These idiots don't know when to just shut up and let something pass.
The Religious Uber-Right anti-abortionists are accusing Krispy Kreme of running a subtle pro-abortion campaign! Krispy Kreme's crime? An ad that says you can get your "donut of choice." I kid you not!
Apparently these nut jobs (The American Life League) have decided that the word "choice" can no longer be part of our vocabulary. Off limits. Not Politically Correct.
These people need to be hit over the head with a clue stick. Did they seriously not realize what a laughing stock this would make them?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
del.icio.us
reddit
StumbleUpon
Monday, January 12, 2009
LOL - Conservapedia on Atheism
Don't ask why ('cause I don't know...), but I took a look at the Conservapedia "encyclopedia" entry on Atheism, and was genuinely disappointed by what a joke it is. It's hysterical, but sort of sad, just how many ways the article is blatently biased, inflammatory, or just plain wrong. It would be funnier, but for the fact that this is a high-traffic web site with millions of readers who take it seriously.
(I usually provide links, but refuse in this case – I'm sure you can find it yourself – because I don't want to lend what little search-engine karma my blog has gained to the drivel on Conservapedia.)
I'm of the same philosophy as Arlo Guthrie:
Just a few of the more outrageous parts of the article...
They start off on the wrong foot by defining Atheism "is the denial of the existence of God." Most Atheists I know make no such claim, rather, we simply see no evidence for the truly extraordinary claim that there's a magical god in the sky. Alas, Conservapedia goes on to confuse things by calling the denial-of-existence camp "strong atheism," and calling the more common theists-bear-the-proof-burden by the dismissive title of "weak atheists."
So let me get this right: Atheists deny the existence of God ... but "weak atheists" don't. Hmmm, I guess I never swallowed the Anti-Rationalism Meme, otherwise this apparent contradiction wouldn't trouble me. Doesn't anybody check this stuff?
Things really heat up a few sections down. Just take a look at these headings:
And how about this one:
It's too bad some serious intellectuals can't take control of Conservapedia and offer something challenging. I was hoping for a good argument, but not today. Just a good laugh.
(I usually provide links, but refuse in this case – I'm sure you can find it yourself – because I don't want to lend what little search-engine karma my blog has gained to the drivel on Conservapedia.)
I'm of the same philosophy as Arlo Guthrie:
I'd rather have friends who care than friends who agree with me.So I was hoping that Conservapedia would have a well-crafted, thoughtful article on Atheism. What a disappointment! It is a total hack job, written by people mostly interested in slapping each other on the back at how clever they are.
Just a few of the more outrageous parts of the article...
They start off on the wrong foot by defining Atheism "is the denial of the existence of God." Most Atheists I know make no such claim, rather, we simply see no evidence for the truly extraordinary claim that there's a magical god in the sky. Alas, Conservapedia goes on to confuse things by calling the denial-of-existence camp "strong atheism," and calling the more common theists-bear-the-proof-burden by the dismissive title of "weak atheists."
So let me get this right: Atheists deny the existence of God ... but "weak atheists" don't. Hmmm, I guess I never swallowed the Anti-Rationalism Meme, otherwise this apparent contradiction wouldn't trouble me. Doesn't anybody check this stuff?
Things really heat up a few sections down. Just take a look at these headings:
- Atheism and Communism
- Atheism and Mass Murder
- Atheism and American Charity (links to: Atheism and Uncharitableness)
- Atheism and Immoral Views
- Atheism and Suicide
- Atheism and Deception
- Decline of Atheism as an Intellectual Position
And how about this one:
Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism.It's so absurd I can't even be insulted.
It's too bad some serious intellectuals can't take control of Conservapedia and offer something challenging. I was hoping for a good argument, but not today. Just a good laugh.
Tags: atheism atheist religion conservapedia
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Science versus Religion: Battle or Partnership?
How do you view people whose beliefs differ from yours? Is it a war, a friendly disagreement, an uncomfortable standoff, or a collaboration? Do you just ignore them? Do you actively try to convert them to your point of view?
Jennifer Wilding of Consensus, wrote an excellent summary of the five primary ways that religion and science interact, and I believe by extension, it also illustrates how religions interact with each other. It's an excellent summary that all thinking people should read and ponder. Wilding was writing to summarize the findings of a Kansas City Forums panel, which identified these five styles of interaction:
Which one am I? I had a surprisingly hard time answering this question. I seem to be spread about between the first three.
The Warfare Model appeals to me because in an absolute sense, it must be true. On any specific question about physical facts, there can only be one right answer. If religion claims one thing, and science proves another, well, religion is just wrong.
