This weekend I've been visiting my family as I've been house hunting in Virginia. We have found a house we really like, and I'm going to be making an offer tomorrow! The interesting fact? This house used to belong to a Church of the Brethren pastor. They used to hold some of their services and events in the basement. There is an old pew in the basement! How weird! It's a for-sale-by-owner, being sold by the daughter of said pastor (since deceased), and she had specifically kept it off of the listing services so that she could be picky about who buys the house. (we found out by word of mouth) Needless to say, I kept very quiet over being an atheist. This was one of those political closet doors that I didn't mind keeping shut. She sounded like she really wanted to sell us the house, so I would say it was worth it.
Yet, happily, I have really been able to talk about atheism on this trip! My sister, who used to claim agnosticism, turns out to have transitioned into full atheism over the last few years. I'm not certain about her husband, but I suspect he is too. My dad is agnostic, and my mom is pantheistic. We actually had a nice dinner conversation on the problems with religion, and took turns telling and laughing about awful bible stories (Lot's daughters, Jephthah, etc.). I was open to my Mom about writing a blog about atheism, the first person I've talked with about it.
When I was young, I caught an errant tennis ball in my eye. It scratched my cornea a bit and my doctor prescribed three days without opening my eyes to encourage the healing process. So I wore a tight blindfold, and listened to a few books on tape. After three days I ripped off the blindfold, bursting with newfound respect for blind people. I had taken vision for granted for most of my life, but was now truly appreciating it.
That is as close as I can describe the feelings I had while talking about atheism really openly, and in person for the first time since college. It was also the first time I had talked about atheism since striving to become a more educated atheist (familiar with statistics, familiar with more of the bible, familiar with more world religions, etc.). It was refreshing. It just felt great.
I had mentioned before about maybe looking for other atheist groups in the area. Greg and vjack had some good advice, but it is a very conservative area of Virginia so I'm not sure easy it would be to locate atheists. But ... if I did find some people, I would be very tempted to hold some of the groups meetings/events. In the basement. The very same basement that had at one time held church services. Wouldn't that be hilarious?
Archive for April, 2007
Throughout the conflict in Iraq, I've heard it claimed that Muslims aren't capable of a secular government - that their culture and religion would never permit it. Many people seem to forget or be unaware of Turkey. This is a nation that is about 95% Muslim, yet they have a completely secular government. The Turkish government goes even further than the U.S. government in not allowing religious dress in public buildings. This law has apparently been upheld in the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate"[1]. Given France's recent move to disallow the Muslim head dress in public schools that's not surprising.This brand of 'enforced secularism' is not something I find proper. In the U.S., anyone can wear the garments and symbols of their faith. The idea that the government could tell them not to would seem absurd and a violation of personal liberty to most Americans. The European system seems to take the perspective that the Government should be telling religious people 'you can't bring your religious stuff in here' and so on. Meanwhile, the approach of the U.S. government is that secular government is a government that is restricting itself - not restricting citizens. For instance, when the U.S. supreme court ruled against school prayer, the ruling was that government employees may not lead the students in prayer or use school property to conduct it. Students, however, are perfectly free to pray when and how they wish. The overall philosophy is a 'hands off' restriction on the government. In Europe, it seems to be more of a 'hands on' active secularizing of the people through intrusive restrictions. I find this harmful to personal liberty.
In any case, this more extreme European secularism is strongly in place in Turkey, and has been since 1923. According to a recent AP article, About two weeks ago, about 300,000 Turks (presumably many of them Muslim) staged a massive protest against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his pro-Islamic agenda. Today about 100,000 protested. The protesters claimed his faction wanted "to drag Turkey to the dark ages". They also disapprove of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul's wife, Hayrunisa, living in the palace while wearing traditional Muslim dress.
I would conditionally tend to think that both democracy and secular government are fully within the ability (and desire) of all human beings, including Muslims. However, when a nation doesn't have the past tradition of it like Turkey, it can be a long uphill climb. Ideally, not something that can (or should) be imposed from a foreign force, as is the attempted case in Iraq. But regardless of other immense problems with the Iraq war, I must at least say that claims Muslim populations are incapable, in principle, of secular government seem greatly inaccurate.
I’ve been asked, when discussing with theists, to read their various holy books (usually the Bible) with an open mind. The implication is that, if I gave their book an honest and open minded look, I’d become convinced and start believing, as they do. Further it’s implied that I’m not as open minded as I claim to be but rather closed to religion for not carefully examining their various books with the agnostic (i.e. undecided) attitude.
Please don’t ask me to read your holy book with an open mind. I can describe my mind as open, but not so open that my common sense falls out. Don’t you see? There’s a fundamental flaw with this request, and it’s staring you right in the eyes. There’s a huge elephant in the room, and yet you close your eyes to it! This is the assumption that a holy book can somehow validate itself.
Let me reiterate what I consider myself to be. I am a skeptic. A naturalist (i.e,. I look for natural, as opposed to supernatural causes). I’m not a scientist in the sense that I work with science, but I’m a fan of the scientific method. What does this tell you about me? It should tell you that I will not take any book’s word for its own validity. By reading your Holy Booktm, I will only learn a bit about your brand of mythology. I won’t come to believe it.
Why is that? It should be obvious, but apparently it’s not. I don’t believe it. I will admit that I haven’t read the whole Bible. Does this mean I can’t criticize Christianity? Does the fact that I haven’t read the Koran mean I can’t criticize Islam? Absolutely not! I don’t believe them. The basic premise of these books is that they are of divine nature. They’re built on the assumption that they are inspired by or directly delivered from God, creator and all. Naturally I can’t find out if the premise is true by assuming the premise. That would be circular reasoning. It would be akin to me writing a book in which I describe myself as Messiah and I then assume that the book (coming from Messiah) is of divine nature and use that assumption to prove that I am, in fact, Messiah. Assuming the conclusion is not a way to prove anything. Actually, it’s valid. If we assume that a preposition is true, it follows that the preposition is true, but in no way have we justified the assumption.
What does this tell you? It tells you that I’m not close minded for not reading assuming your conclusion in order to assess your conclusion. If you want to prove that the Bible or the Koran, or any other Holy Booktm is really of divine nature, you must rely on other sources. This is where the conversation usually halts. “But Messiah said it requires faith to believe!” Obviously. This is the same mindset.
Here’s an example of this mindset. In order to prove to me that Jesus was in fact Son of God, a Christian presented some Bible quote (I can’t remember where from and I can’t be bothered to look it up) that said something to the effect of, “if I [Jesus] don’t do miracles, don’t believe in me.” Miracles should be a sign that Jesus is Son of God. Then this person went on to quote other places in the Bible where Jesus does miracles. Taa-da! Instant Jesus-son-of-God! Of course, this is not how it works. This was all based on the assumption that the Bible was true to begin with.
This is some elimentary advice to theists who wish to justify their faiths to nonbelievers or believers of other faiths: never rely on your conclusion to prove your conclusion. No matter how much you obfuscate and complicate matters, if your logic can be traced back from your conclusion to your conclusion, you have built a circle, and circular reasoning is never justification for the assumption it seeks to prove. The moment someone discovers this in your reasoning, they will recognize that you have nothing to come with. So, please, rely on outside resources, if you’d be so kind. It will save you lots of embarassment.
The concept of Infinity is no longer represented by this hypothetical manufacturerFrom: - Kalam Cosmological Argument
The basic argument of the Kalam is as follows:1. Everything that begins to exists has a cause for its existence2. The universe began to exist (i.e. it is not infinite)Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
Craig's Mistaken Concept of Infinity
We will look at the second premise of the argument first. It is strange that Craig is trying to prove infinity is impossible by pointing out oddities which are already well known to mathematicians and logicians. Just because a feature is odd does not mean it involves a contradiction.First in his example of the infinite library of books. His argument is flawed because we can simply remove the books from the library, add the new books together with the ones in it and then reassign natural numbers to each book. No problem, no absurdity.
