Skip to content

Author Archive for Disposable

Erratum, or, Message to Mr. Bum

Published

by

on August 6, 2011

.

I took some ad hominem material out of a previous post (Return of the Pink Poseur). I can see the ad hominem remarks could easily be miscontstrued as sexist- rather than being dismissive of someone I don't respect (who happens to be female), it might seem as though I hate females/feminists and am being dismissive for that reason (the snark is preserved for posterity in a comment on the post).

One comment I did not retract is that of 'professional victim'. In the infamous CFI talk, Skepchick said that her 'objectification' by EG and subsequent criticism by Stef McGraw would lead rape victims to avoid conferences. I used the term 'professional victim' to describe my unease with skepchick's way of using anecdotal evidence from her own life and painting herself as a victim as material for her talks.

So anyway, clarifications aside, this is my fourth post now written about skepchick/EG. And you may be wondering, am I obsessed? I'm pretty much stalking her online, right? Is it fair to assume males are put together that way- our criticism is a means of fulfilling destructive urges, or overcompensating?

To be honest I don't feel threatened by discussion in the area of gender/ feminism- in fact I find such discussions fascinating, and I am not afraid to represent my point of view. I don't consider my gender or any privileges that a bystander could presume I had to affect the validity of my arguments.

I feel angry about this issue because the consensus of the majority in the blogosphere is wrong, in my opinion, and that's not often the case. My frustration leads to the kind of dismissals that non-accomodationists would use on a regular basis.

Finally, Barefoot Bum, if you're reading, I would like to request a favour- re-visit my last post. Not to disallow my "Stupid, it burns" award, but to let me know what it was about my parallel construction exercise that was sexist. Allow me to elaborate on it a little...

My point was that we don't conciously scan statements like the one made by skepchick in her EG blog post for sexism. We just aren't expecting it. When we flip the gender roles in the example provided, it becomes more apparent that the original statement might have been sexist, in the sense that in the masculine we would call paternalistic.

I think a sexist statement coming from a gender expert can cause cognitive dissonance, which could have caused you to prematurely (!) dismiss this argument.

Cheers!

Return of the Pink Poseur

Published

by

on August 2, 2011

.

Is it worth writing more about a person who seems to be a professional victim? Why not one last try.

So, full disclosure, I had not noticed this person called skepchick (Rebecca Watson) til the EG incident was brought to my attention by Hemant. I was vaguely aware she did podcasts, but I don’t listen to things that aren’t awesome and excerpted on youtube- and I believe she doesn’t have anything of this nature. I just started paying attention when the whingeing and whining began.

The statement that began our winter of discontent:

A word to the wise, guys… don’t do that. I can’t begin to express to you how uncomfortable this makes me…don’t invite me back to your hotel room, right after I just finished explaining how this creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me…

Ah, yes. Now, let’s use a parallel example provided by Dale Husband, writing in support of Watson. He writes of a situation where he was objectified by a woman:

Several years ago, I was at a gas station when I was approached by a woman I soon realized was a prostitute. She asked me if I wanted to go on “dates” with her and then asked for money. After figuring out that she was propositioning me for sex, I was so repulsed that I immediately went into station and told the employees about the woman, and the promised me that they would get rid of her, even as she was proceeding to hit on other men at the station!

Let’s say that had happened to me, and I blogged about it in this way:

A word to the wise, girls… don’t do that. I can’t begin to express to you how uncomfortable this makes me…don’t invite me back to your hotel room, right after I just finished paying for my gas, when you can see my platinum card…

LOL, I’m sure you’ll agree. I would rightly be called a misogynist for talking to my general audience as if they were all prostitutes.

But why is it different for Rebecca when she talks to males as if they were date-rapists? This is misandry, and sure, it isn’t a big problem in our society- but I’m the kind of person who will get pissed off by religions, just because they happen to be wrong, and her misandrous attitude pisses me off just the same.

Not to mention that Watson basically lumps the elevator guy in with rapists, that’s pretty mean when you consider that we live in a society where men conventionally make the first move (and often badly).

I think that Watson is a misandrist, and I think she would have limited success setting up a skeptic community among gender feminists (as we’re all familiar with their love of science).

Rape and Signal Detection

Published

by

on July 7, 2011

.

Research blogged at yesmeansyes indicates that about 6% of males are rapists (from a military sample). Most of these rapists also know their victims, and use alcohol and drinking to perform and get away with rape.

Phaedra Starling gives an example called Schroedinger’s rapist: that (all) unknown males are potential rapists. She describes that potential in terms that would remind physicists of signal detection (all emphases hers):

To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%...

The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

I’m going to focus on these points because I think they’re the most intellectually interesting that she raises. I don’t know if she purposely cast the question in scientific terms in order to appeal to male sensibilities, but I think it works, and I would like to extend it.

When working in signal detection, we aim to detect signals and ignore noise by setting a threshold for what will be considered as a signal.

The two errors that can occur are false negatives (signal is under threshold, not detected) and false positives (noise is over threshold, false ‘signal’ detected).

In any but the most clear-cut situations, noise is going to be a problem and these errors are going to occur. What is interesting, though, is that the person interpreting the signal can decide whether they’d rather receive false positives or false negatives by changing the signal threshold.

You have to choose your poison: In the case of medical tests, we move the threshold down, as false negatives are what we want to avoid (tests can be repeated in the event of a false positive); in case of a trial by jury, we set the threshold for evidence fairly high, following the legal maxim that it is better to let 10 guilty walk than imprison a single innocent.

Phaedra Starling’s signal detection problem, Schroedinger’s rapist, is likely to have a low threshold. In order to keep the danger of rape (a false negative) as low as possible, males who does not communicate well must be turned away (the false positive- a normal person mistaken for a rapist). This is the only way in which this signal detection can work- a low threshold is essential to its function.

