases where Pope Gregory and the Bible are in disagreement about the truth, should we appeal to the authority of Pope Gregory or the authority of the Bible?


And I'll try answering your question below:

cheshirecat wrote: Can you apreciate that theologians feel the same thing about Richard Dawkins books. I don't know what the God delusion says thats new. If someone could put one of Dawkins supposed revalatory statements about religion to me pithily i'd be grateful.

The modern-day relevant "gap" in literature filled by "The God Delusion" I believe is this:

1) Dawkins addresses the flaws in the notion of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria": this is the notion that religious claims are outside the realm of science and implies as such that science should not comment on religon. Dawkins in his book has identified several claims made by religions that CAN be scientifically tested and argues that all such religious claims should be subject to the same testing and scrutiny to which all other public claims get subjected, and that likewise we should characterize such claims (and the people who adhere to them) as reasonable or unreasonable based on the same standards.

This is a revolutionary thought for me at least.

Also, Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" - the most significant scientific theory yet to refute arguments for the existance of a "creator", is only 150 years old. Moreover, the discovery of genes (further evidence supporting Darwinian evolution) is only 50 years old. Most of the theological arguements and the intelligent people who made them pre-date the scientific establishment of Darwinian evolution and so Dawkins has revisited some of the old arguments in light of relatively new and overwhelming evidence.

Beyond these updates, there are two arguments that Dawkins poses about religious thinking in general that are either new or particularly topical given the rise of religiously motivated violance in the world:

1) RELIGIOUS THINKING IS THE CAUSE OF MUCH OF THE EVILS IN THE WORLD: Dying, sacrificing lives, threatening non-adherents, killing in God's name and being rewarded for it after death are common and major themes found in the holy books of the major western religions. Adherents to the values expounded in such books contribute to much of the world's violence and killing. There are already plenty of good reasons to do good things, we don't need religious thinking to motivate us. But religious thinking provides bad reasons for people to do evil things, and tries to justify the whole by exclusively pointing out the good behaviors.

2) RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINIZATION OF CHILDREN IS ABUSE: Children should be allowed to explore a wide range of ideas and be given the tools to think critically and independently about them so that they can decide for themselves what to believe. By contrast, religious teaching often isolates children, pre-maturely labels them as adherents to religious belief, and otherwise pressures them to accept religious notions before they are old enough to properly examine them.

If I've misrepresented Dawkins' views and/or the book here, someone please correct me.


--

310. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26727 by Riley on March 21, 2007 at 11:24 am

bruno_burned,

What's your rationale for limiting modifications to "corrective" (e.g. therepeutic) enhancements?

I hear you saying that it would be alright to modify the genes of a "mentally retarded" child in order to enhance the child's mental capacity, but it's not alright to genetically modify a "normal" child to enhance mental capacity. Why?

Also, how about creating "designer babies" WITHOUT genetic modification? This could be done simply by examinining the genetic make-up of the sperm and eggs of a husband and wife, selecting the the most promising combination for fertilization, and inseminating it. The result would be by all standards "normal" and "natural" -- only the selection process itself would be artificial. Do you believe this selection process would be immoral, and if so, how do you square that position with otherwise "normal" human sexual selection?

Basically, my point here is that "normal" and "natural" are arbitrary standards that shouldn't be the basis for accepting or rejecting new technologies that have great potential to improve people's quality of life.

--

311. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #26559 by Riley on March 20, 2007 at 12:14 pm

-
Carl Wunsch, MIT professor of physical oceanography, was one of the scientists interviewed in this movie: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" linked above by Aussie. Wunsch had this to say about the movie:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration."

"The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'."

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. [...] I am the one who has been swindled."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While watching this movie you can pick-out the very same strategies employed by the Intelligent Design promoting crowd now being employed by the producer of this movie:
1) Make much ado about disagreements in the details of a theory in an attempt to make it seem like the theory itself is in doubt.
2) Reintroduce old arguments that have already been fully addressed by scientists.
3) Enlist a few scientists (or scientific seeming people - a political appointee to the head of an agency perhaps?) to take your side of the argument, or misrepresent them as needed.
4) Imply a grand conspiracy among the broader scientific community.
5) Preach the controversy.
6) Since the facts are ultimately not on your side, mire the debate in issues concerning political partisanship and speculation about conspiratorial motivations.

The conspiracy theory promoted by this movie that is most precious: the idea that there exists a powerful lobby of climate scientists. priceless.

---------------------------
Here are links to sources worth reading with regard to that movie:

- "The Great Global Warming Swindle Questions Answered"
Especially read the portion on Sun spot and solar radiation activity., covered in more detail here
- "Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle"
- "Swindled"

----------------------------------
The Forum section of this site also exhaustively discusses the "Great Global Warming Swindle" movie: here
And there is another lengthy discussion thread on Global Warminig science issues in general: here.

312. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26545 by Riley on March 20, 2007 at 8:13 am

Barnacle, the viewpoint you patiently explained to Spaghetti Monster has been the view point he repeatedly expouses in-part and in-part repeatedly mocks, I'll paraphrase him: "You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. I don't care. There's no basis to claim that your values are better or worse than mine; all values are subjective. However, if you value anything that doesn't impact you here and now, you are no different than the religious fundies. So, don't claim religion is a delusion, because you're just as deluded."


But MeIM cuts right to the heart of the debate by pointing out that all value systems are not equal; there are some that are more subjective (or arbitrary) than others. Reason and consistancy may be an arbitrary basis to construct a value system, but not nearly as arbitrary a basis as feelings, wishful thinking and/or revelation.

