Monthly Archive for November, 2007Page 3 of 5

Giving Thanks to the Right People

Published

on November 21, 2007

I have commented about this before on another blog, but never written a post of my own concerning it.

On Monday we had our Thanksgiving lunch at work. Before we ate the president of the company did a prayer thanking God for our food and friendships. This has also often happened when my wife and I go to a cookout or dinner at her sister’s house with a large group of religious people.

Every time this happens, I always wonder why everyone thanks God and not the people that actually allowed the food to be sitting there in front of us?

We should be thanking the farmers for the turkeys and vegetables. My grandparents had a farm before I was born, and though I never visited it, I heard enough stories from them and my father that I knew farming was not the greatest job around. I can only imagine the conditions of being a poultry worker. I for one thank them, I know I wouldn’t want that job, but I do want to eat turkey.

Then there are the workers at the canning/frozen food factories. Probably not as difficult a job as a farmer or poultry worker, but still thankless in the big scheme of things. I have worked in a factory before and can attest this is true.

What about the truck drivers getting the food to my grocer? That’s another job, that me sitting in my cubicle, I know I wouldn’t want to do. I beg out of a 5 hour drive to Lubbock so I can take a plane there instead; I know I couldn’t handle driving for a living.

And speaking of the grocer, I remember a time when nearly every store was closed on Thanksgiving except the 7-11′s. now nearly every grocery store is open. Can’t forget about the almighty dollar, so those in retail don’t get the holiday off like the majority of us do. And don’t forget even if you are a retailer that gets Thursday off, chances are you are getting up at the butt-crack of dawn to go to work for Black Friday. That almighty dollar again. I think we know another god this country worships.

I am sure there are plenty more thankless jobs out there that help get my turkey and all the trimming to my table every Thanksgiving. So if you are like me and get caught into giving thanks to an imaginary being, do what I do, and silently think of all of those people and thank them and hope they are able to enjoy their holiday as much as you do. And even if you are religious, you should still give thanks to the right people as well as the god you believe in.

An Intelligent Challenge for Intelligent Design

Published

Chronicler of Reason

on November 20, 2007

In one word: Prove it.

Both fascinatingly and worryingly, there is an increasing discourse about the notion of ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID).

Rather, and allow me to clarify that previous statement, quote bait for ID proponents, there is an increasing discourse about Intelligent Design within the framework of science and education, notably with very mainstream and manipulative events.

Nobody in the science community will try and force someone not to believe in Intelligent Design, the notion of a higher purpose in the universe. Nobody will say a word about how the parents tries to ~~educate~~ indoctrinate their child within the realm of their home and/or church (although perhaps they should).

The problem with the modern ID push, and indeed, its reason to be, is that it is trying to wedge the discourse into education all over the world.

In a nutshell, Intelligent Design is an idea which claims that since science is inadequate to respond to very ominous and big Questions about existence, then there surely must be an intelligent designer to fill in the gaps.

Do not expect, of course, ID to present a shred of evidence to back up their claim, other than bringing up apparent ‘holes’ in the scientific theories of today and claiming that they must be filled with Intelligence of a higher order, since naturalism apparently cannot fill them.

The Intelligent Design Network maintains it believes in objectivity in science (an otherwise absolutely noble belief which I fervently subscribe to) yet it also believes in the promotion of ‘scientific evidence of intelligent design’ in order to achieve scientific neutrality. Of course, this leaves the fact that their ‘interpretation’ of the 0 point in the axes of neutrality rest firmly on their side of the 0. Not to mention that the scientific evidence of intelligent design has yet to materialise.

So far, the only points intelligent design has going for it is that it makes patently false statements about modern science and takes them as cues to introduce the Great Watchmaker. It also relies on including a great many quotes from scientists who profess belief, forgetting on the way that a quote from a scientist does not constitute any more evidence of the intelligent designer than a quote from a fashion artist.

Outlining the misconceptions of science Intelligent Design makes is a task that has been done to exhaustion yet the relentless religious fervour with which ID proponents follow their prey (i.e. post-Stone Age civilisation) begs that this task be done even more.

As I said at the beginning, nobody is trying to convince you otherwise if you believe there is a superior intelligence out there setting physical constants or even taking interest in terrestrial affairs.

Yet, in the full knowledge that the hallmark of a solid scientific theory is its ability to predict the future in light of current evidence, it’s hard not to conclude that Intelligent Design is a load of hot air. Indeed, to its credit, an interpretation of ID, namely “There is a Higher Intelligence/God/Allah/FSM and He did it” is quite apt at predicting the future and explaining the past in a lazy, convoluted and intellectually manipulative way, especially considering that the required evidence for ID to hold water is nowhere to be found.

So, in the tried and true model of challenging budding scientific theories (and otherwise, as in this case), there is but one simple requirement for ID to present in order for it to begin to hold water as a scientific and eventually educational theory:

Evidence.