I think that it is perfectly reasonable to be uncomfortable and suspicious of a person that propositions you late in the evening in an enclosed space. Skepchick was right in taking all precautions to avoid a potential sexual assault.

When he was turned away and nothing happened, though, we should be intellectually honest enough to admit that it this was a false positive.

Unwanted attention is unpleasant, and we have all had it, whether male or female, and have been in situations where we have been scared of the person. When nothing goes wrong, there are two possibilities- you were lucky, or perhaps the person was not as bad as you thought they were.

Watson’s comment on the issue was arrogant in not acknowledging this possibility. I would not expect this attitude from a reason-based individual. We’re supposed to be able to revise our views based upon evidence. If we were free to speculate without resort to reason, one might come up with the following counter-narrative:

In the youtube clip, she talks, as if to him, but in a generalized manner. She is talking down to him, as she knows that she occupies a position of higher status. What is profoundly bizarre, though, is that she seeks to prolong their relationship at all by communicating with him. This ultimately undermines her claim that he was scary in the first place. Also, she hates sexualisation of women but sells calendars of sexy skepchicks on her website.

Emotional Slapstick

Published

by

on July 3, 2011

.

So Skepchick was stalked by a Forever Alone (n. “a social misfit”). She- two-tone pink and orange hair, a radical’s mix of social and antisocial. Him- unknown name or hair-color, unknown raping ability.

She shamed him on video later, not for social deficiencies but an insufficient regard for her personal security.

Stef McGraw suggested a nicer spin, where the forever alone guy was a sweet fellow with a crush (and it could have been wonderful). Let's explore this fantasia...

I don’t think sex would have been on the cards: in my screenplay, they’re both very nervous about such things. Indeed they do have coffee: there is a strange intimacy as can only be rigged between two travellers sharing ideas. They decide to go for a walk: barefoot they clamber on the rocks of the seaside, breathing the cool emptiness of the city, the cold grey light of the morning upon the water.

Indeed, it was not like this, for he is just a fan: he does not yet realize that her blog has not held him with electronic arms. Defeated, he stumbles to his room, his rejection heavy about him as a sin, soon to be multiplied tenfold.

The times she’d been propositioned, like anyone, were few: this was a significant event- it had to be made sensible, or it would remain disturbing. After a little thought, the right thing to do became clear. She would be cool about it, not mention it ‘til halfway through the video, then just make note of the infractions made, and let everyone know that it’s not cool. Oh! She’d even been talking about sexualization of women earlier that evening! Boom! How perfect is that?

There, the world was righted again. What had threatened to become personal had been turned neatly political.

The definite misogynist, putative rapist will see it all unfold: his world crumbling down as blog after blog declares an opinion, all too few sympathetic, and Dickie Dawkins' surreal ravings far too unhip to be useful.

In the ashes he will find his lesson: to build his cachet, to be blasé around women, to only invest when sure of a return. It’s not romantic, but c’est la vie.

Player Movement (A basketball-management love poem)

Published

by

on March 13, 2011

.

Let me forget your upside
and allow your contract to
expire. Free agents all.
We'll draft for a
more finished export,
having found that
unearned court time
merely sets up a player to fail.

I must stop developing you,
I cannot coach my love.

Player Movement (A basketball-management love poem)

Published

by

on March 13, 2011

.

Let me forget your upside
and allow your contract to
expire. Free agents all.
We'll draft for a
more finished export,
having found that
unearned court time
merely sets up a player to fail.

I must stop developing you,
I cannot coach my love.

Inherit the Wind

Published

by

on January 17, 2011

.

From David Baddiel & Arvind Ethan David's contribution to The Atheist's Guide to Christmas, entitled 'An Atheist at the Movies':

About the only mainstream film that we could think of with an integral atheist hero and message at its core is the dramatisation of the Scopes Monkey Trial, Inherit the Wind. Brilliant though this film is, and explicitly atheistic through the poin of view of its hero, it is more akin to a documentary - being a fairly careful recreation of the events of that landmark trial - than a true fictitious piece of cinematic myth.

Also, it's like fifty years old and no one alive has heard of, still less seen it.

Well, we should correct that right away. This is a brilliant film, great fun for any rationalist or retro movie fan. Also should be noted, Donna Anderson is a stone fox.

Inherit the Wind

Published

by

on January 17, 2011

.

From David Baddiel & Arvind Ethan David's contribution to The Atheist's Guide to Christmas, entitled 'An Atheist at the Movies':

About the only mainstream film that we could think of with an integral atheist hero and message at its core is the dramatisation of the Scopes Monkey Trial, Inherit the Wind. Brilliant though this film is, and explicitly atheistic through the poin of view of its hero, it is more akin to a documentary - being a fairly careful recreation of the events of that landmark trial - than a true fictitious piece of cinematic myth.

Also, it's like fifty years old and no one alive has heard of, still less seen it.

Well, we should correct that right away. This is a brilliant film, great fun for any rationalist or retro movie fan. Also should be noted, Donna Anderson is a stone fox.

New Atheism and Accomodationism in conversation, Pt 4

Published

by

on December 23, 2010

.

My friend's response:

Re: techno-triumphalism, I am definitely not a Luddite, there is no need to be black and white about these issues. I have the leisure and the insanely amazing technology at my finger tips that allow me to converse with you... it would be silly not be grateful for our situation.

I am just pointing out that our society is facing some complex problems, and we need our best minds to be thinking about them: for example, if the world economy crashes due to peaking oil supplies (which seems possible) there is likely to be a nasty sequence of events... from what I understand we are not coming up with technological solutions for peak oil and natural gas. To point this out is not to say "science is bad", but that there are bigger things going on than acid attacks in Afghanistan (although such things are clearly horrific and deeply depressing).