Most value systems (just like science) rely on claims that can be the subject of testing and reason. The result of this testing and reason is that we find some values to be more legitimate than others, and some value systems to be so illegitimate that they should be discarded entirely.

--

313. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26457 by Riley on March 19, 2007 at 12:41 pm

The Spaghetti Monster wrote: "in reality .... no such value exists".

I can see Spaghetti Monster that you're trying very hard to promote the idea that non-theism relies on nihilism, but you're doing a poor job. Your insistance that "values" do not exist relies on your implicit belief that there needs to be an absolute universal "values" authority, and as such this makes you more of a theist, than an atheist.

"Values" is a descriptive term used to identify a system of human preferences, especially societal preferences. Their existance does not in any way depend on the existance of any named or unnamed form of supernatural authority.The difference between theists and non-theists is not that one group has a system of values and the other group does not, but rather there is a disagreement about how to debate the basis and creation of societal values.

Theists claim that their values are handed-down from ultimate authority (e.g. god(s)) and rely on interpretations from holy books as the means to resolve conflicts.

Non-theists look to common shared interests and the principle of equal treatment as the basis for values and rely on science and reason as the means to resolve conflicts.


--

314. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26419 by Riley on March 19, 2007 at 7:25 am

Senior fellows and scholars at the AEI include outspoken anti-Darwinists (most notably Irving Kristol, Robert Bork, and Joe Manzari) who actively use the AEI to perpetuate the teach-the-controversy wedge strategy of "creation science" in American schools.

I've compiled some general information on the AEI for anyone interested in one-stop shopping.

--

315. Stephen interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali author of Infidel

Comment #26353 by Riley on March 18, 2007 at 8:59 pm

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is not a monolithic organization. Ayaan will not be a lone voice of reason. But it's worth recognizing that the AEI leadership and at least a few of its scholars include outspoken anti-Darwinists (most notably Irving Kristol, Robert Bork, and Joe Manzari) who actively use the resources of the AEI to perpetuate the teach-the-controversy wedge strategy of "creation science" in American schools.

The AEI has been for decades and remains today a major contributor and a central organizing force suporting efforts to inject religion into American government policy.

I've compiled a list of information about the AEI for anyone who would like to learn more.



--

316. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26347 by Riley on March 18, 2007 at 7:58 pm

I think denoir makes a good point that a 'designer baby' is the modern-day version of sexual selection.

On the subject of 'designer babies', the movie GATACA does a reasonable job of depicting what the world might be like when 'designer babies' becomes the norm. It's a good movie in general.

Personally, if there were a genetic treatment available to improve the critical thinking capacity of a child ineutero, I would consider it immoral not to give every child that treatment. I see the issue as no different than the decision to vaccinate a child and teach them science. Admittedly, selecting for apparently more trivial qualities such as homo vs. hetero-sexuality is more controversial.

elfinabout wrote: "My suspicion is that we would discover more people here who identify as gay/bisexual than the national "average". It is well known that the scientific community demonstrates a far lower percentage of theists (sometimes negligible) than the average population. I wonder what kind of percentage of people who identify as atheist also identify as gay/bisexual?"

Given that homosexuality is formally condemned by most religions, I would expect the percentage of 'gays' among atheists to be higher than the average population.

I would also expect that individuals with fewer children would contribute more creatively and intellectually to soceity on average than individuals with more children (raising a family can be a major energy drain I understand).

But it would certainly be interesting to put such ideas to the test.

--

317. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #26050 by Riley on March 16, 2007 at 9:00 am

There are two parts of the argument that should not get confused:
Part 1) Is there anthropogenic climate change?
Part 2) If there is, what do we do about it?

For part 1: there is a scientific consensus in support of the claim.
For part 2: a cost/benefit/risk analysis needs to be made.

It is an irrelevant distraction to argue for or against the reality of part 1 by introducing argument from assumed undesirable consequences in part 2.

Again, the reality of part 1 is supported by scientific cosensus. There's some debate about how quickly the impacts will mount, but the IPCC recently published a report (consistant with the consensus among scientific experts) that provided the 90% scenario for what will occur in the next 50 years and this scenario is significantly disrupting to the world economy. Of course while they could be wrong, the impact might be less in that time period, they could also be wrong and the impact might be worse. Moreover, the effect is accumulative, such that the question is no longer 'if' the impact will occur, but 'when' - assuming that we do not intervene to reverse or at least mitigate the impact.


--

318. Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Comment #26031 by Riley on March 16, 2007 at 7:07 am

Interesting, and now I wonder how the rate of speciation in the ocean compares to the rate of speciation on a large easily traversed land mass (like North America) ?

319. Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Comment #26021 by Riley on March 16, 2007 at 6:38 am

ridelo: I was thinking the same thing while reading the artcle and it seemed intuitive to me as well, maybe because I (and I assume you) don't think "survival of the fittest" when I think of evolution, but rather I think of evolution (through natural selection) as a process of addition by subtraction.

While I know that biologists don't use the phrase "survival of the fittest" to describe the process of evolution through natural selection, that notion still seems to be embedded in the popular imagination, and I think that perspective is what leads to the assumption that tropical climates should produce higher rates of speciation than colder (i.e. harsher) climates.