On the other hand, the Separate Realms Model seems to me to be orthogonal with the Warfare Model: If the realms really are separate, then the idea of "warfare" is moot. As an analogy, consider the word "justice." It's not a physical concept, subject to experimentation, proof, or disproof. It's a human concept, in a separate "realm" from science. So, in that sense, I guess I could accept that there are separate realms. On the other hand, I find that science is pretty good at explaining things, which leaves the "religion realm" pretty much empty.
The Accommodation Model is an interesting historical development. The Roman Catholic Church is the prime example of this: They are strong supporters of science, particularly astronomy and evolution. Their version of the Accommodation Model is, roughly, that science asks "how?" and religion asks "why?" Any time there is a conflict, science wins. In the end, the Accommodation Model seems to be to be a hybrid between the Warfare and Separate Realms models: Only one (religion or science) can be right; religion can't possibly refute a plain fact demonstrated by science, so religion is only left with its Separate Realm, which doesn't leave it much.
The Engagement Model doesn't impress me. I'm sure there are plenty of religious scholars who have valuable contributions to make, based on their extensive studies of history, ethics and morality. But if they'd devoted that same energy to a secular study of these same topics, their contributions would be so much more meaningful. Ethics based on false premises, especially those that ignore or deny humankind's animal origins and primitive instincts, are counterproductive.
That leaves, of course, Theistic Science, which is a complete nonstarter.
So I guess that means I'm in the Warfare Model camp. Which is odd, because I don't see it as a war. If I'd been in Jennifer Wilding's shoes (the author), I'd have called it the Incompatible Realms Model or Irreconcilable Realms Model, something less bloody. My goal is more of an educational campaign; the word "war" conjures up too many visions of battle and blood. That's not what Atheism is about.
Jennifer Wilding of Consensus, wrote an excellent summary of the five primary ways that religion and science interact, and I believe by extension, it also illustrates how religions interact with each other. It's an excellent summary that all thinking people should read and ponder. Wilding was writing to summarize the findings of a Kansas City Forums panel, which identified these five styles of interaction:
Warfare Model. Science and religion are incompatible, only one can be true.(I highly recommend the original article (link above) for a more thorough treatment of these ideas.)
Separate Realms Model. Science is about the physical world, and religion is about the spiritual/moral world, and there is no conflict since there is little overlap.
Accommodation Model. Religion is deepened through the discoveries of science.
Engagement Model. Science and religion are equal partners, each asking questions that enlighten and improve the other.
Theistic Science. Largely promoted by Creation Science advocates, this claims that science is mostly right, but that occasional miracles and divine intervention are possible.
Which one am I? I had a surprisingly hard time answering this question. I seem to be spread about between the first three.
The Warfare Model appeals to me because in an absolute sense, it must be true. On any specific question about physical facts, there can only be one right answer. If religion claims one thing, and science proves another, well, religion is just wrong.
On the other hand, the Separate Realms Model seems to me to be orthogonal with the Warfare Model: If the realms really are separate, then the idea of "warfare" is moot. As an analogy, consider the word "justice." It's not a physical concept, subject to experimentation, proof, or disproof. It's a human concept, in a separate "realm" from science. So, in that sense, I guess I could accept that there are separate realms. On the other hand, I find that science is pretty good at explaining things, which leaves the "religion realm" pretty much empty.
The Accommodation Model is an interesting historical development. The Roman Catholic Church is the prime example of this: They are strong supporters of science, particularly astronomy and evolution. Their version of the Accommodation Model is, roughly, that science asks "how?" and religion asks "why?" Any time there is a conflict, science wins. In the end, the Accommodation Model seems to be to be a hybrid between the Warfare and Separate Realms models: Only one (religion or science) can be right; religion can't possibly refute a plain fact demonstrated by science, so religion is only left with its Separate Realm, which doesn't leave it much.
The Engagement Model doesn't impress me. I'm sure there are plenty of religious scholars who have valuable contributions to make, based on their extensive studies of history, ethics and morality. But if they'd devoted that same energy to a secular study of these same topics, their contributions would be so much more meaningful. Ethics based on false premises, especially those that ignore or deny humankind's animal origins and primitive instincts, are counterproductive.
That leaves, of course, Theistic Science, which is a complete nonstarter.
So I guess that means I'm in the Warfare Model camp. Which is odd, because I don't see it as a war. If I'd been in Jennifer Wilding's shoes (the author), I'd have called it the Incompatible Realms Model or Irreconcilable Realms Model, something less bloody. My goal is more of an educational campaign; the word "war" conjures up too many visions of battle and blood. That's not what Atheism is about.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Searching for Answers? Science Converges, Religion Diverges
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. ... It happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."An article in my local newspaper starts with this amusing sentence, which illustrates the fundamental flaw in religion:
– Carl Sagan
"Modern Christians are used to a world in which there is a seemingly never-ending supply of branches of the faith."This simple sentence, and Sagan's insightful quote, shows the basic difference between science and faith:
Science Converges, Religion Diverges.Faith and religion have no facts that can be tested objectively. You can't design an experiment that would test Christianity against Islam, and after careful research, discover that one was correct and the other wrong. You can't do an experiment that will prove God exists, or that Jesus was His son. You can't demostrate convincingly that Siddhartha Guatama really achieved enlightenment and became the Supreme Buddha. There's no objective way to prove that Muhammad was receiving Allah's own words. All of these beliefs are just that: beliefs, not objective, provable facts. They must be taken on pure faith.