With respect to the problem of successive addition. You can get infinity if you construct a successive addition that has no beginning, i.e. it already reaches out into infinity.
The Universe Being Finite in Time:
Craig's use of science is really a double edged sword. He claims that science supports the finiteness of the universe. Actually it does not do that at all. All it shows is that our current state of the universe had a beginning about fifteen billion years ago. It does not show that it was the absolute beginning. For instance Stephen Hawking has proposed a four dimensional universe. In this model the universe goes through a period of increasing entropy during an expansionary phase and a period of reducing entropy during the contractionary phase. Furthermore the jury is still out as to whether the universe will end in a contraction (a "big crunch") or whether it will continue to expand forever. If the former is the case, there is every possibility that ours is merely a cycle (of big bangs and big crunches) within an infinite series of cycles.
The Concept of Causation
With this we go to the first premise. Is causation an a priori necessity? In other words, can it be shown that it is logically contradictory to speak of ubncaused things, the way it is logically contradictory when we speak of husbands as unmarried spouses? The answer is no. We can conceive of something as being uncaused, it involved no contradiction. As proof, theist conceive of God as being uncaused. Is causation an inductive principle? In other words, is it something which science can show to be true? If it is something which can be resolved inductively, the answers seems to be causation is not a universal principle of science. We note first and foremost cosmologists seem very comfortable with the idea that the universe could have come into existence uncaused. In fact some scientists have suggested that the Big Bang began with a quantum fluctuation. The principle of quantum mechanics allow virtual pairs of quantum particles to appear and exist for a short time before annihilating. In December 1973, in an article for Nature, Edward Tryon of the City University of New York proposed the idea that the universe is "a fluctuation of the vacuum". He showed that such a fluctuation does not violate the conservation of energy. When Tryon's hypothesis is combined with the inflationary theory of the big bang a viable model of creation literally ex nihilo can be constructed. [4] Secondly causation is not a universally observed fact. In the realm of subatomic particles, quantum mechanics dominate. Yet quantum mechanics lead to many non-causational observations that are probabilistic in nature.
As Timothy Ferris explains:
The radioactive isotope radium-224 has a half life of 3.64 days. So if we study an atom of radium-224 for 3.64 days we will have an even chance of witnessing its decay. But we cannot know just when it will decay-this particular atom might wait for years-nor can we, in principle or in practice, assign a causeto its decay. All we can know are probabilities.
Note that he mentioned it is not even possible in principle. In other words quantum mechanics, one of the most widely confirmed scientific theories known, says that it is simply not possible to do, not that our equipment or knowledge is incomplete. Thus causation seems to break down in the subatomic realm. Yet this is exactly the condition the universe was in at the beginning. The universe, was in the domain of quantum mechanics at the beginning, the domain where causality breaks down.
Conclusions:
Thus in conclusion, the basic premises of the Kalam cosmological argument are either invalid or not proven:
Craig's concept of infinity is mistaken.
The universe may or may not have a beginning in time.
The verdict is still out, thus it cannot be used as a premise to prove his argument.
Causation is not an a priori principle.
Causation is not a universally valid empirical principle, as quantum mechanics have shown.
See Also:
"So Long and Thanks for all the Fish"
kalam 
kalam cosmological 
kalam cosmological argument 
cosmological argument 
uncaused cause 
infinity 
causation
There is talk about a symbol for atheists.
I quite like this one:
Christians often say that everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus. But do they really believe it?
Does Malachi 2:3 point to Christ?
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.
How about Ezekiel 23:20?
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
All the nasty, cruel, absurd stuff in the Old Testament points to Jesus?
If I were a Christian, I think I'd point these verses at someone else.
If you've noticed the glaring quiet from me over the last few days, then I apologize. I've been under a dreadful deadline at work -- not everyone can post like P.Z.!
My big news is that we've sold our house! I was going to say "finally" but truth is, it happened a lot faster than we had expected. We had prepared ourselves for several months of waiting after watching a house down the street sit lonely behind its sale sign for about five months. But we sold ours in 2.5 weeks. Not bad! Now for the exciting part, buying a house!
My posting will be fairly sporadic over the next few days as well, as I will be travelling and won't have much internet access. I'm flying out to Virginia early tomorrow, and will take a whirlwind tour through a half dozen houses before making an offer on one. It's a good thing there are some good options available! We'll all be Virginians by May 19th.
Does anyone have any experience with moving and locating atheist groups? We'll be in the southwestern area of Virginia, close to Roanoke and Blacksburg, so I won't have access to all of the nice Richmond and D.C. area groups. But it would be nice to find a few like-minded folks.
My big news is that we've sold our house! I was going to say "finally" but truth is, it happened a lot faster than we had expected. We had prepared ourselves for several months of waiting after watching a house down the street sit lonely behind its sale sign for about five months. But we sold ours in 2.5 weeks. Not bad! Now for the exciting part, buying a house!
My posting will be fairly sporadic over the next few days as well, as I will be travelling and won't have much internet access. I'm flying out to Virginia early tomorrow, and will take a whirlwind tour through a half dozen houses before making an offer on one. It's a good thing there are some good options available! We'll all be Virginians by May 19th.
Does anyone have any experience with moving and locating atheist groups? We'll be in the southwestern area of Virginia, close to Roanoke and Blacksburg, so I won't have access to all of the nice Richmond and D.C. area groups. But it would be nice to find a few like-minded folks.
This vintage composition about the immaterial soul is equally applicable to nearly all religions.
As I continue reading "The Demon-Haunted World," by Dr. Carl Sagan, I find more and more passages worth sharing. For today, the topic of discussion is the “soul.” Nearly every religion asserts that human beings possess a spirit or a soul, a “ghost in the machine” that animates our flesh. However, this extraordinary assertion is backed by essentially no hard, scientific evidence.
What causes people to believe in a soul for which there is no hard, scientific evidence? I propose two reasons:
1. Belief is prescribed by faith. For many people, religion’s claims are assumed true, even if no supporting scientific evidence is present.
2. Belief is comforting. Many people fear the end of their own existence (and the existences of their family and friends). The notion that death is the ultimate end frightens many, and belief in an immortal soul is comforting, whether that belief is supported by scientific evidence or not.
Here is Dr. Sagan’s take:
Thus, the idea of a spiritual part of our nature that survives death, the notion of an afterlife, ought to be easy for religions and nations to sell. This is not an issue on which we might anticipate widespread skepticism. People will want to believe it, even if the evidence is meager to nil. True, brain lesions can make us lose major segments of our memory, or convert us from manic to placid, or vice versa; and changes in brain chemistry can convince us there’s a massive conspiracy against us, or make us think we hear the Voice of God. But as compelling testimony as this provides that our personality, character, memory—if you will, soul—resides in the matter of the brain, it is easy not to focus on it, to find ways to evade the weight of the evidence.
Additionally, consider the famous case of Phineas P. Gage. Gage worked in railroad construction. As a result of a freak accident, Gage suffered an atypical traumatic brain injury that wrought severe damage to parts of his brain's frontal lobes. Astonishingly, Gage emerged from the incident just fine in terms of memory, motor skills, language skills, etc. However, of all things, his personality had changed – in a most dramatic fashion.
The following quote offers details as provided by Gage's physician:
[Gage was] fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was 'no longer Gage.'
J. M. Harlow, 1868 (Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society 2: pp. 339–340)
As economically summarized by Answers.com, “According to Gage's physician … whereas previously he had been hard-working, responsible and popular with the men in his charge, his personality seemed to have been radically altered after the accident.”