Challenge: Bring me evidence, found on its own merit i.e. not child’s play ‘evidence’ of the kind: “Darwin recanted on his deathbed!”, “There are such a thing as transcendental numbers!”, “Quantum mechanics scares me so it must be God!”, “The eye is too complex to have evolved!”, etc. but more like what bubble trails are to particle physics kind of thing.

Response, if successful: I will videotape myself eating a popular edition (unabridged!) of the Origin of Species and post it to Youtube. That’s right, tearing off each individual page and ingesting The Origin of Species.

Good hunting.

P.S. Clarification: Holes in modern scientific theories do not automatically validate your own – at best, they eventually strengthen the modern science theory in question. Logic arguments do not constitute evidence. Biblical prophecies do not constitute evidence. Find me a genuine fossil of a dinosaur, dated with modern scientific methods to 6000 years ago which is used to sustain a peer-reviewed and accepted paper on ID and I shall recant.

“Do you think all religious people are stupid?”

Published

craigbennettstiles

on November 19, 2007

If you are an acknowledged atheist, sooner or later someone will ask you this question. The only ways to avoid it are to keep your atheism a secret, or to become a hermit. There is a certain type of religious person who views the mere existence of an atheist as an affront to their faith. (As they should: it is a weak argument in favor of atheism that skepticism is not prevented by supernatural means.)

This question is an attempt to trap an atheist — a rhetorical cleft stick. It invites a yes or no answer, and neither answer bodes well for the atheist. An answer of “yes” — however much the atheist may lean in that direction — is a direct insult, inviting retaliation. (The question is always asked by a theist.) If the atheist plays it safe and answers “no”, however, it suggests the thought “there are some religious people who are not stupid, so religion must be a smart choice, so the atheist must be stupid.” The question is approximately on a par with “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

The fact of the matter is that any atheist who has actually considered their own position would give an answer which is neither “no” nor “yes”, but closer to the latter. If given time or space to expand on the question, most atheists would answer along these lines: “The suppositions of religion contradict the observed state and operation of the world. A responsible, rational, and well-informed person would not become religious. But religions deliberately seek out people who are not responsible (usually by reason of youth), rational (often temporarily because of stress), or well-informed. Everyone in the world falls into at least one of these categories at some point, and so there is no shortage of people who become religious without a serious act of will, and who would not have done so if given a conscious choice.”

This answer — or one like it — is seldom allowed, if for no reason than it lacks panache. The question is intended to be part of a debate, and no matter how often one wishes things were otherwise, style often trumps truth in a debate. The questioner is testing you, and thoughtful-yet-styleless answers fail the test.

Recently, I found what I believe is an answer which is reasonably short, reasonably accurate, and better than a simple “yes” or “no”. I may not be the first to come up with it — in fact, I would be surprised if I were. But it is nearly a perfect metaphor.

“Do you think all people who eat candy are fat?”

“Do you think all religious people are stupid?”

Published

craigbennettstiles

on November 19, 2007

“Do you think all people who eat candy are fat?”

"May Affect Individual Salvation"

Published

Holy Prepuce

on November 17, 2007

Vote for a pro-choice politician and burn in Hell. So said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at this week's annual meeting. (Technically, the Bishops said such voting "may affect individual salvation," but we all know that's intellectual theologian code for pitchforks and eternal roasting.)

Guys, this is so not playing fair. By all means, go ahead and encourage the faithful to vote consistently with Roman Catholic teachings on abortion. There are perfectly logical arguments available as to why Catholics should vote for pro-life politicians. For example, if one believes that humans are ensouled from conception, and that the ensouled have a God-given, inviolate right to life, it's easy to see how this right could outweigh any maternal interest in reproductive autonomy and could require not only abstaining personally from abortion, but also voting to proscribe other citizens' acts that are tantamount to murder. I reject the supernatural premise of this argument, and independently reject its conclusions, but it's certainly a fair argument to raise among believers.

What seems unfair to me is to threaten voters with catastrophic supernatural consequences for not towing the line. Threatening catastrophic Earthly consequences for political decisions is one thing--voters can presumably evaluate for themselves the chances that impeding the Bush administration will result in "the smoking gun . . . be[ing] a mushroom cloud." But to suggest that Jesus is peering around the curtain at your Diebold Accuvote TSX--and will cast you into the abyss if you touch "Giuliani"--crosses a certain line.

Because, really, how can any pro-choice argument hope to prevail in this version of Pascal's wager? As long as one believes there is any non-zero probability of eternal punishment for voting pro-choice, the disutility of such a vote registers at infinity. The utility of a pro-choice vote--in support of rights exercisable only during the finite human lifespan--is necessarily lower.

To be fair, the Bishops also encouraged voting against evils such as racism, and there is a lot to like in the Church's social policy positions on poverty. I do consider it my ethical duty to vote for poverty relief and against racism. But I'll thank you, Conference of Bishops, to let me get there without supernatural threats of eternal torment.