This is why there are thousands and thousands of different religions around the world. Anyone can claim anything, and many do. Church leadership takes a stance on some moral issue, the congregation starts arguing, and pretty soon there are two churches. A new "prophet" comes along, and pretty soon you have a whole new religion.
It is very rare indeed to hear of two churches uniting, settling their differences, and discarding some of the "truths" they once held dear. In fact, the link to my local newspaper's article above is about a group that is trying to heal the rift between the Roman and Orthodox (West/East) Catholic Churches, caused by the "Great Schism of 1054" the split the church in two. I suspect they won't have much luck.
Science is just the opposite. A couple of days ago I wrote about the Clovis Comet hypothesis, which shows why science is exactly the opposite of religion.
The disappearance of the Clovis People was a mysterious event, one that inspired a number of well-conceived theories. Scientific interest, competition, and probably egotism, spured the scientists to investigate more, learn more, and get closer and closer to the objective truth.
And that's the difference: Scientific debate converges on the truth, because as we learn more and more, incorrect theories can be discarded, new theories can be proposed, and good theories can be made better.
Many scientific theories, such as Einstein's Relativity and Darwin's Evolution, are so well proved and so widely accepted that it is fair to call them facts, not theory. These are the endpoints of scientific debate, the "adult" theories, the questions for which science has converged convincingly on the objective truth. By this measure, the Clovis-Comet theory is still a "teenager," mostly grown up, getting serious attention, and overshadowing the competing theories, but still not convincingly proved.
Compared to these scientific theories, religion is not even a baby. It's not even in the game. Science will continue to expand our knowledge, to refine our understanding, to converge on truth. Religion will continue to diverge, to split, to wander. The task of religious philosophers seeking truth about their god or gods is hopeless.
LOL: Christians Demand "Proof" of Atheism!!
This is hysterical! Christians in London are demanding proof that God doesn't exist! That made me laugh out loud, the irony of it!
Tags: christian atheism advertisement london
Jail Discrimination? Chattanooga Sheriff Encourages Proselytizers to Visit Jails
Here is another example of a misinformed Christian, this time county Sheriff Gobble of Chattanooga, trying to claim that we are a Christian nation. Unfortunately, Sheriff Gobble, probably with the best of intentions, is perpetuating religious discrimination against anyone who doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
First of all, Sheriff Gobble is flat-out wrong about the Christian roots of the country. Most of the founders were not Christians, they were Deists who explicitely rejected the divinity of Jesus. A few, such as Thomas Paine and possibly Thomas Jefferson, were Atheists.
More importantly, while I appreciate Sheriff Gobble's intent – I'm sure he believes he's doing a good thing – this is yet another example where Christians get special treatment, and possibly preferred treatment, in a country that is supposed to have true religious freedom for all. Not just Christians.
If Sheriff Gobble is a true Christian, he would invite representatives of any and all persuasions, to come and proselytize at his jails. Would he welcome me, for example, to come and explain to his inmates how they've been tricked by a two thousand year old myth that has led them into a world of irrationality, and possibly contributed to their criminal behavior? Would he welcome Hindus or Budhists who would turn his prisoners away from Christ? I'd be willing to bet money the answer is "No!" Yet, Sheriff Gobble would certainly welcome a Christian minister whose goal was to convert atheists to Christianity, or to renew the faith of "faltering" Christians.
That's discrimination, plain and simple, and it's illegal.
Here are two other blogs I wrote that you might find interesting:
I have opened the doors of the Bradley County jail to churches and ministries in our community who want to hold Bible studies for those who are incarcerated. Inmates are not required or forced to attend these studies and we do not give any preferential treatment to one religion over another.Right. Nobody has to attend, but ...
First of all, Sheriff Gobble is flat-out wrong about the Christian roots of the country. Most of the founders were not Christians, they were Deists who explicitely rejected the divinity of Jesus. A few, such as Thomas Paine and possibly Thomas Jefferson, were Atheists.
More importantly, while I appreciate Sheriff Gobble's intent – I'm sure he believes he's doing a good thing – this is yet another example where Christians get special treatment, and possibly preferred treatment, in a country that is supposed to have true religious freedom for all. Not just Christians.