Re: rationality being a good basis for decision making – I don’t want to get into a language debate but I view rationality as a tool (e.g. you set your goals and then use rational means to achieve them – if you want to climb Everest it is rational to take a Sherpa and oxygen, if you want to keep having all your toes it is probably not rational to climb Everest.... there are lots of goals we have that are not rational (and many rational seeming sub-goals are only rational in context of the larger goal which is irrational).

Is it rational to eat, to try to achieve social dominance, to want to keep living, to be a Communist or a Neo-Liberal? Just saying that human motivation is complex and we should be careful with language.

That is a side point though, re: your main point, I can’t disagree that public decisions, laws etc. should be informed by science and expert opinion.... but let’s not pretend that religion is the only source of “irrationality” or that science/ philosophy can easily resolve moral/ethical quandaries by simply adding more facts.... which is a shame....

Generally I am interested in the reasoning behind the "New Atheist" movement - why does the issue seem so pressing, is it the best use of the time and intellectual energy of the individuals involved?

I have a lot of respect for scientists and work with many highly trained people, MDs etc, but I can't help feeling that the passion that "New Atheists" have for their topic of interest could be better directed by living by what they have decided are the best objective moral values.

By helping poorer societies become more orderly, equitable, and less encumbered by complex issues (many of which we have had a least a small hand in creating) they might actually improve the living conditions of the people who live in these countries.

The point I was making about the details is that it may be a mistake to blame specific passages of religious texts for the bad behaviour of religious people, given that the bad behaviour in question seems to be almost universal. I think that greed and short sightedness may be a better explanation for many issues we face.

From my perspective, it is a fairly short distance between our viewpoints and I want to again remind you that I am a long time Dawkins fan who just thinks his most recent moves have been questionable....

And so I continued:

I don't necessarily agree that science can be characterised as monolithic enough to say that it has its priorities wrong. Green chemistry for instance is a developing field where environmental concerns are weighed equally with traditional chemical concerns of yield and purity.
If we were to discuss this criticism, however, it should be with a view of the economic environment in which science occurs. Science is very slow and expensive, due to the nature of experimental technique and the inevitable difficulties encountered with novel techniques. Greater funding must be acquired if these areas are to be explored: greater funding for non-commercial projects involves political will. Political will for environmental projects will only be enabled by education and the situation getting bad enough to affect people's day-to-day lives.

New atheism is a popular movement. Bertrand Russell was expressing these same views throughout his life as captured on film in 1959 - the American founding fathers were deistic secularists, etc. It is a political position, recognising religious organisations as political entities and balancing their influence. To ask a person like this to justify their involvement would be akin to asking why a Green politician does what they do when they could potentially save more lives making a vaccine- people have rights to their own perspective. Surely a scientific approach to assessing humanitarian costs and benefits would go some way towards resolving these issues if people really needed guidance, but I don't believe that they really do.

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that bad behaviour seems to be universal. Harris' point about there being different levels of harm from different religions seems to refute it (eg islam vs quakers, baptists vs C of E). If the suggestion is that bad behaviour is evenly spread among all demographics, it would be trivial to refute (ie incidence of murder convictions among Nobel prize winners).

Greed and short-sightedness indeed ARE good explanations for human behaviour. However, religion is anti-psychological. Mental illnesses are not recognised as real by a majority of religions, and recommended treatments for these conditions by churches is usually faith-based rather than medical.

Many Christian faiths have a folk understanding of psychology based upon Paul's doctrine of original sin. The unfortunate corollary is that all good behaviour is then divinely inspired- the idea of 'common grace' supplied by the holy spirit- which I believe disempowers followers to construct their own individual morality.
The ubiquitous morality of the church is then determined in a somewhat autocratic fashion by church leaders, and this subjects the masses to a moral framework which serves primarily the interests of the Church. This is where the greed and short-sightedness can frequently appear, but church leaders are unique among the citizens of the world in their ability to avoid moral scrutiny. Atheism supports the potential establishment of a world in which all individuals can be held accountable in equal measure- where there is potential for the establishment of the rule of law.

In comparison with you, I am a new-school Dawkins fan. Although as a scientist I respect his pop-scientific writing, and the gene's-eye view of evolution was really novel, I don't enjoy these books as much as the God Delusion.
As a polemicist he is astounding, a true Germaine Greer, and just as capable of transforming popular culture. Destroying timid, bullied society's sacred cows is each one's work, but needn't be feared, because these conflicts are long-overdue, and give rise to a more interesting and equitable future.

New Atheism and Accomodationism in conversation, Pt 4

Published

by

on December 23, 2010

.

My friend's response:

Re: techno-triumphalism, I am definitely not a Luddite, there is no need to be black and white about these issues. I have the leisure and the insanely amazing technology at my finger tips that allow me to converse with you... it would be silly not be grateful for our situation.

I am just pointing out that our society is facing some complex problems, and we need our best minds to be thinking about them: for example, if the world economy crashes due to peaking oil supplies (which seems possible) there is likely to be a nasty sequence of events... from what I understand we are not coming up with technological solutions for peak oil and natural gas. To point this out is not to say "science is bad", but that there are bigger things going on than acid attacks in Afghanistan (although such things are clearly horrific and deeply depressing).

Re: rationality being a good basis for decision making – I don’t want to get into a language debate but I view rationality as a tool (e.g. you set your goals and then use rational means to achieve them – if you want to climb Everest it is rational to take a Sherpa and oxygen, if you want to keep having all your toes it is probably not rational to climb Everest.... there are lots of goals we have that are not rational (and many rational seeming sub-goals are only rational in context of the larger goal which is irrational).

Is it rational to eat, to try to achieve social dominance, to want to keep living, to be a Communist or a Neo-Liberal? Just saying that human motivation is complex and we should be careful with language.

That is a side point though, re: your main point, I can’t disagree that public decisions, laws etc. should be informed by science and expert opinion.... but let’s not pretend that religion is the only source of “irrationality” or that science/ philosophy can easily resolve moral/ethical quandaries by simply adding more facts.... which is a shame....