"May Affect Individual Salvation"

Published

Holy Prepuce

on November 17, 2007

Big Fat Liars

Published

SPace

on November 16, 2007

I've not written in a while for a couple of reasons. One being that I broke my arm and it's hard to type without some sort of elbow support. The other is that I've just about realized the fruitlessness of debating theism, christianity, jesus, god, etc with theists because theists, especially christians (because of the sheer mass of christianity) are completely deluded by the biggest lie ever told

Published

DT Strain

on November 14, 2007

Recently a reader, J.L.A., commented on my post: Responses to Dr. Francis Collins. Thanks very much to him for reading and for the comment.

Dr. Collins had characterized atheists as being opposed to the 'possibility' of a God, and I corrected that this is not what atheism is. Rather, atheism is merely the lack of a belief that a God does exist; a subtle distinction in itself, though not the one that is the subject of this post. J.L.A. wrote in response:

It is certainly true Dr. Collins is overgeneralizing the view of some atheists. However, there are some atheists who are convinced that there is no god and think that anyone who believes in one is deluded (I have had the misfortune of knowing several of them myself). Unfortunately, they are often the most vocal people in the group and that is often the reason that others misunderstand the meaning of the term "atheism".

I think there is a subtle distinction at play here that goes unappreciated. This unappreciated distinction makes it appear there are more 'strong atheists' (those stating certainty that God is non-existent) than there actually are. In reality, in all my dealings with atheists, I don't know that I have ever really met one.

The subtle distinction is this:

While we cannot know whether or not the claim of a non-physical entity immune to empirical observation is true are false, we do know that it is irrational to hold a belief in either position - specifically due to that fact.

Therefore, people who believe in God are deluded. And, even if they someday die and find themselves looking at God in the face, they will still have been deluded during their lives.

In such a case, they would not have been deluded about the existence of God itself, but deluded in thinking that it is reasonable or rational to accept as true such an extraordinary claim without empirical evidence.

It would be like being convinced that J.L.A. is actually an alien from a planet on the other side of the galaxy, posing as a human. Even if this bizarre claim turned out to be correct by chance, one would be no less deluded in thinking it reasonable to hold such a belief without justifiable, rational reason. In fact, even a much more likely possibility, such as believing J.L.A. to be 110 years old, would be irrational without some sort of evidence to believe it.

So, what happens is that believers encounter an atheist of this nature, who certainly doesn't believe God is impossible or claim to know that such a being could never exist. But the atheist unfortunately projects a sense that he sees the believer as generally silly, irrational, and wrong. The perception on the part of the theist is correct, but they confuse the source of the atheist's attitude as being a belief that they are wrong about God, when in fact, the source of their attitude is the belief they are wrong in their belief in God, regardless of whether or not there is actually a God.

In that judgment, the weak atheist is correct: the theist is objectively wrong.

Where these kinds of atheists are wrong, however, is in their attitude; and I think this is what you may really be referring to when you mention your unfortunate association with such people. I would advise all atheists not to project such attitudes in the first place. Aside from it simply being uncivil and rude, it is also unfair and conceited. Of our many millions of thoughts, we are all wrong (i.e. deluded) about something, and there is no evidence that a person is necessarily dumb or deserving of such treatment merely for being a theist. Most people are deserving of respect, and that in no way requires any censorship of the substance of our critiques. Furthermore, such attitudes only serve to raise walls and hamper communication. And, of course, it also leads to this common misunderstanding about atheists in general as being people who deny even the possibility of a God.

Mature people should be capable of communicating their positions clearly without smugness, intolerance, or demeaning attitudes. We are all part of the same human family and all attempts to convey truth or reason should be made with compassion in mind, and with the attitude that engenders.

As for those few people who might actually claim to know that a God cannot possibly exist, I consider them equally as wrong in that extraordinary claim.

A Subtle Distinction

Published

DT Strain

on November 14, 2007

It is certainly true Dr. Collins is overgeneralizing the view of some atheists. However, there are some atheists who are convinced that there is no god and think that anyone who believes in one is deluded (I have had the misfortune of knowing several of them myself). Unfortunately, they are often the most vocal people in the group and that is often the reason that others misunderstand the meaning of the term "atheism".

FreeThinker’s Forum

Published

CHADMAC

on November 12, 2007

One of my MySpace friends, Gadfly, has started a new site called the Free Thinkers Forum. For anyone interested in discussions about free thought, reason, religion and science you may want to check out this site.

The motto for the site:

Free Thinker's Forum, dedicated to freeing the majority, one mind at a time

So, if you are interested please head on over to take a look.

Cheers,
Me

Night and Day

Published

Devout Atheist

on November 12, 2007

(with apologies to Cole Porter)

Night and Day, You made neither one.
Without You we have both the moon and the afternoon sun.
People search both near and far,
For a god, whatever You are,
They think of you night and day.
Day and night, why is it so,
That this longing for You follows wherever they go?
In the roaring preacher's boom,
in the darkness of a lonely room,
They think of you night and day.
Night and day, it really gets to me,
there's an oh, such a bilious anger
burning inside of me.
And its torment won't be through
‘til it’s clear the world does move along without any You,
day and night, night and day.