Everytime I hear the phrase "survival of the fittest", I always reword it in my head as: "Survival of the fit enough"; in other words, it's not that the 'fittest' are being favorably selected so much as it is the not-fit-enough that are being unfavorably selected for elimination. So, given this mental model, it's not surprising to me that as the metaphorical hurdle bar of natural selection is lowered to allow an increasing mumber of organisms to clear it and avoid elimination by natural selection (which I assume is more the case in tropical zones than in temperate zones), that the pace of evolution (and speciation) through natural selection would necessarily decrease as a result (all other things being equal). Or to rephrase how you aptly put it: there would be fewer opportunities to sever the links (by selectively removing intermediary forms) that join one portion of an interbreeding group of organisms from the rest.

It's one amateur's guess work at least.

I wonder what happens in an ecosystem where the climate is tropical but the number of organisms occupying it has become saturated. It seems to me that you'd have both the opportunity for a large range of species possibilities (because of the climate) combined with intense competition and that should produce the greatest rate of speciation, right?

--

320. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25906 by Riley on March 15, 2007 at 3:45 pm

In an on-going effort to help my community connect the dots of the incestuous 'christian right' political network:

James Lafferty (the author of this article) is the Executive Director of the "Christian Seniors Association" (CSA), and former press secretary of indicted House Majority Leader: Tom DeLay (Texas, R). Lafferty's wife, Andrea Laferty is the Executive Director of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), an extraordinarily powerful coalition of lobyists in the United States closely affiliated with Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition of America and James Dobson's Family Research Council (aka: the international reknown "Focus on the Family" ).

Both the CSA and the TVC are founded and chaired by, none-other than: "Lucky Louie" - the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon who was caught getting paid by convicted criminal Jack Abramoff to help prevent passage of the "Internet Gambling Prohibition Act", while at the same time preaching for the prohibition of gambling.

Btw, TVC Executive Director Andrea Laferty is also Louis Sheldon's daughter.

---

321. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25847 by Riley on March 15, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Read:
"The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
Science, 3 December 2004.
A consensus 2+ years old, and growing.

p.s. I respect The Spaghetti Monster's 'loner' ideological life-style choice and suggest that we remove his computer from the Internet and his home from the electircal power grid in order that he might live it in earnest.

--

322. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24955 by Riley on March 9, 2007 at 1:29 pm

etny, I think you extrapolated too much in your first post, but I have no real problem with that - you're entitled to your opinion. But I think a number of other people on this thread took your paraphrased Dowd quote and ran with it, not realizing that it was you that wrote "crown jewel" not Dowd. Not your fault.

I can see where you're coming from, given the context of the last Daowd quote you cite, but the implication you draw from that last quote really depends on what Dowd means by: God, Christ, and the relevance of scripture. Not all 'jesus-freaks' are the same. I think that Dowd is a 'God=Love' kind-of-guy, he 'knows' god because he calls that warm feeling he gets in his stomach: 'God'. I think he believes in a god that is some cross between Spinoza's and Mother Nature (Gaea).

But the reason I think Dowd deserves some fair-minded consideration is this: he made it very clear that if personal revelation or revelation from the Bible conflicts with science, that science "revelation" wins out. I don't think we can ever expect more than this from anybody in any endevor.

His language is nice and poetic: God is love, I know God because I can feel it when I look into your eyes, etc, etc.

He's entitled to his poetic outlook on life.

323. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24948 by Riley on March 9, 2007 at 12:51 pm

lol. This is insane.

Dowd never said "crown of the universe", or "crown jewel", or even (in my opinion) anything remotely vane or ego-centric. That was etny's characterization of what Dowd said.

What Dowd actually said (according to etny) is that:

"Human beings are not separate from the universe. We are the universe. After 14 Billion years, of unbroken evolution, now becoming conscious of itself. We are literally nature uncovering its own nature"

I completely agree with Ilovelucy on this. If the above were a quote from Carl Sagan, we wouldn't say boo about it.

Judging from everything else I heard Dowd say in that interview, I would guess that he considers emerging consciousness and intelligence anywhere throughout the universe to be examples of the universe "uncovering its own nature".

While Dowd appears a bit loony to me too, it's only fair to accurately portray what he is saying before you impune it, and the name calling and attacks on his lifestyle are a bit uncalled for - don't you think?


--

324. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24901 by Riley on March 9, 2007 at 5:27 am

The method used to get there, is more important than the conclusion you reach.

But he seems to be saying that the scientific method should be the ultimate arbitor of 'truth' and as such, I have no problems with anything he had to say (I might disagree with it, but no real problems). I think his type of "reconciliation" or compatibility between science and religion is not problematic.

I also appreciated his description of "speaking in tounges"; if "speaking in tounges" really is just a meditation technique, there's nothing unreasonable about that -maybe a little odd- but not unreasonable.

325. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24745 by Riley on March 8, 2007 at 9:38 am

I wish I could cast my vote for Richard's book without beeing forced to cast votes on a whole gambit of other books and authors that I've never read. And I'm not British either, does that matter?

oh well.



I recommend also reading/voting for:
"The Testament of Gideon Mack" by James Robertson. Great book.

--

326. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24653 by Riley on March 7, 2007 at 10:48 pm

I'm learning so much from this site.
Just for fun I trolled-over to take a look at the Conservapedia article on Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson is a historical favo-u-rite of mine). The article is so poorly written that I'm guessing the submission was a home-schooler student project, but the most amusing part of the article was that half the references cited Wikipedia!


--
p.s. RogerStanyard, your post is a repeat of post 14.

327. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24600 by Riley on March 7, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I love it. What a GREAT resource!

328. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24422 by Riley on March 6, 2007 at 2:45 pm

I certainly have a lot of bad things to say about Christian fundementalists. But I think your own criticisms are reckless and your arguments somewhat weak - like those comments that I was responding to above: there's too much indiscriminate lumping of people together. It's not unlike the lumping of atheists together with stalinists: likewise, weak.

Also, the implied cause and effect is absent. For instance, is there any group on the face of the earth that practices a more extreme fundamentalism than the Jains? - and yet I think we can safely say that the typical Jain is far less violent than the typcal atheist. I personally wouldn't allow this fact to serve as an argument that fundementalism leads to non-violence (or even that non-violence equates with rational behavior), so why would you accept the argument that fundementalism necessarily leads to violent behavior?

I live here in the United States and have taken notice of how non-violent and dedicated-to-debate the American Christian fundamentalists are. This is my only point - I still think that the Christian fundamentalist in the U.S. are divisive and offensive, but the battleground that has been chosen is political: they plan to out-breed, out-capitalize, and out-litigate us - thank our secularist founders in the United States that we have a constitution to slow the cancer.

Conflict (possibly violent conflict) occurs between peoples when one uncompromising ideology is forced to mingle with another incompatible and uncompromising ideology. Right now we are in a non-violent struggle between a mostly uncomprimising Biblical fundementalist ideology and a mostly uncomprimising enlightenment 'liberal' progressive ideology. The comprimise based on the myth of non-overlapping magisteria has been rejected, and now we'll have to see if a new compromise can be made.

I know I'm personally un-willing to compromise on the ideal of governement that preferentially inacts policies based on falsifiable evidence over dictates of faith, and government that does not acknowlege the truth of any claim without falsifiable evidence to support it.

I hope I don't have to kill anyone in order to defend this ideal.

--

329. Religion and Politics

Comment #24415 by Riley on March 6, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Carl Sagan's book "Contact" had a vastly different take on religion than the movie did - massively so. The movie tried to show Ellie's experience as being just the same as religion and thus paint her attitude toward religion as hypocritical in the end.

I think Sagan's message in the movie (in which he was also much involved, I understand), was neither to respect religion nor to scold Ellie for hypocrisy; I think he was deploring skeptics to be more sympathetic towards people griped by belief and to recognize that we're all likewise vulnerable. Depending on how you want to interpret the end of the movie, even the uber-skeptic-hero Ellie is vulnerable. Which is why we must all accept humiliating dependence on our collective baloney detection device (e.g. science).

My interpretation of Sagan's parting message through the movie has at least the benefit of being consistant with Sagan's final statements to the skeptic society.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And since this is an article thread on "Religion and Politics", I'd like to once again link to a list of: American Enterprise Institute leaders and members dedicated to the goal of increasing the role of religion in American politics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I only do this because I'm astounded to find so few state-siders aware of what I thought everone knew)

330. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24373 by Riley on March 6, 2007 at 9:02 am

Scot,
If there are 10 Christian fundamentalists bombing clinics among the 10 million who don't, that's a .00001% representation. It doesn't seem fair to me to characterize the whole based on such a small fraction. I just think some of what is being said is a little reckless, and the bashing of Christians hypocritical.



Concerning the American Enterprise Institute (AEI):
I've added to my short list (linked above), here is a more complete list of AEI members and leaders who are actively engaged in the effort to increase the influence of religion in United States public policy.

Most noteworthy are:
Michael Novak: AEI Director of Social and Political Studies, Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) Board of Directors, Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) Policy Advisory Board member, and "First Things" editorial board member(a journal published by Institute on Religion and Public Life (IRPL)).

Hillel Fradkin: AEI Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) President, Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) Board of Advisors, The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) member, former Bradly Foundation VP, Olin Foundation Officer.

I also in another post, cite a lengthy list of references to support my observation that the AEI leadership is dominated by fascistic-straussian idealists.

--

331. Religion and Politics

Comment #24370 by Riley on March 6, 2007 at 8:33 am

Pob wrote: "I'm trying to work out how religious these various Presidential candidates really are. [...]
To me it seems that the main contenders are, in roughly decreasing order of religiosity: 1) McCain, 2) Clinton, 3) Romney, 4) Obama, 5) Giuliani, 6) Edwards, 7) Gore, Anyone care to improve on that ordering?

1) Romney
2) Obama
3) McCain
4) Clinton
--
5) Giuliani
6) Edwards
7) Gore

--my two cents for what it's worth

332. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24184 by Riley on March 5, 2007 at 7:27 am

To be fair, there are millions of Christian fundememntailists in the U.S. and I can't think of any movement among them that has advocated violence or has sponsored those who do.

Outsppoken theists are also using words and what they consider reason in their argument.

---

333. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24174 by Riley on March 5, 2007 at 6:30 am

I'll second Homo economicus, because it's an important distinction to make.:

While it may be true that all atheists are secularists.
It is not true that all secularists are atheists.

(in fact my guess is that the majority of the secularists in the U.S. are not atheists).

Organizations that promote the union of church and state, such as The American Enterprise Institute, would like nothing more than the church-state separation issue to be one about: do you believe in god or not?

334. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #24009 by Riley on March 4, 2007 at 6:39 am

Comment from tomjlawson: "the news channels are more than happy to taunt us with the idea of an asteroid hitting the earth all day until we tune in at 11 and find out it's actually a 1% chance, but that's not propaganda that's just selling soap. It's traveling the world with a slide show about the 1% chance just happens to sell asteroid-impact insurance, that is when it is propaganda. "

I think you are being unfair.