Generally I am interested in the reasoning behind the "New Atheist" movement - why does the issue seem so pressing, is it the best use of the time and intellectual energy of the individuals involved?

I have a lot of respect for scientists and work with many highly trained people, MDs etc, but I can't help feeling that the passion that "New Atheists" have for their topic of interest could be better directed by living by what they have decided are the best objective moral values.

By helping poorer societies become more orderly, equitable, and less encumbered by complex issues (many of which we have had a least a small hand in creating) they might actually improve the living conditions of the people who live in these countries.

The point I was making about the details is that it may be a mistake to blame specific passages of religious texts for the bad behaviour of religious people, given that the bad behaviour in question seems to be almost universal. I think that greed and short sightedness may be a better explanation for many issues we face.

From my perspective, it is a fairly short distance between our viewpoints and I want to again remind you that I am a long time Dawkins fan who just thinks his most recent moves have been questionable....

And so I continued:

I don't necessarily agree that science can be characterised as monolithic enough to say that it has its priorities wrong. Green chemistry for instance is a developing field where environmental concerns are weighed equally with traditional chemical concerns of yield and purity.
If we were to discuss this criticism, however, it should be with a view of the economic environment in which science occurs. Science is very slow and expensive, due to the nature of experimental technique and the inevitable difficulties encountered with novel techniques. Greater funding must be acquired if these areas are to be explored: greater funding for non-commercial projects involves political will. Political will for environmental projects will only be enabled by education and the situation getting bad enough to affect people's day-to-day lives.

New atheism is a popular movement. Bertrand Russell was expressing these same views throughout his life as captured on film in 1959 - the American founding fathers were deistic secularists, etc. It is a political position, recognising religious organisations as political entities and balancing their influence. To ask a person like this to justify their involvement would be akin to asking why a Green politician does what they do when they could potentially save more lives making a vaccine- people have rights to their own perspective. Surely a scientific approach to assessing humanitarian costs and benefits would go some way towards resolving these issues if people really needed guidance, but I don't believe that they really do.

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that bad behaviour seems to be universal. Harris' point about there being different levels of harm from different religions seems to refute it (eg islam vs quakers, baptists vs C of E). If the suggestion is that bad behaviour is evenly spread among all demographics, it would be trivial to refute (ie incidence of murder convictions among Nobel prize winners).

Greed and short-sightedness indeed ARE good explanations for human behaviour. However, religion is anti-psychological. Mental illnesses are not recognised as real by a majority of religions, and recommended treatments for these conditions by churches is usually faith-based rather than medical.

Many Christian faiths have a folk understanding of psychology based upon Paul's doctrine of original sin. The unfortunate corollary is that all good behaviour is then divinely inspired- the idea of 'common grace' supplied by the holy spirit- which I believe disempowers followers to construct their own individual morality.
The ubiquitous morality of the church is then determined in a somewhat autocratic fashion by church leaders, and this subjects the masses to a moral framework which serves primarily the interests of the Church. This is where the greed and short-sightedness can frequently appear, but church leaders are unique among the citizens of the world in their ability to avoid moral scrutiny. Atheism supports the potential establishment of a world in which all individuals can be held accountable in equal measure- where there is potential for the establishment of the rule of law.

In comparison with you, I am a new-school Dawkins fan. Although as a scientist I respect his pop-scientific writing, and the gene's-eye view of evolution was really novel, I don't enjoy these books as much as the God Delusion.
As a polemicist he is astounding, a true Germaine Greer, and just as capable of transforming popular culture. Destroying timid, bullied society's sacred cows is each one's work, but needn't be feared, because these conflicts are long-overdue, and give rise to a more interesting and equitable future.

New Atheism and Accomodationism in conversation, Pt 3

Published

by

on December 21, 2010

.

My friend continued:

You may actually be right regarding the New Atheists, but I tend to assume that they follow a conservative party line with respect to issues other than religion e.g. they tend not to question capitalism and perhaps may tend to moral conservatism? If this is true (I need to do some more research) it puts the lie to the claim of being free thinkers because their views would seem to be determined by their socio-cultural identity.

I also suspect that as scientifically minded individuals they may have an odor of "techno-triumphalism"- an almost religious faith that science will save us (which I personally doubt).

As far as the Abrahamic religions go, you are right that those pesky bits in the bible seem to be co-opted by the more right wing religious folk particularly US Pentecostal churches (and apparently Mormons too). I do know at least one Christian family who are strongly environmentally minded but they are possibly an exception...

I do wonder to what extent intelligent and scientifically minded people get hung-up on the details e.g. God said X, you believe in God, thus your behaviour can be explained by passage X.

There is a hell of a lot of material in the Bible that can be latched on to (as you know) which could be used to put an environmentalist case or indeed many other cases.... most societies, including our own, the Communist countries, even Hindu India have tended to decimate their environments in the last 100 years - is religious justification just icing on the top of a corporate and profit-driven cake?

As an environmentally concerned person it is hard to know if the good fight is at the level of "God does not exist therefore stop justifying your pollution". Politicians have many other justifications such as jobs, competition, trade, "is not a scientific fact" etc. etc.

Also worth noting that apparently the connection between Republicanism and religion is fairly recent and that in the sixties and earlier there was a more of connection between Democrats and the religious (maybe picking up on the "help the poor” stuff rather than the “dominion" bit- if there needs to be a rational explanation for the political allegience at all)

All in all I guess that I tend towards a fairly nihilistic view of humanity's short term future and suspect that fighting religion, while well intentioned, is not likely to make enough change to address more fundamental crises such as the ones I mentioned - and I also worry that religion will become more powerful and ugly when things do go wrong.... damn those Doomer blogs....