Through the Gage case and myriad others, science makes it quite clear that the brain is the place in which one’s personality, character and memory are stored. In regard to the “mind” vs. “matter” issue, only one conclusion can be drawn from the available scientific evidence: “Mind” is merely a self-organized emergent property of matter. In other words, the product (consciousness) is greater than the sum of its parts (billions of neurons).
Three excellent references on this point are:
"Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul," by Dr. Francis Crick. The author is a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist.
"The Quest for Consciousness," by Dr. Christof Koch. The author is a California Institute of Technology neuroscientist.
"The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature," by Dr. Steven Pinker. The author is a
If personality, character and memory all are explicable in terms of the brain, then what purpose would a soul have, anyway? Moreover, even if a soul existed, how could one possibly consider it an “afterlife” if personality, memory, etc. do not make the journey, too? After all, upon death, the brain quickly dies (more quickly than most organs, in fact), all its properties and functions rotting along with it. If there are ghosts, they don’t remember a thing and lack a personality.
For those who persist in believing in the soul, I pose two closing questions:
1. How does the immaterial (soul) interact with the material (flesh)? Is there any precedent for the immaterial interacting with the material? What is the process by which this occurs (with as much specificity as possible)?
2. Is the soul falsifiable? If a notion is not falsifiable, then it’s pretty much worthless, at least scientifically speaking. What is the process by which the soul claim could be falsified (with as much specificity as possible)?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This evidence must be scientific, as opposed to evidence of the soft variety such as anecdotes, personal testimony and feelings.
The soul claim truly is extraordinary, on multiple levels.
I anxiously await a mere whisper of hard, scientific evidence for the soul assertion, as do my fellows in reason.
Believers always have the amazing ability to look at an event in a completely abstract way, take it out of its surroundings, and fabricate all sorts of stories around it to make it more appealing to whatever belief they hold. As one inspects the history of religious myths, it becomes evident that none is more special, true, or even original than the others, and that religions simply evolve out of each other to escape their natural predators, logic and science.
As an example, I'll consider the myth of virgin birth. This myth is considered by two of the three Abrahamic religions as both true and exclusive to Christianity. However, after reading this article and many other articles available online, one comes to the realization that such a myth was quite common many years before, and many years after the time Christianity was established, which made it a somewhat basic requirement for Christianity to claim virgin birth to gain credibility and support.
However, with all the myths of virgin birth and divine children, and no way of confirming any of them, I find myself compelled to wonder: Is god a womanizer or simply a man-made delusion?
As an example, I'll consider the myth of virgin birth. This myth is considered by two of the three Abrahamic religions as both true and exclusive to Christianity. However, after reading this article and many other articles available online, one comes to the realization that such a myth was quite common many years before, and many years after the time Christianity was established, which made it a somewhat basic requirement for Christianity to claim virgin birth to gain credibility and support.
However, with all the myths of virgin birth and divine children, and no way of confirming any of them, I find myself compelled to wonder: Is god a womanizer or simply a man-made delusion?
The Empty Wager~*~
Pascal's wager is betting on the existence of god. It suggests that belief in god has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Blaise Pascal argued that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists, because the expected value to be gained from believing that God exists is greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.
This argument has some major flaws. Some of them are:
1. It assumes that god (if it exists) rewards belief and punishes non-belief.
2. It assumes that the individual has chosen the right god.
3. It assumes that the individual is a member of the right religion or sect of that religion.
4. It requires that any person who is believing in a god to avoid punishment or gain reward would need to believe in all the religions which consider non-belief punishable.
5. It assumes that god/gods would not know that you are believing in order to avoid punishment or to gain reward.
So, if you claim that we should believe in Christianity just because of the possibility of being punished for not believing in it, then what are you going to say about other religions which also make such a claim? Based on Pascal's wager, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism cannot all be correct as they do not worship the same god/gods in the same way. So, to escape punishment, for Pascal's Wager to work, you would need to believe in all 3. Or some unknown non-Christian gods might exist, and punish Christian believers for their failure to believe in them. Or some powerful entity might decide to punish those who believe in a god while rewarding non-believers. To avoid punishment from believing in the wrong god, one would need to believe in all of them. This is bound to upset at least one of them, if any of them exist in the first place.
Also, if the belief is basely solely on the expectation of reward and the fear of punishment, instead of other things as well, such as the desire to do good, it is not belief with pure intent, which, if any of the gods exist, is bound to piss off at least one of them. I am not sure that "pretending to believe just in case" would score many "god brownie points." This is apart from a lifetime spent in worshipping which my turn out to be the wrong god, or a non-existent god. Thus a life spent on either a wilful delusion or a lie. So it is a fallacy that those who believe have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
"Men never do evil so completely or cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal
This argument has some major flaws. Some of them are:
1. It assumes that god (if it exists) rewards belief and punishes non-belief.
2. It assumes that the individual has chosen the right god.
3. It assumes that the individual is a member of the right religion or sect of that religion.
4. It requires that any person who is believing in a god to avoid punishment or gain reward would need to believe in all the religions which consider non-belief punishable.
5. It assumes that god/gods would not know that you are believing in order to avoid punishment or to gain reward.
So, if you claim that we should believe in Christianity just because of the possibility of being punished for not believing in it, then what are you going to say about other religions which also make such a claim? Based on Pascal's wager, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism cannot all be correct as they do not worship the same god/gods in the same way. So, to escape punishment, for Pascal's Wager to work, you would need to believe in all 3. Or some unknown non-Christian gods might exist, and punish Christian believers for their failure to believe in them. Or some powerful entity might decide to punish those who believe in a god while rewarding non-believers. To avoid punishment from believing in the wrong god, one would need to believe in all of them. This is bound to upset at least one of them, if any of them exist in the first place.
Also, if the belief is basely solely on the expectation of reward and the fear of punishment, instead of other things as well, such as the desire to do good, it is not belief with pure intent, which, if any of the gods exist, is bound to piss off at least one of them. I am not sure that "pretending to believe just in case" would score many "god brownie points." This is apart from a lifetime spent in worshipping which my turn out to be the wrong god, or a non-existent god. Thus a life spent on either a wilful delusion or a lie. So it is a fallacy that those who believe have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
"Men never do evil so completely or cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal
~*~
(Pascal's Wager always reminds me of the part in "The Mummy" where Benny is confronted by the mummy as it is hunting for body parts from which to reconstitute its own body. Benny is trapped against the wall inside the burial chamber with the egyptian mummy advancing towards him. Benny begins to pull out a dozen or so religious amulets from around his neck, and tries to use them as religious talismans to warn off the advances of the mummy. What saves him from the mummy, according to the story, is not his belief in any of the religions, but the fact that he can speak ancient hebrew. The moral of the story seems to be that it isn't belief that is going to save you from a dangerous situation, but knowledge. Specifically in Benny's case, it is the knowledge of another language which makes him useful - even if it was only on a temporay basis. Nonetheless, that part in the movie always makes me laugh as Benny is in effect, pretending to believe in all the gods, in the hope that none of the others, should they exist, be offended.)
Some of Benny's antics from "The Mummy."
LINK: The Empty Wager by Sam Harris
pascal's wager 
pascal 
blaise pascal 
bet 
wager 
sam harris 
letter to a christian nation 
religion 
god 
gods
Frank Walton of Atheism Sucks! briefly stopped by to link to his views on The Rational Response Squad’s Gift of Life Day. After reading a few posts at Walton’s blog, I saw his reaction to the ‘debate’ between Richard Dawkins and Bill ‘falafel’ O’Reilly (you can read my more visceral reaction here). In this post I wish to firmly argue in favor of Dawkins’ position – even though I think he communicated his message very poorly to a demagogue. Much has been made (and Walton’s post and subsequent comments are a prime example) of Dawkins’ words ‘We’re working on it.’ What I think Dawkins failed to communicate was that science is always working on it; there is no finality to discovering the Truth.