If Sheriff Gobble is a true Christian, he would invite representatives of any and all persuasions, to come and proselytize at his jails. Would he welcome me, for example, to come and explain to his inmates how they've been tricked by a two thousand year old myth that has led them into a world of irrationality, and possibly contributed to their criminal behavior? Would he welcome Hindus or Budhists who would turn his prisoners away from Christ? I'd be willing to bet money the answer is "No!" Yet, Sheriff Gobble would certainly welcome a Christian minister whose goal was to convert atheists to Christianity, or to renew the faith of "faltering" Christians.
That's discrimination, plain and simple, and it's illegal.
Here are two other blogs I wrote that you might find interesting:
More anti-atheist discrimination in the courtroom
I'm an Atheist, So Help Me God
Friday, January 2, 2009
How Science REALLY Works: The "Clovis Comet"
I get sick of religious people – mostly Christian fundamentalist and evangelicals – who simply don't understand science, and use specious and vacuous reasoning to "prove" that science is wrong, doesn't have all the answers, or (my biggest annoyance) that there is disagreement among scientists about issues that are well understood. But here is an example, one that illustrates science at its best, when scientists are offering opinions, hypotheses, and data, working together to converge on an objective truth.
The case in point is illustrated by this article about the Clovis Comet, which (according to proponents of this theory) killed the Native Americans called the Clovis People about 12,900 years ago.
But there is disagreement. Other scientists have proposed other reasons for the Clovis People's disappearance: Overhunting that led to a collapse of the megafauna, a sudden climate change, disease, war, and various combinations of these and other factors.
In other words, we don't know the answer yet ... there are still many competing theories about why the Clovis People disappeared. Superficially, it might even seem like the Clovis scientists are no better than religious people arguing about interpretations of the Bible: Many opinions, sometimes strongly held, heated arguments, often personal, factions that form and break apart ... scientists really are just humans, after all.
But this apparent similarity between science and religion is superficial. Somewhere, under all the facts, data, and speculation, there is a single truth, what actually happened to the Clovis People, and scientists have a methodology to get at that truth. They propose answers, they argue a lot, and then the search for more data, expand our knowledge, reject theories that don't pass muster, argue some more, dig some more ... and sooner or later, they usually converge on the objective truth. And when that happens, the data, the real facts, are all there for everyone to examine, and confirm for themselves.
The cool thing about Clovis-Comet theory is not that it's right or wrong. If it's right, it will solve a mystery that's baffled anthropologists for a long time, and yes, that would be cool. If it's wrong, it will be just another failed hypothesis in the long history of science.
This never happens in religion. You can propose a new interpretation of the Bible, and who is to say you're wrong? You can claim that it's really Thor, not Yahweh, up there in the sky, and who can say you're wrong? Neither you nor the Pope himself can present one shred of evidence. The argument will never converge. There is no objective truth for religion, no foundation. When religous people argue, they're arguing about opinion, and they can argue forever.
But when scientists argue, it's over facts, and sooner or later, the facts prevail. One theory will win out because it is true, and the others will be forgotten. And the scientists will then move on to the next question, to expand our knowledge even more.
The case in point is illustrated by this article about the Clovis Comet, which (according to proponents of this theory) killed the Native Americans called the Clovis People about 12,900 years ago.
But there is disagreement. Other scientists have proposed other reasons for the Clovis People's disappearance: Overhunting that led to a collapse of the megafauna, a sudden climate change, disease, war, and various combinations of these and other factors.
In other words, we don't know the answer yet ... there are still many competing theories about why the Clovis People disappeared. Superficially, it might even seem like the Clovis scientists are no better than religious people arguing about interpretations of the Bible: Many opinions, sometimes strongly held, heated arguments, often personal, factions that form and break apart ... scientists really are just humans, after all.
But this apparent similarity between science and religion is superficial. Somewhere, under all the facts, data, and speculation, there is a single truth, what actually happened to the Clovis People, and scientists have a methodology to get at that truth. They propose answers, they argue a lot, and then the search for more data, expand our knowledge, reject theories that don't pass muster, argue some more, dig some more ... and sooner or later, they usually converge on the objective truth. And when that happens, the data, the real facts, are all there for everyone to examine, and confirm for themselves.
The cool thing about Clovis-Comet theory is not that it's right or wrong. If it's right, it will solve a mystery that's baffled anthropologists for a long time, and yes, that would be cool. If it's wrong, it will be just another failed hypothesis in the long history of science.
This never happens in religion. You can propose a new interpretation of the Bible, and who is to say you're wrong? You can claim that it's really Thor, not Yahweh, up there in the sky, and who can say you're wrong? Neither you nor the Pope himself can present one shred of evidence. The argument will never converge. There is no objective truth for religion, no foundation. When religous people argue, they're arguing about opinion, and they can argue forever.
But when scientists argue, it's over facts, and sooner or later, the facts prevail. One theory will win out because it is true, and the others will be forgotten. And the scientists will then move on to the next question, to expand our knowledge even more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