You seem to be saying that if there was only a 1% chance of an asteroid stike, that this would not be news worthy or worth concern. The damage caused by an asteroid strike is severe enough that it warrants serious attention, even if there is only a 1% chance of it hitting. The same applies to the global warming scenario, which deserves even more attention because even the moderate-case scenarios are reasonably bad, and even if the worse case scenario doesn't materialize sooner, it will eventually.

The flooding Manhattan scenario may only be a 1% chance of occuring within 50 years, but it's increasingly more likely to occur over time. The large uncertainty is about wether it will take decades or centuries. There's no question that it is happening and will happen eventually, unless changes are made to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Tom, you also fail to make the connection between "Pole Shift Theory" and global warming. Are you saying that a magnetic pole shift has occured and is a substantial contributor to accelerating global warming trends over the past 50 years? If so, I'm guessing that you're way out on a limb on that.

Same goes for people on this thread making claims that the current and accelerating global warming trend is an unavoidable natural cyle which is not and can not be significantly impacted one way or the other by human beings. You people are out on a limb against the scientific consensus.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone)"
Source: U.S. Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
(commissioned by the Bush Administration)

"A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history [...]"
Source: American Geophysical Union position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change, 2003

"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
source: 'The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change': Science, 3 December 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also worth reading:
"The Flipping Point: How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip"- by Michael Shermer, Scientific American, June 2006

--

335. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23760 by Riley on March 2, 2007 at 2:12 pm

BD, if you have the patience, please also speculate on why you think the Rev. Falwell presents himself as an authority on such topics he knows so little about?

Given his tendency to assume such authority in these cases, you must wonder how much of what he says on matters of God (the topic for which he is considered an expert) you can trust.

336. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23757 by Riley on March 2, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Comment from tomjlawson: " Let us not forget that an Inconvenient Truth uses scary propaganda such as Manhattan being underwater in 50 years when in actuality, according to the new IPCC report, Manhattan will be slightly moist in a hundred years time"

It's more acccurate to say that the IPCC gives the 90% likely scenario of what could happen in 50 years. And "An Inconvenient Truth" gives the 1% likely scenario.

When making a risk assessment of potential cost, it's not unreasonable to consider the 1% scenario..

(if there is a 99% chance that a large asteroid will barely miss the earth in 50 years, would you characterize warning the public of the devestating risk presented by the 1% scenario of the asteroid hitting the earth as "scary propaganda"? The fact that the 99% scenario is cost-free does little to mitigate the need for someone to sound the alarm.)

---

337. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23730 by Riley on March 2, 2007 at 9:15 am

Plantinga wrote: "Dawkins is arguing that theism is improbable; it would be dialectically deficient in excelsis to argue this by appealing to materialism as a premise. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true; in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God; but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true."

It's a common false premise of theists to bring up 'materialism' (usually in a pejoritive sense). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but science has nothing to do with 'materialism'.

Falsifiability is the basis of the scientific method.

source: wikipedia

338. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23726 by Riley on March 2, 2007 at 8:53 am

Pops, I definitely agree that it's unrealistic to expect to be able to convert the unconvertable. the point for me is to articulate a response to theistic arguments in order that those who have not yet made up their minds (which substantially includes the next generation) can be exposed to the flaws of theistic arguments.

Exposing someone to superior reasoning is better than trying to shield them from exposure to flawed reasoning.

I love reading others on this site break arguments down and pick them apart. I learn a lot from such posts.

On that topic, I would like to humbly point-out that there are an awful lot of posts (maybe even the majority of posts) on this site that amount to little more than personal attacks and blunt "that's stupid" types of empty criticisms. I think it would be better for us all if less forum space were used-up by such comments.

339. Faith

Comment #23723 by Riley on March 2, 2007 at 8:37 am

Is it the site administrator's decision to flag someone as a "Troll", or is it a threshold of people clicking on the "Troll" flag?

As disingenuous as Robertson has proven himself to be, he's right to point out that there are an awful lot of posts on this site that amount to little more than personal attacks and blunt "that's stupid" types of empty criticisms. I don't understand why people feel so compelled to fill-up so much space in these threads pilling-on with redundantly abusive comments. It appears that there's a lot of semi-repressed anger spilling out.

I wish it weren't so.

340. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23702 by Riley on March 2, 2007 at 6:07 am

Luthian, you're not embracing the mystery of faith!

Plantinga actually does a better job describing Dawkins arguments than other of Dawkins critics. Instead of misrepresenting the content of Dawkins arguments, Plantinga simply misapplies them.

Plantinga claims that the "ultimate 747" argument from Dawkins is an attempt to demonstrate that god is too improbable to exist. But that's not quite right.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins' argument is not an argument against god, it's an argument against the argument for god.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "ultimate 747" argument is a direct refutation to the claim made by theists that a designer (god) must exist because it is too diminishingly improbable that life could have sprung-up through natural processes alone. Forget the vagaries of 'complexity', just handle the problem in terms of 'probability', which is the basis for the 'intelligent designer' argument.

Of course, in "The God Delusion", Dawkins rebuts this designer argument in two ways:
1) Evolution is a natural process that describes (at least one way) that a series of reasonably improbable natural phenomena can accumulate into what appears to be an impossibly improbable phenomena (such as life). Thus a designer is not necessary.
2) If it is necessary to postulate a designer to explain otherwise diminishingly improbable phenomena (which it's not - see 1), then who designed the designer? (e.g. the "ultimate 747" argument)

Plantinga starts with the assumption that a god must exist (a priori), and expects that the non-existance of god must be proven. Even pre-enlightenment theologians have refuted 'a priori' logic. Plantinga himself rightly recognizes that it is illogical to reason that if: "We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;Therefore p is true".