Kirk Cameron is fond of cornering people and making them admit that they are liars, and therefore hellworthy sinners. Sounds like a fun guy at a party. That kind of polemical thinking -- you're either a liar or you're not -- makes it easy to make people feel guilty. But it's not that simple, of course. There are intentionally harmful lies, and there are innocent lies. There are compulsive liars and there are compassionate liars. I do think that honesty is the best policy, but I also think that if someone needs encouragement or hope, a lie might be the kindest thing you can say to them. In other words, there are lies ... and there are lies.
Without all evidence pointing against them, spreading tales of the supernatural is the same as spreading lies. And, like mundane day-to-day lies, ones that are spread about heaven and hell, God and the devil, and creation and ressurection, can be harmful or they can be beneficial. I've always viewed the afterlife as one of those encouraging lies that you tell other people to make them feel better during times of grief (just without the inevitable facing of reality that normally follows). There are plenty of harmful lies also, such as when evangelists guilt people into donating money, or trusting in faith-healing over a doctor's medicine.
Sometimes the same lie can be both to different people. The Secret, for instance, has a foolish, albeit encouraging message. Some people take that message as simple encouragement: if I think positively, I will find more that is positive in life. Others take the concept to harmful levels: if I think positively, I will be able to stop my chemo treatments.
My wife is firmly in the former camp in regards to The Secret. She listens to it, and it seems to help her cope during times of stress and anxiety, but she never takes it too far by relying on the 'power' of The Secret to make something happen. Today I witnessed the perfect example. We just sold our house (signed the paperwork this morning!) and are trying to finalize a loan on the new house for which we're about to make an offer. She is particularly vulnerable to financial stressors, and has been absolutely frantic all morning. She ended up going for a drive, listening to The Secret on audio CD. She called later and, sounding calmer than she had all day, admitted that she was feeling better and more in control.
I have never had a problem with this aspect of religion, in the same way that I have no problem with Santa Claus. If only religion and the supernatural would stay on this side of the line! If only there were a "Yes, Virginia, there is a God" in The Sun, describing the Einsteinian God of awe and amazement at the wonders of the natural world.
But there is a line, and too often the supernatural believers cross it into destructive and hateful results. These are the lies that Kirk Cameron and those like him should be fighting against. In the same way that Sam Harris reasons that the religious moderates unwillingly protect the religious fundamentalists from criticism, the harmless and compassionate lies that religion tells us helps protect the hateful lies from criticism. Atheists decry religion by pointing out discrimination and the obstruction of science, and theists defend religion by pointing to the ideals of afterlife and heaven.
Atheists are not blameless. Despite our desire to spread evidential truth instead of faith, our message can become just as horribly corrupt. Atheist Mama recently shared a story of two contrasting messages of atheism. She overheard one coworker describing atheism to another:
This dialog upsets the other coworker, who came to Atheist Mama for support:
It is not that Ira's description was false, it's just that it was an upsetting, harmful truth. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, right? Atheist Mama's words gained support, while Ira's forged opposition.
So, lets draw our lines, take sides, and make a deal. Theists, why don't you just stick to your "love thy neighbor" and "golden rule" ideas, and stay away from the fire and brimstone and hate and discrimination. And we atheists will stick to the fuller lives and personal values views, and stay away from the maggots.
Deal?
Without all evidence pointing against them, spreading tales of the supernatural is the same as spreading lies. And, like mundane day-to-day lies, ones that are spread about heaven and hell, God and the devil, and creation and ressurection, can be harmful or they can be beneficial. I've always viewed the afterlife as one of those encouraging lies that you tell other people to make them feel better during times of grief (just without the inevitable facing of reality that normally follows). There are plenty of harmful lies also, such as when evangelists guilt people into donating money, or trusting in faith-healing over a doctor's medicine.
Sometimes the same lie can be both to different people. The Secret, for instance, has a foolish, albeit encouraging message. Some people take that message as simple encouragement: if I think positively, I will find more that is positive in life. Others take the concept to harmful levels: if I think positively, I will be able to stop my chemo treatments.
My wife is firmly in the former camp in regards to The Secret. She listens to it, and it seems to help her cope during times of stress and anxiety, but she never takes it too far by relying on the 'power' of The Secret to make something happen. Today I witnessed the perfect example. We just sold our house (signed the paperwork this morning!) and are trying to finalize a loan on the new house for which we're about to make an offer. She is particularly vulnerable to financial stressors, and has been absolutely frantic all morning. She ended up going for a drive, listening to The Secret on audio CD. She called later and, sounding calmer than she had all day, admitted that she was feeling better and more in control.
I have never had a problem with this aspect of religion, in the same way that I have no problem with Santa Claus. If only religion and the supernatural would stay on this side of the line! If only there were a "Yes, Virginia, there is a God" in The Sun, describing the Einsteinian God of awe and amazement at the wonders of the natural world.
But there is a line, and too often the supernatural believers cross it into destructive and hateful results. These are the lies that Kirk Cameron and those like him should be fighting against. In the same way that Sam Harris reasons that the religious moderates unwillingly protect the religious fundamentalists from criticism, the harmless and compassionate lies that religion tells us helps protect the hateful lies from criticism. Atheists decry religion by pointing out discrimination and the obstruction of science, and theists defend religion by pointing to the ideals of afterlife and heaven.
Atheists are not blameless. Despite our desire to spread evidential truth instead of faith, our message can become just as horribly corrupt. Atheist Mama recently shared a story of two contrasting messages of atheism. She overheard one coworker describing atheism to another:
“you know [Kelly], there is no afterlife.” At this, my ears perked up. While I personally might try to not introduce rationalism with death, I’m always interested identifying fellow rationalists. He sounded like a good candidate. “There is no heaven, no hell, no god,” [Ira] continued. A fellow atheist too! I continued to listen, not even pretending to type anymore. “When you die, your body will rot and be eaten by maggots. Life really has no point.” Oh, I thought. He’s a maggot guy.
This dialog upsets the other coworker, who came to Atheist Mama for support:
“My mother raised me as a Catholic,” Kelly continued, “she’d just be so upset to hear something like that.” I nodded again. “Why would he believe something like that?” she asked.
I took a deep breath as I prepared to out myself. “Well, actually, I’m also an atheist. However, I think Ira’s being a bit of a nihilist.” I explained how the lack of an afterlife just makes life sweeter—since we only get to try once, we should do as much with our lives as possible. I explained that, while I didn’t believe there was a prescribed “meaning” of life, we make our own meaning through social compacts and personal values. “Oh,” Kelly said, blinking a few times as she absorbed this. Then she smiled, “That’s really so much nicer. I’m so glad I met you, Amanda,” and wandered off singing a random show-tune I’d never heard before.
It is not that Ira's description was false, it's just that it was an upsetting, harmful truth. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, right? Atheist Mama's words gained support, while Ira's forged opposition.
So, lets draw our lines, take sides, and make a deal. Theists, why don't you just stick to your "love thy neighbor" and "golden rule" ideas, and stay away from the fire and brimstone and hate and discrimination. And we atheists will stick to the fuller lives and personal values views, and stay away from the maggots.
Deal?
The first planet habitable to life outside our solar system has been discovered. I’d really like to see the look on the faces of the ID movement if/when we discover extraterrestrial life.
Also, in a poetic moment, I think I’ve solved the problem of absence, the question of how God can be so conspicuously absent from the world if he, like theists claim, exists and want us to believe in him.
Only when you close your eyes, rip out your tongue and explode your eardrums, only when you cut off your nose, only when your body is completely paralized can you see God, taste him and hear him, smell his smell and feel his loving touch, and it occurs to me that this is how theists want it to be; non-existence is the preferred state of existence, for only then can you be one with God.