Finally a bit of a thought experiment: if we could come up with a "religion" that encouraged "golden rule" type thinking, included rituals and techniques including group pressure that actually got people to behave nicely and sustainably while believing in a benevolent God figure who just popped them on earth for seven decades or so to have a nice time and learn, and then scooped them up again when they died..... would you be for it if it really worked?

(We would be among the elite priest class who know that it is all a helpful fiction :))

...Erm, I think that thought experiment is fairly "Brave New World" now that I look at it.... hmmm

My response:

There are a variety of positions on the political spectrum represented amongst scientists. However the New Atheists are by and large a strongly left-wing, feminist group, and awareness of climate research means that acceptance of AGW is high.

As far as ‘techno-triumphalism’ goes, it's worth assessing what life would be like without these technologies. Higher food costs, existence of smallpox and polio in developed world, no recorded music… There is a basis for some pride in the achievements of our science and technology culture. This does not mean that scientists are complacent- our main information about AGW is scientific, they are the ones raising the alarm. It simply means that policy decisions should be made in light of scientific consensus, something that is hindered by irrational thought of any kind. (We should note that science differs from religion in that it is self-correcting- it does not rely upon dogma or doctrine but competing streams of scepticism).

I don’t see science or rationality as being hung up on details. I think that the world is made up of little details, and there is some objective good in people telling the truth, and trying to explain the details with reference to empirical data. I think that this is the reason I would reject the society outlined in your thought experiment. Kant would say this was using people as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. I believe that by increasing the profile of rationality and science, by education, we increase social capital and improve a population’s ability to find optimal solutions for themselves.

New Atheism and Accomodationism in conversation, Pt 3

Published

by

on December 21, 2010

.

My friend continued:

You may actually be right regarding the New Atheists, but I tend to assume that they follow a conservative party line with respect to issues other than religion e.g. they tend not to question capitalism and perhaps may tend to moral conservatism? If this is true (I need to do some more research) it puts the lie to the claim of being free thinkers because their views would seem to be determined by their socio-cultural identity.

I also suspect that as scientifically minded individuals they may have an odor of "techno-triumphalism"- an almost religious faith that science will save us (which I personally doubt).

As far as the Abrahamic religions go, you are right that those pesky bits in the bible seem to be co-opted by the more right wing religious folk particularly US Pentecostal churches (and apparently Mormons too). I do know at least one Christian family who are strongly environmentally minded but they are possibly an exception...

I do wonder to what extent intelligent and scientifically minded people get hung-up on the details e.g. God said X, you believe in God, thus your behaviour can be explained by passage X.

There is a hell of a lot of material in the Bible that can be latched on to (as you know) which could be used to put an environmentalist case or indeed many other cases.... most societies, including our own, the Communist countries, even Hindu India have tended to decimate their environments in the last 100 years - is religious justification just icing on the top of a corporate and profit-driven cake?

As an environmentally concerned person it is hard to know if the good fight is at the level of "God does not exist therefore stop justifying your pollution". Politicians have many other justifications such as jobs, competition, trade, "is not a scientific fact" etc. etc.

Also worth noting that apparently the connection between Republicanism and religion is fairly recent and that in the sixties and earlier there was a more of connection between Democrats and the religious (maybe picking up on the "help the poor” stuff rather than the “dominion" bit- if there needs to be a rational explanation for the political allegience at all)

All in all I guess that I tend towards a fairly nihilistic view of humanity's short term future and suspect that fighting religion, while well intentioned, is not likely to make enough change to address more fundamental crises such as the ones I mentioned - and I also worry that religion will become more powerful and ugly when things do go wrong.... damn those Doomer blogs....

Finally a bit of a thought experiment: if we could come up with a "religion" that encouraged "golden rule" type thinking, included rituals and techniques including group pressure that actually got people to behave nicely and sustainably while believing in a benevolent God figure who just popped them on earth for seven decades or so to have a nice time and learn, and then scooped them up again when they died..... would you be for it if it really worked?

(We would be among the elite priest class who know that it is all a helpful fiction :))

...Erm, I think that thought experiment is fairly "Brave New World" now that I look at it.... hmmm

My response:

There are a variety of positions on the political spectrum represented amongst scientists. However the New Atheists are by and large a strongly left-wing, feminist group, and awareness of climate research means that acceptance of AGW is high.

As far as ‘techno-triumphalism’ goes, it's worth assessing what life would be like without these technologies. Higher food costs, existence of smallpox and polio in developed world, no recorded music… There is a basis for some pride in the achievements of our science and technology culture. This does not mean that scientists are complacent- our main information about AGW is scientific, they are the ones raising the alarm. It simply means that policy decisions should be made in light of scientific consensus, something that is hindered by irrational thought of any kind. (We should note that science differs from religion in that it is self-correcting- it does not rely upon dogma or doctrine but competing streams of scepticism).

I don’t see science or rationality as being hung up on details. I think that the world is made up of little details, and there is some objective good in people telling the truth, and trying to explain the details with reference to empirical data. I think that this is the reason I would reject the society outlined in your thought experiment. Kant would say this was using people as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. I believe that by increasing the profile of rationality and science, by education, we increase social capital and improve a population’s ability to find optimal solutions for themselves.

New Atheism and Accomodationism in conversation, Pt 2

Published

by

on December 19, 2010

.

My friend continued:

I am pretty sure that ethics is a part of everybody's lives on a day to day basis e.g. making decisions about whether to cheat at cards or taxes, or contribute money to cause x, and that in a predominantly non-religious society like ours people make these decisions without consulting God, clergy, ethicists, neurobiologists or psychologists...

I'm not totally sure how they make these decisions except that is clearly driven by that innate moral sense which is also steered and possibly co-opted by early learning, exposure to religion, peers, mood, what they saw on TV last night... a long and arbitrary list.