It's ironic then, (and really, really sad) that he can recognize this fallacy in logic, yet seems to rely on it entirely to assume the existance of a god - much less the god of the Bible.

--

341. Faith

Comment #23509 by Riley on March 1, 2007 at 10:28 am

very well put.

342. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23373 by Riley on February 28, 2007 at 8:28 am

Russell: Yes, in his statement, Ahmadinejad's was condemning the zionist "occupation regime" that is politically in power in Israel - but his statement in context actually implies the need for patience as an alternative to military action.

related: "Ahmadinejad: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel" by Juan Cole: Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan. (my Alma Mater)

What I find weird, and unpardonably irresponsible, is that news organizations are quoting (and yes, misquoting) Ahmadinejad, while at the same time ignoring statements from the one Iranian whose opinion actually matters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Leader Khamenei is in charge of Iranian foreign policy and military (not Ahmadinejad).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Khamenei has on numerous occassions made conciliatory statements with regard to Israel, including voicing Iran's official support for the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, which calls for normalization of relations with Israel upon acceptance of the two-state settlement. Despite support from an International consensus, this settlement has been blocked by the United States and Israel for 30 years. And yet Iran gets made out to be the ones that are unreasonable? (I have no love for government-by-Mullah, but I wish I had evidence that our government in practice was substantially less divisive and duplicitous).

On the nuclear issue: has Iran violated international atomic energy agreements? I don't think it has (and if it has, are its violations any more aggregious than U.S. violations ?)

We claim to be fighting for the spread of democracy and freedom, and yet after a free election in Palestine our foreign policy continues to harshly punish the Palestinian people - because we don't like who they voted for? Actions speak louder than words and these actions seem to state that obedience is the mandate of our foreign policy, not democracy and freedom.

Ayaan Ali deserves to be judged on her own merits independent of her association with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

But, that being said, there is certainly a lot of reason to berate the AEI as a major source for anti-science thinking (specifically: promoting the wedge strategy approach of teaching-the-controversy that intentionally fosters false-uncertainty about global warming science and false doubt about darwinian evolution) and for promoting (and effectively realizing) a hardline, war-mongering, U.S. foreign policy.

I've provided a long list of citations and sources to support the case that the AEI (and its partner the PNAC) are substantially contributing to anti-science and religious thinking in the U.S., among its other tragic contributions around the globe.

343. Faith

Comment #23276 by Riley on February 27, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Thanks Logicel.

I've been told by Robertson in a post on his site (linked here), that he has been banned from posting on the Dawkins site. Does anyone know why? Which of his postings led to his account being revoked?

--

344. Faith

Comment #23174 by Riley on February 26, 2007 at 3:47 pm

David Robertson's (aka "St Pete") argumentative approach pretty much mirrors the argumentative approach in this Guardian article. I exchanged some words with Robertson concerning his misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins, the "God Delusion", and posters to this website. Should anyone be interested in reading it, it's here: My conversation with David Robertson.

I end my exchange by sharing my reasons for why the Bible cannot be of God. I think it's a pretty good argument; feel free to use it yourself if you agree.

345. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22783 by Riley on February 22, 2007 at 11:04 am

Religious fervor, patriotic fervor, The "Wedge Strategy" against science, economic class immobility and polarized disparity, political fundamentalism, declarations of American manifest destiny, doctrines of military pre-emption, exceptionalism, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping

... are all conditions invigorated by, if not wholly inacted by, policies of the currently dominant American political establishment. I'm sorry if these facts are scary sounding. I'm sorry that listing these facts sounds like fear-mongering --- but facts are facts.

"George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States. He was appointed by God.": U.S. Army Lt. General William Boykin to an Oregon religious group in June, 2003. General Boykin, who gave his speeches in full-dress Army uniform, toured the country to speak to church groups telling them such things as: "'Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.'

"In another speech, according to L.A. Times military analyst William Arkin, Boykin showed slides of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jong Il, and asked, 'Why do they hate us? The answer is because we're a Christian nation.' [...] Before another religious group in Florida, Boykin described how his Delta Force commandos in Mogadishu finally tracked down one of the Muslim rebel leaders because 'I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.'

"Boykin is not just any Army general: Last June, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld nominated him for a third star and made him deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence." - Salon Magazine, 2003

"the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."
- April 30, 2003, Michael Ledeen, "Freedom Chair" Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

By pointing these things out, I'm not declaring that politically influential people in the U.S. like Ledeen and Boykin are evil, I'm not suggesting that people at the AEI are hateful, and I'm not declaring that the influence of such people is without check. I'm just pointing-out observable, well documented facts, worthy of attention and relevant to a discussion-thread about wether or not there is too much damn religious thinking in America. I bring up more of these facts now in response to comments like: "I think people on this website (some people) take it WAY out of proportion". and that they need "to get a life" (actually, I have a pretty good life, but thank you for your concern).

Have I misquoted or misrepresented the facts? What is it that's being taken out of proportion?

It is what it is.