Anzac Cove - GallipoliIt's Anzac Day in Australia. (25th April) The ANZACs were the combined forces of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. ANZAC Day in Australia is when Australians remember those who have fought in war. The ANZAC legend started during WW1 when Australia and New Zealand combined their forces under British Command to attack the Turks at Gallipoli. Unfortunately, there was a right royal stuff-up and the ANZACs landed at Suvla Bay and were faced with a small beach landing and thousands of well-armed Turks manning the cliff faces above the beach. The ANZACS were blown to hell - "almost blew us right back to Australia."
From the words which accompany this video:
On 25 April 1915, the Anzacs (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) landed at a difficult and desolate spot on the Gallipoli peninsula and the Turks appeared to be ready for them, a defeat was inevitable, Gallipoli was the plan thought up by Winston Churchill to end the war early by creating a new war front that the Central Powers could not cope with. The Gallipoli campaign was a debacle, Military censorship prevented the true story being told but a young Australian journalist, Keith Murdoch (father of Australian newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch) smuggled the story about the scale of the Dardanelles disaster back to the Australian Prime Minister who sent it on to the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who was no friend of the British military establishment. It led directly to the dismissal of the British commander, Sir Ian Hamilton who never again was to hold a senior military position. The British Government ordered an evacuation. By day, the ANZACs kept up their attacks with more ANZACs observed to be landing - by night the force was withdrawn, broken only by sporadic rifle and gunfire. On 20 December 1915, the Anzac retreat was complete.
A British Royal Commission into Gallipoli concluded that from the outset the risk of failure outweighed Its chances of success. The British had contributed 468,000 in the battle for Gallipoli with 33,512 killed. 7,636 missing and 78,000 wounded.The ANZACs lost 8,000 men in Gallipoli and a further 18,000 were wounded. Australia had a population of five million - 330,000 served in the war, 59,000 were killed. New Zealand with a population of one million lost 18,000 men out of 110,000 and had 55000 wounded.
This video is for my grandfather who was one of those who landed at Gallipoli in 1915. The song "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" always makes me shed a tear or two around this time of year. So many brave, innocent, young men were led "like lambs to the slaughter."
"And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda"
This video extract is from the movie "Gallipoli" which was made in 1981 by Peter Weir. It shows the common occurrence in the Gallipoli Campaign where the young ANZACS were ordered out of their trenches at the bottom of the hill to push forward over the dead bodies of those who had gone before, to try and gain distance up the cliffs. The turks, sitting at the top, picked them off like flies with machine gun fire. They knew they ran towards their certain death.
anzac
anzacs
anzac day
gallipoli
suvla bay
and the band played waltzing matilda
If you serve up maggots anywhere during a conversation, like during a meal, it’ll be all your guests remember later.
I recently started a temporary day job as an instructional designer. On my first day, I was granted a cubicle. As someone who has spent most of her life self-employed or, for a short while, in an office*, a cubicle is a novel experience indeed.
I’m still learning the rules of cubicle life. I’ve already learned that whenever anyone in an adjacent cubicle begins a conversation, it’s commonly understood that everyone in the vicinity must drop everything he or she is doing to eavesdrop. It’s also my understanding that it is proper to later pretend that these conversations were completely inaudible to all but the intended parties. Through our mutual pretending, we maintain the illusion that we all have “real” offices and “real” privacy.
Apparently, this tenet of cubicle etiquette doesn’t always apply.
A few days ago, I was sitting in my cubicle, merrily designing instruction**, when I heard the Ira Glass-esque voice of a coworker sitting in a neighboring cubicle drawl, “you know Kelly***, there is no afterlife.” At this, my ears perked up. While I personally might try to not introduce rationalism with death, I’m always interested identifying fellow rationalists. He sounded like a good candidate. “There is no heaven, no hell, no god,” Ira-sound-alike continued. A fellow atheist too! I continued to listen, not even pretending to type anymore. “When you die, your body will rot and be eaten by maggots. Life really has no point.” Oh, I thought. He’s a maggot guy.
The conversation continued, intermixed with a lesson in Adobe Illustrator. I was less interested in listening at this point. I’m a realist. I’m okay with the fact that, were I to be buried****, my body would indeed decay, possibly with the assistance of some friendly maggots. However, I’m not so into unnecessarily dwelling on the gruesome. “Hi! I’m an atheist! Want some maggots?” is possibly not the best pick-up line ever invented.
Later that afternoon, Kelly wandered over to my cubicle and grumbled, “Oh, I’m just having a great day—Ira told me I’m going to be eaten by maggots and that there isn’t any point to life. Did you hear?” Apparently, this was a case when I was supposed to ignore cubicle tenet number two and acknowledge that I had, indeed, been eavesdropping. I nodded. “My mother raised me as a Catholic,” Kelly continued, “she’d just be so upset to hear something like that.” I nodded again. “Why would he believe something like that?” she asked.
I took a deep breath as I prepared to out myself. “Well, actually, I’m also an atheist. However, I think Ira’s being a bit of a nihilist.” I explained how the lack of an afterlife just makes life sweeter—since we only get to try once, we should do as much with our lives as possible. I explained that, while I didn’t believe there was a prescribed “meaning” of life, we make our own meaning through social compacts and personal values. “Oh,” Kelly said, blinking a few times as she absorbed this. Then she smiled, “That’s really so much nicer. I’m so glad I met you, Amanda,” and wandered off singing***** a random show-tune I’d never heard before.
Really, I don’t know the background or circumstances of Ira and Kelly’s conversation and could be grossly misrepresenting them both. Such is the danger of blogging about those you’ve only known for three days. However, either way, I shall make a suggestion for introducing atheism to others: good conversations, like good recipes, call for absolutely no maggots.
Cross posted at The Atheist Mama.
* with REAL walls!
** after all, that is what we instructional designers design
*** not her real name
**** I don’t plan on it—I might as well donate it to science and let someone get some use out of it.
**** this is not an exaggeration for literary purposes—she really does sing while wandering around the office. It’s her thing.
I recently started a temporary day job as an instructional designer. On my first day, I was granted a cubicle. As someone who has spent most of her life self-employed or, for a short while, in an office*, a cubicle is a novel experience indeed.
I’m still learning the rules of cubicle life. I’ve already learned that whenever anyone in an adjacent cubicle begins a conversation, it’s commonly understood that everyone in the vicinity must drop everything he or she is doing to eavesdrop. It’s also my understanding that it is proper to later pretend that these conversations were completely inaudible to all but the intended parties. Through our mutual pretending, we maintain the illusion that we all have “real” offices and “real” privacy.
Apparently, this tenet of cubicle etiquette doesn’t always apply.
A few days ago, I was sitting in my cubicle, merrily designing instruction**, when I heard the Ira Glass-esque voice of a coworker sitting in a neighboring cubicle drawl, “you know Kelly***, there is no afterlife.” At this, my ears perked up. While I personally might try to not introduce rationalism with death, I’m always interested identifying fellow rationalists. He sounded like a good candidate. “There is no heaven, no hell, no god,” Ira-sound-alike continued. A fellow atheist too! I continued to listen, not even pretending to type anymore. “When you die, your body will rot and be eaten by maggots. Life really has no point.” Oh, I thought. He’s a maggot guy.
The conversation continued, intermixed with a lesson in Adobe Illustrator. I was less interested in listening at this point. I’m a realist. I’m okay with the fact that, were I to be buried****, my body would indeed decay, possibly with the assistance of some friendly maggots. However, I’m not so into unnecessarily dwelling on the gruesome. “Hi! I’m an atheist! Want some maggots?” is possibly not the best pick-up line ever invented.
Later that afternoon, Kelly wandered over to my cubicle and grumbled, “Oh, I’m just having a great day—Ira told me I’m going to be eaten by maggots and that there isn’t any point to life. Did you hear?” Apparently, this was a case when I was supposed to ignore cubicle tenet number two and acknowledge that I had, indeed, been eavesdropping. I nodded. “My mother raised me as a Catholic,” Kelly continued, “she’d just be so upset to hear something like that.” I nodded again. “Why would he believe something like that?” she asked.