The newspapers are filled with ethical dilemmas and debates – and in addition, many policy questions involve an efficiency vs. equity trade-off that has to be viewed in both economic and ethical terms. These type of issues are generally resolved without involvement of professional ethicists of any stripe.

There are some issues where clergy clearly seem to get the floor – maybe euthanasia for example, but I don’t know if they have the floor exclusively, with op-eds and 60 Minutes type shows usually putting both sides (if only to make things more juicy!)

It seems that the point is at least in part around who has "voice" in our culture and our media around tricky issues such as genetic testing of embryos, abortion, gay marriage etc.

My hope is to find Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or many of the other thinkers that I admire in many ways taking on more controversial topics: current wars the West is involved in, peak oil, excessive consumption, and third world debt.

These are all more complex issues than whether or not God says you can marry a 12 year old against her will, and the underlying ideologies, while not religious (except possibly the Iraq war) deserve to be unpacked and attacked in the same way these religious questions are attacked. That is, if the real concern is a more moral society and not just a knee jerk response to a bearded dude who claims to know God's will.

I responded:

As you say, ours is a secular society, but non-religious people are still a minority. The "religious issues" such as genetic testing of embryos, abortion, and gay marriage actually affect all of the population- and I believe that the imposition of majority views upon minority rights make these civil rights issues. I think that the complex issues that you raise are important, but we should begin with these simple "low-hanging fruit" issues first.

As far as the other issues are concerned, I believe that those are religious/atheist issues too. I don’t know if you have met many religious environmentalists, but in Genesis it says that man was given dominion over the earth- and it has been found that biblical literalism has a negative correlation with willingness for environmental spending (Greeley 1993).

This indicates that faith in God’s provenance is often used as a solution to problems of this kind. Utah’s house of representatives has passed a bill saying that AGW is a hoax, and many religious groups claim that environmentalism is a destructive new religion.

It is important to realise that the New Atheists are rational and mainly liberal, and are likely to hold progressive views, but are focusing their efforts on what they see to be the root of the problem. I’m inclined to follow their lead, having had many unproductive debates on the complex issues- usually with people who have a limited willingness to listen to evidence.

Your model of the innate moral sense seems to illustrate the importance of the moral influences that we are exposed to. If this is true, then the matter of religion having ‘the voice’ becomes an important one, especially if we can argue that they unfairly claim authority for their stances.

New Atheism and Accomodationism in conversation, Pt 2

Published

by

on December 19, 2010

.

My friend continued:

I am pretty sure that ethics is a part of everybody's lives on a day to day basis e.g. making decisions about whether to cheat at cards or taxes, or contribute money to cause x, and that in a predominantly non-religious society like ours people make these decisions without consulting God, clergy, ethicists, neurobiologists or psychologists...

I'm not totally sure how they make these decisions except that is clearly driven by that innate moral sense which is also steered and possibly co-opted by early learning, exposure to religion, peers, mood, what they saw on TV last night... a long and arbitrary list.

The newspapers are filled with ethical dilemmas and debates – and in addition, many policy questions involve an efficiency vs. equity trade-off that has to be viewed in both economic and ethical terms. These type of issues are generally resolved without involvement of professional ethicists of any stripe.

There are some issues where clergy clearly seem to get the floor – maybe euthanasia for example, but I don’t know if they have the floor exclusively, with op-eds and 60 Minutes type shows usually putting both sides (if only to make things more juicy!)

It seems that the point is at least in part around who has "voice" in our culture and our media around tricky issues such as genetic testing of embryos, abortion, gay marriage etc.

My hope is to find Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or many of the other thinkers that I admire in many ways taking on more controversial topics: current wars the West is involved in, peak oil, excessive consumption, and third world debt.

These are all more complex issues than whether or not God says you can marry a 12 year old against her will, and the underlying ideologies, while not religious (except possibly the Iraq war) deserve to be unpacked and attacked in the same way these religious questions are attacked. That is, if the real concern is a more moral society and not just a knee jerk response to a bearded dude who claims to know God's will.

I responded:

As you say, ours is a secular society, but non-religious people are still a minority. The "religious issues" such as genetic testing of embryos, abortion, and gay marriage actually affect all of the population- and I believe that the imposition of majority views upon minority rights make these civil rights issues. I think that the complex issues that you raise are important, but we should begin with these simple "low-hanging fruit" issues first.

As far as the other issues are concerned, I believe that those are religious/atheist issues too. I don’t know if you have met many religious environmentalists, but in Genesis it says that man was given dominion over the earth- and it has been found that biblical literalism has a negative correlation with willingness for environmental spending (Greeley 1993).

This indicates that faith in God’s provenance is often used as a solution to problems of this kind. Utah’s house of representatives has passed a bill saying that AGW is a hoax, and many religious groups claim that environmentalism is a destructive new religion.

It is important to realise that the New Atheists are rational and mainly liberal, and are likely to hold progressive views, but are focusing their efforts on what they see to be the root of the problem. I’m inclined to follow their lead, having had many unproductive debates on the complex issues- usually with people who have a limited willingness to listen to evidence.

Your model of the innate moral sense seems to illustrate the importance of the moral influences that we are exposed to. If this is true, then the matter of religion having ‘the voice’ becomes an important one, especially if we can argue that they unfairly claim authority for their stances.

New Atheism and Accomodationism in conversation, Pt 1

Published

by

on December 18, 2010

.

A good friend of mine had just returned from six month’s travel in India. Although an atheist, he pursued his interest in spirituality by visiting temples and yogis during his travels. Home may have seemed mundane in comparison. We were having a catch-up, playing frisbee in the park with another friend, when the conversation turned to the New Atheists.

I had read the God Delusion and broadly agreed with it, possibly as a result of becoming focused on science as a career, and had been following a number of atheist blogs. My friend was unaware of this, and I’m sure he wouldn’t have expressed his opinion so strongly had he known my nascent anti-theism.

‘Richard Dawkins is a good biologist, but when it comes to religion, he is a big wally’.