( btw, based on my limited exposure to Ayann Hirsi Ali, I think she is great, I also think that there are some excellent scholars at the AEI, and I believe that all of their scholars and fellows are well meaning and likely very nice people - it's just that in my opinion, these things don't make up for the war promoting, hypernationalism fomenting, religious belief evangelizing, global-warming science obfuscating, creation scientist coddling leadership majority there, but it is what it is.)

worth reading:
"Origin of the Specious: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?" by Brian Doherty, Reason, July 1997
"The AEI, Iran and a Free Press" by Glenn Greenwald.
"Chomsky on Why Bush Does Diplomacy Mafia-Style" by Michael Shank, Foreign Policy in Focus.

---

346. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22673 by Riley on February 20, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Jesus christ, how about some citation for such a serious and specific charge? "Outspoken proponent of fascism?" What kind of hyperbole have you been smoking?

citation:
"Flirting with Fascism: Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right." By John Laughland, The American Conservative, June 30, 2003.

Also, read one of (AEI Freedom Scholar) Michael Ledeen's books: "Universal Fascism" or "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago" .

You seem to hold a firm monopoly thus far on hyperbole, so to keep your imagination in check, I'll clarify what I mean by "fascist". By fascist I mean: a philosophy that advocates extraordinarily high amounts of nationalism, militarism, corporatism, moral absolutism, and dimished liberalism in government. I don't mean a Nazi, an anti-semite, a Hitler sympathizer or a Mussolini sympathizer. In the specific case of Ledeen, he has been an outspoken admirer of a pre-WWII era Italian-styled fascism (consistant with the definition of fascism given above).

The Bush Administration and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) manifest the Neo-conservative/Straussian strand of fascist idealism that among other things believes that (as articulated by a senior Bush Whitehouse aid): "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. [Guys like you] are in what we call the reality-based community."

source: "Bush's Thinking Masters" by Prof. Adel Safty, Permanent UNESCO Chair of Leadership and President of the School of Government and Leadership at Bahcesehir University, Istanbul.

Prof. Safty also does an excellent job documenting in short order the Bush Administrations' attempts to create its own reality to justify the invasion of Iraq: "Iraq: Manipulating the Evidence to Start a War"

The "Straussian" philosophy, which dominates the AEI
Citation, please.

citations:
"Neocons dance a Strauss waltz" by Jim Lobe of the Asian Times, May 9, 2003
"Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie:The Neo-Cons at War" by John G. Mason, Professor of Political Science at William Paterson University
"Making Patriots" by Walter Berns of the AEI.
IRC profile: Hillel Fradkin

Do you really think that a goddamn think tank is more powerful than the president of the United States?

no. I'm certain I never said that I did; is the AEI a sacred cow of yours?

"I admire AEI a lot," Bush said. "After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people. More than 20 AEI scholars have worked in my administration." - George Bush

Thinktanks like the American Enterprise Institute(AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) influence friendly administrations in many ways, especially by-way of an administration's staff - and in this case, the Bush Administration is substantially constructed from AEI and PNAC members: see Think Progress.

"The most prominent Straussian in the Whitehouse is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. [...] Wolfowitz is also seen as the chief architect of Washington's post-September 11 global strategy, including its controversial preemption policy.

"Two other very influential Straussians include Weekly Standard chief editor William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a six-year-old neoconservative group whose [founding members] include Vice President Dick Cheney [former Senior Fellow at the AEI - whose wife is a current Senior Fellow at the AEI] and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy officials.

"PNAC's early prescriptions and subsequent open letters to President George W Bush on how to fight the war on terrorism have anticipated to an uncanny extent precisely what the administration has done.

"[Bill] Kristol's father Irving, the godfather of neoconservatism who sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where a number of prominent hawks, including former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, are based, has also credited Strauss with being one of the main influences on his thinking.

"While a New York Times article introduced readers to Strauss and his disciples in Washington, interest was further piqued this week by a lengthy article by The New Yorker's legendary investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, who noted that Abram Shulsky, a close Perle associate who has run a special intelligence unit in Rumsfeld's office, is also a Straussian."

source: "Neocons dance a Strauss waltz" by Jim Lobe of the Asian Times, May 9, 2003

also worth reading:
"The Long Reach of Leo Strauss" by William Pfaff, International Herald Tribune, May 15, 2003
"Veteran neo-con advisor moves on Iran" By Jim Lobe, Asian Times, Jun 26, 2003

AEI Senior Fellow, "the godfather of neoconservatism", Irving Kristol is also, by the way, an outspoken opponent of 'Darwinism'. As is AEI scholar and creationist pitbull: Joe Manzari. As was the Supreme Court Nominee of George H.W.("No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens") Bush: Robert Bork. Bork (yet another AEI Senior Fellow), even went out of his way to publicly denounce darwinism in his populous-aimed book: Slouching Toward Gomorrah, published using his credentials as a former U.S. Federal Court of Appeals judge and Supreme Court nominee.

primary sources:
"Origin of the Specious: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?" by Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine, July 1997
"Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception" by Jim Lobe

also read about:
The Discovery Institute authored "Wedge Strategy"
Christian Reconstructionism

If the president gets some of his info from AEI it's because he wants to get it from there, not because AEI has him by the throat.

Did I say that he didn't? Did I suggest that they did? No. But you're truly deluding yourself if you believe that a powerhouse think-tank like the AEI doesn't play an important role in the viability of presidential candidates it chooses to support and the construction of policy and staff selection for those presidents that it helps into office. It's not the sinister adversarial relationship you seem to require (and that I never suggested existed), rather the AEI, the PNAC (which includes among its core principles the goal to create: "a policy of military strength and moral clarity"), and the Bush Administration are all substantially in-sync on foreign and domestic policy.