I took a deep breath as I prepared to out myself. “Well, actually, I’m also an atheist. However, I think Ira’s being a bit of a nihilist.” I explained how the lack of an afterlife just makes life sweeter—since we only get to try once, we should do as much with our lives as possible. I explained that, while I didn’t believe there was a prescribed “meaning” of life, we make our own meaning through social compacts and personal values. “Oh,” Kelly said, blinking a few times as she absorbed this. Then she smiled, “That’s really so much nicer. I’m so glad I met you, Amanda,” and wandered off singing***** a random show-tune I’d never heard before.
Really, I don’t know the background or circumstances of Ira and Kelly’s conversation and could be grossly misrepresenting them both. Such is the danger of blogging about those you’ve only known for three days. However, either way, I shall make a suggestion for introducing atheism to others: good conversations, like good recipes, call for absolutely no maggots.
Cross posted at The Atheist Mama.
* with REAL walls!
** after all, that is what we instructional designers design
*** not her real name
**** I don’t plan on it—I might as well donate it to science and let someone get some use out of it.
**** this is not an exaggeration for literary purposes—she really does sing while wandering around the office. It’s her thing.
"They seek him here, they seek him there, those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive Pimpernel." - The Scarlet Pimpernel - Sir Percy BlakeneyI would like to share with you today some of the search parameters which have been typed in search engines and have lead people to my blog. It's amazing what people type into search engines and expect as a result, to find information specific to their search requirements. I have absolutely no idea what some of these people were actually searching for when their search enquiries lead them to my blog. But, I would like to suggest a few examples. The moral of this story, is to define your search, or you will be lead to places which exist in parallel universes which require the use of a babelfish in at least one ear in order to make sense of your surroundings. By the way, if you see one of your searches listed, "DON'T PANIC" as the "Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy" never reveals its sources.
LIST OF SEARCHES AND SUGGESTED REASONS AS TO WHY THEY WERE DIRECTED TO MY BLOG.
1. mark of the beast for atheists
(This must refer to the oversized Darwinfish which I had tattooed on my left bum cheek. Word of advice: The beast always prefers that you tattoo the left bum cheek rather than the right as the right is for the hand of god. Smacks god's hand off my right bum cheek. )
2. itch in butt
(This search had me slightly bewildered until I realized that they meant to search for "pain in butt" rather than "itch in butt." Nonetheless, my expansive metatag source directed the search here anyway.)
3. mary had a little lamb
(What the!! How did you know my name was Mary? And I deny the lamb thing... Anyway Aries said that he used protection. Damn those randy male constellations.)
4. nude male
(Where?)
5. invisible egg
(Once again "where?" It is invisible, no good searching for it here.)
6. most billionaires are atheists
(But not this atheist.)
7. little engine that could
(Obviously related to: - The little search engine that couldn't find the "little engine that could" on this blog.)
8. understanding pulp fiction
(Success. They obviously came to the right place. Passes them a babelfish.)
9. Amen-Ra golden showers
(Excuse me but I think that a god's sex life should remain private. I am not a conservative busybody after all.)
10. William Lamb the psychic
(Uh oh - Looks like Aries is back and he is demanding that I pay him for that astrology session.)
11. benny hinn enema
(Yes, I recommend an enema for him too. You gotta pass those poop demons somehow.)
12. babel babel bitch bitch marilyn manson lyrics
(Yes, I do babble on a bit but it is Ms Bitch to you and Marilyn sends his love.)
13. hijacker guide through the galaxy
(That's right, your search has been hijacked here. Mwwahaahahah.)
14. keep your jesus off my penis
(I insist that jesus do that. I also insist that if jesus loves me, that he wears a condom.)
15. gay music
(I demand happy music at all times. La la la la la :) )
16. Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me
(How many devils has the dude got? And are any of them rich and cute?)
17. Homosexuality in the Ancient Near East, beyond Egypt semen in lettuce
(Semen in lettuce? Is this the egyptian vegetarian version of "American Pie?")
18. shakira's objection tango video is shit
(Hahahaha. I know.)
19. women who worship the penis
(Keep searching... )
20. quran unintelligible bernard shaw
( I agree and Bernard agrees with me.)
Hitchhiker's Guide - Don't Panic!
search 
search words 
search engine 
blog 
weblog 
internet 
google 
blogging 
blogs 
don't panic 
hitchhikers guide to the galaxy 
hitchhikers guide 
satire 
comedy
search search words search engine blog weblog internet google blogging blogs don't panic hitchhikers guide to the galaxy hitchhikers guide satire comedy
Many moons ago, I dated a vegetarian. Many moons ago, I was a bloodthirsty meat-eater. But, I was also a hormone-crazed young man, so whatever she wanted was fine with me. No meat? I'll deal. So I sacrificed.
These days, I'm a vegetarian. This actually makes things easier. I'm still in the minority on other things though. I'm an atheist. I have to steer clear of those catholic school girls. (also because I'm atheist). So I sacrifice. Actually, that has worked out with my wonderful current significant other. She's great. atheist, vegetarian, and sometimes, a Catholic school girl. Life is good...
I guess I wouldn't be blogging if everything was good. See, here's the deal. Sometimes, I need a pencil, detergent, some Wheaties, a bike chain, the new Economist magazine, two staples, tires for the truck, and a wireless router. Back in the old days, I would set out for the one-stop shopping paradise: Wal*Mart. I love me some Wal*Mart. Everything I ever wanted and didn't know it. Awesome.
However, apparently, my new girl is a NonWal*Martitarian. Just my luck. So now I sacrifice. Sometimes I have to go to two, three, or even four different stores to shop. It's tough, but these are the tradeoffs I have to make.
These days, I'm a vegetarian. This actually makes things easier. I'm still in the minority on other things though. I'm an atheist. I have to steer clear of those catholic school girls. (also because I'm atheist). So I sacrifice. Actually, that has worked out with my wonderful current significant other. She's great. atheist, vegetarian, and sometimes, a Catholic school girl. Life is good...
I guess I wouldn't be blogging if everything was good. See, here's the deal. Sometimes, I need a pencil, detergent, some Wheaties, a bike chain, the new Economist magazine, two staples, tires for the truck, and a wireless router. Back in the old days, I would set out for the one-stop shopping paradise: Wal*Mart. I love me some Wal*Mart. Everything I ever wanted and didn't know it. Awesome.
However, apparently, my new girl is a NonWal*Martitarian. Just my luck. So now I sacrifice. Sometimes I have to go to two, three, or even four different stores to shop. It's tough, but these are the tradeoffs I have to make.
One day, I will actually go to an atheist/humanist event; for now all I can do is read the recaps. The latest I-wish-I-had-gone event was the New Humanism conference at Harvard. I especially would have liked to have seen Salman Rushdie and Steven Pinker, and perhaps get a chance to say hi to Hemant Mehta. Hemant does have a recap on his site -- and links to another one by Rebecca over at Skepchick. This is the recap I want to discuss. Rebecca brings up a topic I feel very strongly about.
In many debates, using language that the opposing side is familiar with can be a good way to convey a point. Using their terminology can help relate similar concepts from your own point of view. But when the concepts are in direct opposition, appropriating the wrong vocabulary risks confusing the message. This is especially true with terms we have used to criticize our opponents, such as "fundamentalism."
One of my biggest gripes on this topic is the phrase "belief in evolution," as in, "Chuck doesn't believe in evolution!" There is a perfectly good definition for the word belief that is suitable here: "an opinion or conviction." But it should not be used here. The term "belief in evolution" is too often brought up as contrast to "belief in God," which uses 'belief' in a different way: "a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith."