He also brought up the other canard regarding the God Delusion- ‘Dawkins doesn’t know anything about theology’. I had to ask whether he had read the God Delusion, because Dawkins explains why theology is a red herring and not at all an area of expertise in the book. My friend admitted that despite having been given a copy, he had not read it. Dawkins' tone, or his image, had turned off the philosophical enquiry that was a big part of my friend's personality.

I reacted in the manner of a New Atheist stereotype. When I was told that religion helps people to be humble I had to laugh- look at all the mullahs and cardinals who presume to tell everyone how to live- humble? I told my friend that at least it was helping him take an intellectually humble position.

The conversation became quite barbed and emotional. How great was it to be a smart asshole? I did feel like one, and I had been quite cavalier with the company of my friends. We sensibly moved on to less touchy subjects.

The same topic arose in a later conversation- after I had seen Sam Harris' TED talk on 'the Moral Landscape'. I was railing against moral relativism- saying that no matter what, some things (honour killings, acid attacks and so on) can never be justified, and illustrate that religion can erode morality. My friend suggested that if I had grown up in a highly religious society that I would share these shortcomings- 'if you were a Muslim you would think it was ok'.

In daylight I would have been sure to concede this possibility and examine the sociological variables, but at 2 am and 0.2% blood alcohol I couldn’t entertain this affront to my new values, and left rapidly. The conversation continued in a facebook message thread where I apologized for my messiness and passed on a link to the TED talk and an extended article by Sam Harris.

My friend's response follows:

As far as I can tell he is saying that actions that maximise individual and collective happiness are objectively better than other actions - a reasonable expression of a moral intuition that most humans share, however unjustifiable from the abstract perspective of a philosopher (I think Peter Singer's book "How are we to Live?" is excellent on this subject....)

The difference between Singer and Harris (for example) is that Singer manages to make his case without referring to anybody as an imbecile, or trotting out over the top graphic examples about Ted Bundy raping and murdering young women.... so from my perspective it is the tone that I object to as much as anything else, as it seems to mirror the worst excesses of religion.

There are some Buddhist principles that are consistent with some of his views (e.g. everybody is trying to be happy and to minimise suffering) and these form the basis for Buddhist meditative techniques that try to encourage more moral behaviour e.g. being kind and seeing others as equals. Although Buddhists also believe some very weird stuff, I do find it interesting that they are skilled in efficient psychological transformation.

My question would have to be: are atheists coming up with good ways of changing peoples behaviour in order to bring about a more happy and moral society? Maybe attacking the harmful elements of religion is the first step but what is the second step? How many members of Destiny's Church would or could sit down and read that article? Could it be put it to music, sung by a fresh faced rock band?

From an evolutionary perspective the moral sense was clearly applied to our kin group primarily, given that we lived in small groups and wandered around a lot. Based on what we know of primitive peoples today the moral sense was not so equally applied to other groups/tribes (lots of cannibalism, possible "rape instinct", genocide of Neanderthals etc.)

Can we build a world on any foundation that will not ultimately revert to 'us and them' in some form? See the South Park episode (parodying Buck Rogers) in which the future comprises of three different atheist societies which disagree over the spelling of Richard Dawkins' name and have bloody wars....

I have a strong reaction to the "I know best" approach because you can always pick holes in a persons own morality - is the speaker a renowned donator to charities? How does he feel about the connection between the willingness of western women to dress in high heels and their success in corporations? Is he a vegetarian? Does he wear clothing made in sweat shops? etc. etc. etc. This is why I like Singer, because he is known for his own commitment to living a personally moral lifestyle....

Cheers!

P.S. I think we can all agree that acid in the face is horrific, and it is clearly a challenge for an extreme academic relativist.... lets talk on....

I responded:

Harris' may be guilty of sensationalism, but I think it is forgivable in an attempt to demystify and popularise ethics. As it stands, religious figures without any non-denominational ethics training are trotted out as ethical experts in media. Even as we speak Christian groups in Australia are fighting to prevent ethics teaching in schools as an alternative to religious education.

I would argue that religions have cornered the market on ethics, to the point that many people see ethics as a religious issue only. Only with the ability to criticise one another's ethical stance can we make ethics a part of everyday life, and not just something that is between religious people and god.

Perhaps this monopoly on ethics exists because many ethicists write in an abstract tone, and fail to capture the emotions commonly associated with our moral senses. I'm sure Peter Singer has difficulty convincing a mass audience as well as Harris.

But I think that extremely qualified individuals are marginalised because they are unwilling to go and fight for their beliefs in the same way that religious figures do. Harris contends that this is seen as unfashionable or dangerous to one's academic career.

Ted Bundy is used as an exemplar to illustrate the silliness of moral relativism. His crimes show that not every individual has a good sense of morality, in the same way that Harris is not qualified in astrophysics (personally, I found the line 'I am the Ted Bundy of astrophysics' quite funny- maybe too long on atheist blogs).

As far as I know the talk was not to promote a particular brand of ethics. You will note the idea was proposed of a moral landscape with numerous local maxima representing valuable ethical systems (I believe Peter Singer's approach would be one of these maxima although I personally find his idea of speciesism quite strange).

I believe that Sam Harris wants to direct people to listen to the ethicists and psychologists, neuroscientists etc that are qualified to speak about these matters. The doctrine of moral relativism stipulates that such people are no more correct on moral issues than Ted Bundy or the Taliban, which is patently ridiculous, and a real hindrance to promoting moral and ethical debate.

New Atheism and Accomodationism in conversation, Pt 1

Published

by

on December 18, 2010

.

A good friend of mine had just returned from six month’s travel in India. Although an atheist, he pursued his interest in spirituality by visiting temples and yogis during his travels. Home may have seemed mundane in comparison. We were having a catch-up, playing frisbee in the park with another friend, when the conversation turned to the New Atheists.