Again (re-read my first post), what I'm saying is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Administration, and thinktanks such as the AEI and the PNAC are colaborators who together substantially contribute to an increase of religious thinking in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have created and linked from here a list of some of the most significant AEI members working to increase the role of religion in government.

One example of how the AEI leadership and the Bush White House work together to promote religion in government: the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is an office wholly created by the Bush Administration. To coordinate the function of this new governmental office with national church organizations, Carl Rove worked with afore mentioned William Kristol (AEI Advisory Board member and PNAC co-Founder/co-director, among other things) to create: the Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise(ACFE). Krystol is now on the ACFE Board of Trustees.

(and yes, I'm also saying that "religious thinking" (e.g. moral absolutism ('moral clarity') and reality creation) is one component of their political-activism which includes: hyper-nationalism, militarism, corporatism and anti-liberalism -- which collectively by definition is: 'fascism'.)

The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans (OSP) is yet another office wholly created by the Bush Administration in 2002 and is the same institution responsible for manufacturing the 'reality' that Iraq was operationally linked to al-Qa'ida and that aluminum centerfuge tubes and mobile biological weapons labs existed in Iraq (is it unjustly conspiritorial to suggest that the creation of this new office, the nature of the 'intelligence' reports it produced, and the 'failure of intelligence' that led to the invasion of Iraq was not coincidental given the facts?) . The director of this office reported directly to Straussian Ph.D student, Paul Wolfowitz ( the 'life changing' Yale Political Science teacher of indicted-for-lying, Chief of Staff to the Vice President: 'Scooter' Libby). The first director of the intelligence 'fixing' OSP was the former Special Counsel to Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle (AEI, PNAC), fellow straussian: Douglas Feith, who was famously described by General Tommy Franks as: "the f—king stupidest guy on the face of the earth" for his handling of intelligence. The second director was yet another former staffer to Richard Perle and yet another Leo Strauss Pd.D student: Abram Shulsky,

primary sources:
IRC Profie: Project for the New American Century
IRC Profie: American Enterprise Institute
"Selective Intelligence" by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, May 12, 2003
"Feith Takes the Fall" by Mark Thompson, Time Magazine, Feb. 09, 2007

minor supporting sources: Wikipedia, DOD, Mises Institute Review, and The Times

also very much worth reading:
"A Tragedy of Errors", a book review by Michael Lind (a former staffer to Irving Kristol)
"Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence", an essay by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt (two prominent 'neocon' Straussians - see above)
"US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy" - August 19, 2002, Brian Whitaker, Guardian Unlimited
"The Strong Must Rule the Weak: A Philosopher for an Empire" by Jim Lobe, May 12, 2003, a political analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus

Audio: Interviews with Strauss scholar and critic Shadia Drury, Canada Research Chair in Social Justice and Director of the Masters Program in Social and Political Thought at the University of Regina, CA:
Shadia Drury Interview with Michael Enright - C.B.C., 2005
Shadia Drury Interview with Matthew Rothschild - The Progressive, 2005

(sorry for the absurdly long post, but nine9s asked for it)

347. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22652 by Riley on February 20, 2007 at 10:22 am

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI):
Their is truly a fascist element at large in the AEI. It's not an exaggeration or an idle pejoritive statement to say so. Michael Ledeen, holder of the "Freedom Chair" at the American Enterprise Institute is an outspoken proponent of fascism. The "Straussian" philosophy, which dominates the AEI (and by way of the AEI, the White House), is essentially a fascist philosophy. Even worse, it is a fascist philosophy that advocates the utility of religion in government and promotes the idea that lying is a noble and necessary means to unite and guide the 'polis'.

If you believe that there is too much damn religion in the U.S. and in the world in general, then you should know that powerful political figures in the U.S. view religion as a domestic and foriegn policy tool and that the AEI leads the way in promoting and making this philosophy a reality.

Read-up on Leo Strauss, the intellectual source of much of the "neo-con" political-religious-militant movement that has grown like a cancer in the United States. The resurgence of the philosophical idea that people need to be ruled by a southern-styled "gentry class", the formalized need for "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, and the absolute need to bind religion and government together to preserve civil order, are articulated philosophies actively sought by the followers of Leo Strauss who include prominent members of the U.S. government (primarily in the Republican Party) and the AEI.


Read:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
http://www.hnn.us/articles/1494.html


"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. "
George W. Bush - June 18, 2002


--

348. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22516 by Riley on February 19, 2007 at 12:57 pm

In 1796-1797, the United States signed into law the Treaty of Tripoli, where in Article 11 it was written:

"... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…"

The treaty was written during the administration of George Washington (first president), signed by President John Adams (second president), and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate.

And yet, 200+ years later, we still have shameless undersexed faith-heads feeling the need to declare that the U.S. is a "Christian nation"

So while I think this declaration is wonderful and inspiring and gives me a lot of hope that at least if things here do not get better, I may have someplace else to flee for safety (or sanity) sake ... it doesn't mean beans unless there are instutitions built around that declaration to vigilently defend its principles.


---

349. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22508 by Riley on February 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm

The Author replies to The Great Teapot's comments before He even makes them !!! trippy

350. Interview with Chris Hedges

Comment #22374 by Riley on February 15, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Anyone interested in seeing the infamous clip of Stephen Colbert roasting George W. Bush at the White House Correspondents Dinner, here it is:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

For some context on Colbert and the speech, here's another clip:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/ballsalicious.html


--