Yes, there are plenty of theists that are also convinced by evolution. But the theist / atheist conflict is too vocal, with too much misunderstanding and debate about scientific fact vs. theory, the validity of some evidence and the debunking of others, etc. Look at how theism and intelligent design have already tainted the understanding of such basic concepts, like what the word 'theory' means in science. We must avoid vocabularly that can be twisted and used against us.
The only conference lowlight I’ll mention is one that may apply overall to the humanist movement, though I’m not sure: it was a disturbing trend of kowtowing to religion. As an example, there was a teleconference with a Southern Baptist convention, during which time Greg, the Humanist Chaplain of Harvard, referred to the planet Earth as “the Creation.” This was repeated in the conference pamphlet. The Creation? This came mere hours after one speaker criticized the way some people redefine “god” to mean “love” or “nature” — why use that language?That's strike two for Greg Epstein in this regard, by my count. In a recent Associated Press article he was also quoted as using the term "atheist fundamentalists." Others -- albeit mostly in jest -- have referred to Darwin as our messiah, "On the Origin of Species" as our bible, Dawkins as a prophet, evolution as our doctrine, etc. Well, I don't find it very funny.
In many debates, using language that the opposing side is familiar with can be a good way to convey a point. Using their terminology can help relate similar concepts from your own point of view. But when the concepts are in direct opposition, appropriating the wrong vocabulary risks confusing the message. This is especially true with terms we have used to criticize our opponents, such as "fundamentalism."
One of my biggest gripes on this topic is the phrase "belief in evolution," as in, "Chuck doesn't believe in evolution!" There is a perfectly good definition for the word belief that is suitable here: "an opinion or conviction." But it should not be used here. The term "belief in evolution" is too often brought up as contrast to "belief in God," which uses 'belief' in a different way: "a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith."
Yes, there are plenty of theists that are also convinced by evolution. But the theist / atheist conflict is too vocal, with too much misunderstanding and debate about scientific fact vs. theory, the validity of some evidence and the debunking of others, etc. Look at how theism and intelligent design have already tainted the understanding of such basic concepts, like what the word 'theory' means in science. We must avoid vocabularly that can be twisted and used against us.
It's just 100 and some years since we took the first steps in learning how to fly. Since then many have made the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of the most beautiful dream that has haunted mankind since Icarus – Flight.
21st April, 2007, 32 year old Lt. Cmdr. Kevin J. Davis of Pittsfield, Mass. was killed while performing with the Blue Angels in Beaufort, South Carolina. His F/A-18 "Hornet" never joined the Delta formation the other Angels had formed over the crowd and his parents, who were there to watch their son's first ever Blue Angel performance. During his Navy career, he earned "Top Stick" status in his class at Fighter Squadron 101 at Naval Air Station Oceania, Va., while training in F-14 Tomcat jets. He flew missions supporting the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and graduated from Navy Flight Weapons School in 2004.
The Blue Angels are unique from other jet aviators because they don't wear the traditional G-suits that most jet pilots use to avoid blacking out during manoeuvres that exert strong gravitational forces. The suits inflate around the lower body to keep blood in the brain, but that could cause a pilot to bump the control stick — a potentially deadly move when flying inches from other planes.
"He was fascinated with airplanes from the time he was little," former neighbour Betty Sweeney said. "He knew what he wanted to do, and he did it. That's the only relief, that he went doing what he wanted to do."
At Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, the site of Saturday's crash, a sombre crowd watched Sunday as six jets flew overhead in formation. Smoke streamed behind one of the jets as it peeled away from the others to complete the "missing man formation," the traditional salute for a lost aviator.
I am asked again and again – "Why fly?" What's so fascinating about flying? Well, it's quite simple really. I'm just not happy unless there is some room between me and the ground. Like Leonardo Da Vinci said "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."
And the Air! The Air up there is very pure and fine, bracing and delicious! And why shouldn't it be? – It is the same air that the Angles breathe.
A reader has asked recently about Humanist rituals:I'd be interested in hearing your take on creating humanist rituals. There seems to be an innate human need to create ceremonies and do things that have a feeling of "sacred space".This was actually the topic of the day at the most recent session of my Humanist Contemplatives Club. A complete report of our conclusions on this can be read on our Club's journal (link HERE), but I've repeated the core part of the summary here...
1) We acknowledge that Humanists already engage in many rituals. These include various meetups, weddings, funuerals, baby namings, etc.
2) There seems to be a major distinction between rituals, based on why they are conducted. In one sense, you have the 'superstitious ritual' in which the practitioner believes these acts to be accomplishing something disconnected from the typical natural cause-and-effect we know of empirically. Examples include rain dances and prayer. The second sense of ritual is the 'symbolic ritual' in which the practitioner is conducting an activity in order to symbolize a concept. These rituals are designed to create a sense of solemnity, help us adjust our mindset and focus on the reasons behind the ritual, cement social interactions, and mark special events or notions. It was concluded quite easily that Humanist ritual must be exlusive to this latter form.
3) Future Humanist rituals should take advantage of the rich cultural lineage behind it. This includes elements of art, music, poetry, literature, and other elements by past Humanists or humanistic artists and thinkers. This should bring in a sense of tradition such that the ritual does not feel extraneous or contrived.
4) Rituals should be 'multisensory' experiences. They should tap as many of our senses as possible; having visual, audial, olfactory, and possibly tactile elements. Internally, they should tap both the intellect as well as the emotional, intuitive, and imaginative.
It was also mentioned that science fiction can be an inspiration for creative ideas. At the same time, a Humanist ritual must be something with real functional purpose - even if merely social or emotional - or else it will seem contrived.
Science has been accused of being biased towards naturalism. That’s a fair accusation. The question one should ask, however, is not whether science has a naturalistic bias, but rather whether such a bias is justified. Is there really any good reason to suppose that the world is naturalistic and that supernatural forces are nothing but mythology and legend?
First, a bit of clarification. Some will insist that, whenever we describe a “supernatural” process, it becomes natural. This is not what we mean in everyday language. You know what I mean when I refer to the supernatural: ghosts, gnomes, fairies, elves, trolls, apparitions, clarvoyance, astral projections, demons, magic, gods, exorcism, spiritism, miracles, mind-body dualism. The question we are asking is about these phenomenas and the like, and this is what I mean when I talk about supernatural causes. This, I suspect, is also what scientists mean when they say that an event has not a supernatural but a natural cause. There are those that will say that we can never know the truth about some phenomena, because, as Arthur C. Clarke stated it:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
This is probably true. There is knowledge that is outside of our grasp, either in principle or in any practical sense. We must learn to approach the knowledge we have access to, and this knowledge does not include knowledge about the supernatural.
Is there anything about the scientific method itself that precludes us from investigating supernatural hypotheses? If so, perhaps science has no choice but to go the naturalistic route if it wants to remain true to its principles. But if we distill science to its core, there is nothing that leads us automatically to believe that supernatural causes are impossible. Science is about observation, hypothesis, prediction, test. This cycle repeats itself ad infinitum. At any stage, an idea may be rejected. First, we make an observation. If this observation is completely at odds with all previous observations, there is reason to doubt its validity and we must be careful not to jump all over it too early. At this stage, if we’re unable to repeat the experiment, we may abandon it, or we may put the observation on hold awaiting further data. On this stage, nothing prevents supernatural science. The next stage is hypothesis. If we have a really odd observation, we may be unable to come up with an hypothesis that can explain the observation. If this is so, we get stuck. At this point, there should be no problem for the supernatural, because people have made up supernatural causes since the dawn of humans. The next stage is prediction. In theory, there should be no problem here, either. Finally is test. If the test confirms the predictions, the hypothesis is a little safer. If it falsifies them, we must reject it. In none of the stages is there in principle any problem with supernaturalism.