I had read the God Delusion and broadly agreed with it, possibly as a result of becoming focused on science as a career, and had been following a number of atheist blogs. My friend was unaware of this, and I’m sure he wouldn’t have expressed his opinion so strongly had he known my nascent anti-theism.

‘Richard Dawkins is a good biologist, but when it comes to religion, he is a big wally’.

He also brought up the other canard regarding the God Delusion- ‘Dawkins doesn’t know anything about theology’. I had to ask whether he had read the God Delusion, because Dawkins explains why theology is a red herring and not at all an area of expertise in the book. My friend admitted that despite having been given a copy, he had not read it. Dawkins' tone, or his image, had turned off the philosophical enquiry that was a big part of my friend's personality.

I reacted in the manner of a New Atheist stereotype. When I was told that religion helps people to be humble I had to laugh- look at all the mullahs and cardinals who presume to tell everyone how to live- humble? I told my friend that at least it was helping him take an intellectually humble position.

The conversation became quite barbed and emotional. How great was it to be a smart asshole? I did feel like one, and I had been quite cavalier with the company of my friends. We sensibly moved on to less touchy subjects.

The same topic arose in a later conversation- after I had seen Sam Harris' TED talk on 'the Moral Landscape'. I was railing against moral relativism- saying that no matter what, some things (honour killings, acid attacks and so on) can never be justified, and illustrate that religion can erode morality. My friend suggested that if I had grown up in a highly religious society that I would share these shortcomings- 'if you were a Muslim you would think it was ok'.

In daylight I would have been sure to concede this possibility and examine the sociological variables, but at 2 am and 0.2% blood alcohol I couldn’t entertain this affront to my new values, and left rapidly. The conversation continued in a facebook message thread where I apologized for my messiness and passed on a link to the TED talk and an extended article by Sam Harris.

My friend's response follows:

As far as I can tell he is saying that actions that maximise individual and collective happiness are objectively better than other actions - a reasonable expression of a moral intuition that most humans share, however unjustifiable from the abstract perspective of a philosopher (I think Peter Singer's book "How are we to Live?" is excellent on this subject....)

The difference between Singer and Harris (for example) is that Singer manages to make his case without referring to anybody as an imbecile, or trotting out over the top graphic examples about Ted Bundy raping and murdering young women.... so from my perspective it is the tone that I object to as much as anything else, as it seems to mirror the worst excesses of religion.

There are some Buddhist principles that are consistent with some of his views (e.g. everybody is trying to be happy and to minimise suffering) and these form the basis for Buddhist meditative techniques that try to encourage more moral behaviour e.g. being kind and seeing others as equals. Although Buddhists also believe some very weird stuff, I do find it interesting that they are skilled in efficient psychological transformation.

My question would have to be: are atheists coming up with good ways of changing peoples behaviour in order to bring about a more happy and moral society? Maybe attacking the harmful elements of religion is the first step but what is the second step? How many members of Destiny's Church would or could sit down and read that article? Could it be put it to music, sung by a fresh faced rock band?

From an evolutionary perspective the moral sense was clearly applied to our kin group primarily, given that we lived in small groups and wandered around a lot. Based on what we know of primitive peoples today the moral sense was not so equally applied to other groups/tribes (lots of cannibalism, possible "rape instinct", genocide of Neanderthals etc.)

Can we build a world on any foundation that will not ultimately revert to 'us and them' in some form? See the South Park episode (parodying Buck Rogers) in which the future comprises of three different atheist societies which disagree over the spelling of Richard Dawkins' name and have bloody wars....

I have a strong reaction to the "I know best" approach because you can always pick holes in a persons own morality - is the speaker a renowned donator to charities? How does he feel about the connection between the willingness of western women to dress in high heels and their success in corporations? Is he a vegetarian? Does he wear clothing made in sweat shops? etc. etc. etc. This is why I like Singer, because he is known for his own commitment to living a personally moral lifestyle....

Cheers!

P.S. I think we can all agree that acid in the face is horrific, and it is clearly a challenge for an extreme academic relativist.... lets talk on....

I responded:

Harris' may be guilty of sensationalism, but I think it is forgivable in an attempt to demystify and popularise ethics. As it stands, religious figures without any non-denominational ethics training are trotted out as ethical experts in media. Even as we speak Christian groups in Australia are fighting to prevent ethics teaching in schools as an alternative to religious education.

I would argue that religions have cornered the market on ethics, to the point that many people see ethics as a religious issue only. Only with the ability to criticise one another's ethical stance can we make ethics a part of everyday life, and not just something that is between religious people and god.

Perhaps this monopoly on ethics exists because many ethicists write in an abstract tone, and fail to capture the emotions commonly associated with our moral senses. I'm sure Peter Singer has difficulty convincing a mass audience as well as Harris.

But I think that extremely qualified individuals are marginalised because they are unwilling to go and fight for their beliefs in the same way that religious figures do. Harris contends that this is seen as unfashionable or dangerous to one's academic career.

Ted Bundy is used as an exemplar to illustrate the silliness of moral relativism. His crimes show that not every individual has a good sense of morality, in the same way that Harris is not qualified in astrophysics (personally, I found the line 'I am the Ted Bundy of astrophysics' quite funny- maybe too long on atheist blogs).

As far as I know the talk was not to promote a particular brand of ethics. You will note the idea was proposed of a moral landscape with numerous local maxima representing valuable ethical systems (I believe Peter Singer's approach would be one of these maxima although I personally find his idea of speciesism quite strange).

I believe that Sam Harris wants to direct people to listen to the ethicists and psychologists, neuroscientists etc that are qualified to speak about these matters. The doctrine of moral relativism stipulates that such people are no more correct on moral issues than Ted Bundy or the Taliban, which is patently ridiculous, and a real hindrance to promoting moral and ethical debate.