Unfortunately, theory differs from practice. In theory, theory equals practice, but sadly it does not in practice. The difference in this case is simple, and it’s not really any profound thought if you think it through. All supernaturalists would do well to consider it every once in a while, and especially if considering basing some science on their supernatural ideas. Supernaturalism is a nonexplanation, an open admission of defeat. It’s waving a white flag at the universe and demanding piece, it’s closing the book and putting the microscope in the closet. It’s closing your ideas, your ears, your nose.
When we get to the hypothesis phase, supernaturalists have no problem coming up with ideas. They don’t have to make them fit into the current views of the universe in science, because they believe it to contain a glaring flaw, an omission of a whole dimension of reality from study. They make up all sorts of explanations: God did it, my dead grandma said so, Jesus ordered me to do it in a dream, a higher consciousness lifted me out of my body and projected me to the surface of an extrasolar planet. When they have done so, they find themselves quite satisfied with their hypothesis.
This practice is little more than putting a name on our ignorance. From the dawn of consciousness, that strange little primate has pointed at its own ignorance and called it “God”, or “spirit”, or “ghost”. What have we gained from this? What understanding have we built up from this renaming? When will someone come along and make a coherent foundation for supernatural realms, like Newton or Maxwell or Einstein? When will technology based on the understanding of the supernatural be accessible to the public? Nothing short of a worldwide conspiracy spanning millenia in time and the whole planet in geographical terms could possibly prevent us from seeing the results of this field of inquiry. That is, if there were any.
When we come to the prediction stage, supernaturalists must deal with a problem: their hypothesis is essentially arbitrary. They’ve made up a concept to explain another, without regard for previous confirmed hypotheses. While an ordinary scientific hypothesis is an educated guess based on prior observations and theories, a supernatural hypothesis is nothing but a guess. So, you’ve seen a woman get mysteriously ill, and then suddenly she’s just fine. What do you propose? Obviously, her dead lover healed her using his supercool überghostpowers. What can we expect to see if a woman is healed by her dead lover using his überghostpowers? This is where the surface gets bumpy. Perhaps you can expect her to be healed the next time she falls ill…but then again, maybe her dead lover is tired of zapping her back into health and has demanded that she keep healthy or he won’t help her. Perhaps we can expect to see the spot in her body where the immaterial überghostpowers made material impact, but then again, maybe her lover’s powers are magical and leave no mark on the body.
What can we expect if there are really ghosts with superpowers? What understanding will this help us gain? None at all. How do we detect this ghost-stuff? We don’t, because our equipment is not made of ghost-stuff but of a different substance, namely matter. How do we communicate? We don’t, because we have no idea how to and no idea how to find out. What possible evidence could we find to confirm this hypothesis? None at all, because the situation is equivalent to the one we’d expect with any of a thousand other supernatural hypotheses. What possible evidence could deny this hypothesis? None at all, because we have no idea what to expect and so we can’t say whether the situation really goes against our expectations.
Sure, there are unanswered questions. I have a feeling, though I would be delighted to be wrong, that we as a society and species will never fully understand the reality in which we find outselves. One open question is the origin of life, as opposed to its development over time. Some have suggested that, because science cannot yet provide us with an explanation, it ought to abandon all hope of a naturalistic cause and instead search for a supernatural one. This is little more than naming our ignorance and then worshipping it. If you say that God did it, what more are you saying than, “I cannot find any reason besides supernatural intelligence; I can’t seem to work out any of its implications or a way to test it, but it does satisfy my curiousity.”
You can complain that this naturalistic bias is bad, because it leaves a lot of land unexplored and the cause may still be supernatural. There are two answers to this. The first is that we have yet to observe anything that could be proven to be non-natural (and I mean that in the sense described in the beginning of this post). Therefore, we have no reason to assume there is a supernatural cause. The other way is the one I have chosen today: questioning the explanatory power of supernatural hypotheses. Science is the search for understanding of the world. Understanding necessitates some requirements, such as the ability to predict the consequences of our ideas, so that we can test it and use the knowledge practically in building yet more knowledge. It may be that the cause of the universe, or life, or other phenomena we observe is supernatural. But until supernaturalists can bring themselves down from the sky and see that their theories are nothing but elaborate naming schemes all describing facets of our ignorance, nothing will be done.
So, please, supernaturalists: before you question the validity of a search based on naturalistic assumptions, do make sure that your own assumptions are testable in principle and practice, and that their truth will actually tell us something. You cannot name a single discovery that was made on supernatural assumptions, and supernaturalism was the norm for thousands of years. Many supernaturalists have made great contributions to the natural sciences, but that is in spite of their supernaturalism, not because of it. When you look closer, none of the great discoveries we have made have been made on the basis of revelation, scripture, mythology or clarvoyance. None of our great heroes of science have relied solely on supernaturalism, and none of their achievements have been due to it.
Supernaturalism is an admission of defeat.
I sent the following to the BBC yesterday. I don't suppose it will make any difference.
"I am an Atheist and proud of it. I do not steal, cheat or lie. I have been married to the same woman for 38 years and have never been disloyal. I give regularly to charities and several hours of my time every week to helping the disabled. I have morals and live ethically and yet I am not good enough to expect fair representation on Thought for The Day. The inference is that because I do not accept the supernatural I am in some way inferior. By their implications, I am regularly deeply offended by statements broadcast on this programme. "
"I am an Atheist and proud of it. I do not steal, cheat or lie. I have been married to the same woman for 38 years and have never been disloyal. I give regularly to charities and several hours of my time every week to helping the disabled. I have morals and live ethically and yet I am not good enough to expect fair representation on Thought for The Day. The inference is that because I do not accept the supernatural I am in some way inferior. By their implications, I am regularly deeply offended by statements broadcast on this programme. "
It only takes a few minutes with a TV Guide to understand that much of American entertainment revolves around extremist views, violence, and misfortune. From Glenn Beck, to Criminal Minds, to Montel Williams with Sylvia Browne, our entertainment ranges from what awful thing is currently happening, to what awful things might happen, to what awful things have happened to other people. One would think we'd be experts at handling bad situations. But we're not, and that is one of the things that makes us human.
Every now and then a real tragedy happens to real people, and it affects us on a national or even global scale. The Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine, 9/11, the D.C. snipers, the trapped West Virginia miners, and the recent shootings at Virginia Tech are a few American events in the last couple of decades that have stirred our collective hearts and welled our collective tears. Black, white, male, female, gay, straight, democrat, republican, rich, poor, religious, atheist -- our differences are obscured by grief.
Yet our melting pot of unity is marred by the slag of callous punditry and barbed blame from a few outspoken individuals. Perhaps these individuals are so mired in the machinery of public entertainment they have lost the ability to discern the national tragedies from the day-to-day news. Perhaps their heartless, shameless views are the very limits of their contribution to society, and they do not know how else to report on the events. Perhaps they are simply that: heartless. Whatever the reason, there are individuals that use times of tragedy to opportunistically inject hatred and discrimin
Every now and then a real tragedy happens to real people, and it affects us on a national or even global scale. The Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine, 9/11, the D.C. snipers, the trapped West Virginia miners, and the recent shootings at Virginia Tech are a few American events in the last couple of decades that have stirred our collective hearts and welled our collective tears. Black, white, male, female, gay, straight, democrat, republican, rich, poor, religious, atheist -- our differences are obscured by grief.
Yet our melting pot of unity is marred by the slag of callous punditry and barbed blame from a few outspoken individuals. Perhaps these individuals are so mired in the machinery of public entertainment they have lost the ability to discern the national tragedies from the day-to-day news. Perhaps their heartless, shameless views are the very limits of their contribution to society, and they do not know how else to report on the events. Perhaps they are simply that: heartless. Whatever the reason, there are individuals that use times of tragedy to opportunistically inject hatred and discrimin