Dangerous Reason

When your worldview is built on a foundation of ignorance, there is no greater threat than critical thinking skills. I think most believers, if they took the time to think honestly about this, know it to be true. They often get so close, but fail to take the final step. They can recognize the danger of reasonable, critical thought, but choose to avoid thinking rather than question their foundation.

I came across a beautiful example of this in the latest Westwind (Walla Walla Univeristy's alumni journal). In Ginger Ketting-Weller's (vice president for academic administration) interview with Dan Lamberton she asks this question:

I'm not ready to get into Professor Lamberton's responce. It is a bit better than the question, but still unsatisfying. He at least admits that core tenets such as the virgin birth are unbelievable, but then seemingly retreats behind an amorphous shield of the sense of wonder this produces.

For me it is the question itself is what is interesting. Intelletually fulfulling belief is not something to be valued. The implied goal of this educational institution is to shelter students - to strengthen indoctrination. This creates a house divided. It is impossible to provide real education and shelter ignorance. Reason is dangerous to cherished delusions.

An Exersice in Frustration

Over the last month we've had a lot of family visiting to help with the new baby. It has been really nice to have so much help, and now that we are on our own again we are doing are best to keep up with everything. When the family finally did leave they 'forgot' and left a book behind even though we kept reminding them not to forget it.

Any way I'm trying to be fair and so I've been reading Science Discovers God by Ariel Roth in some of my free time. First off, the book has been very predictable. All the usual subjects: Issac Newton was a brilliant scientist and a christian, living things are very complicated, some bad statistics, a few Albert Einstein quote mines and a really horrible understanding of evolution. Really nothing new. I can't decided if I'm going to feel sorry for the author or angry at him. This is a new book (2008) but he is still beating the 'irreducible complexity' of cellular flagella and the eye into the ground. Now Darwin's Black Box came out in 1995, and maybe some of these things could have been taken seriously at the time. But in the last 15 years the whole idea has been thoroughly debunked. That is in addition to the inexplicably bad explanations of how evolution is supposed to work. So, either Dr. Roth is decidedly ignorant and out of date or he is lying to influence those who don't know any better or would rather ignore what they do know. I'm leaning towards the latter explanation. Dr. Roth earned a Ph.D in Zoology. Even if it was over 50 years ago, I'm sure he had to demonstrate an understanding that surpass my slight self-directed learning. Based on that I'm convinced he is a lying scumbag. I'm also sure he is thoroughly deluded, but I do not think that excuses his deceit. Still nothing surprising here.

What is a little more interesting is the motivation for 'forgetting' the book here in the first place. I think I understand very well why it was left, and I can't blame those responsible for trying to do what they think is right. However, I also know that those that left us the book have not read it. Said it was 'over their heads' etc. So, since they aren't really sure what they are trying to convince me of and aren't interested in discussing, how do they think this is going to lead me where they want me to go?

Happy Atheists?

I didn't want to end my mornings blogging on a negative note, so I thought I'd post a link to this Slate article that I really enjoyed. It deals with a study that seems to indicate that American Christians are nicer than American atheists. This didn't sound quite right to me, but fortunately the author doesn't stop there.

He refers to Phil Zuckerman's research that shows the most godless societies are safest and most progressive. The difference is the community. In a mostly irreligious community atheists are not the denigrated minority. This could explain the results of the US study.

A Fine Example of Christian Love

My wife has a great job where she gets to have stimulating conversations with a diverse range of people. Earlier this week she a talked with two of her clients who are highly educated public health professionals. With elections fast approaching (Washington State governor and US President) their conversation was about politics and the various candidates positions on funding for fundamental services like public health and education. As seems to be common among the highly educated, the wife's clients supported the Democratic candidate.

I try to avoid political discussions here, but part of Lori's conversation with her client intersected with some religiously motivated events that have been lighting up the blogs the last few days. I like to write about things that have a personal connection and this was it.

Lori's client has family in a swing state. They are also Democratic voters. During the previous week in this swing state there was included with the daily newspaper a DVD of violent anti-Muslim propaganda. It also made the outrageous and now tiresomely common far right assertion that Barack Obama is a Muslim. The clients family was very upset and spent a great deal of time on the phone with the newspaper trying to find out who had paid for this documentary. Turns out it was sent out by something called the Clarion Fund. A group that supports McCain, but whose source of funding is still not clear.

But it gets better. It seems this vile little movie is allegedly spawning violent reaction against Muslims. Some Christians, filled with the love of Jesus, gassed the daycare of a mosque. I know this is painting with broad strokes, but this is what happens with religion that embraces ignorance. These people are terrified of anything that is different from their narrow view of the world.

Star Trek Evangelism

I used to be a pretty big Star Trek Fan. Maybe I still am, I just haven't watched for awhile. Now I find that there is a growing Christian movement among the Klingons. I didn't know that Christianity had that kind of interplanetary appeal. I may need to reconsider.

Ron Numbers

A few weeks ago, Tim sent me a link to a Ron Numbers interview. I actually hadn't heard of Ron Numbers before. Tim explains:

Ron Numbers, who is a former Adventist and now a big name in
history and philosophy of science at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison. He has written a book on EGW that got him kicked out of LLU
then more recently the major work on the history of creationism. Both really
good. I enjoyed them anyway. His EGW book was just re-issued, and I
found this interview referenced in the context of a shorter one he gave
Spectrum recently.

The interview is excellent, mostly focusing on creationism in the U.S. but mentioning this EG White book as well. I may have to add that book to my list.

I was reminded of the interview when PZ posted that Ron Numbers was speaking tonight.

Evolution Denial Close to Home

Friday evening my wife and I joined our regular group of friends for dinner. This a is pretty standard weekend arrangement for us. I try not to be very vocal about political issues, because I don't spend the time to be well informed on everything. One buddy of mine does tend to pay more attention than I do, and he usually is my polar opposite in view point. We hadn't talked since the RNC, so I wanted to get his take on the Sarah Palin speech. I expressed my opinion that she gave a good speech and seemed charismatic enough, but her stance on creationism, religion and abortion were troubling to me. All our friends are at least nominally Christian, so I qualified my objection to creationism as being required in science class. (People can believe creationism privately, but it isn't science.

This is where the stories gets good.

My buddy comes back with a response that included "the religion of Darwinism" and "absolutely no evidence for creationism or Darwinism" and "after 150 years there are no transitional fossils." I was halfway through a can of Joose, so my social filters weren't at their normally restrictive levels and I laughed out loud. This may not have been an appropriate response, though I'm still not sure if he was sincere or playing for a laugh. It was a perfect example of Poe's Law. In a matter of seconds he hit the three main bullet points of the uninformed evolution deniers. I'm used to seeing these kinds of comments shredded on various online discussions, but I was totally unprepared to encounter them in person. Sadly, I'm thinking that he was sincere and parroting the talking points of creationism. I must admit that is much easier than having to question and support your beliefs.

I was ready to stage an intervention right there, but I was out numbered. The conversation moved on to strollers and hardwood flooring. I'm not sure exactly what to do next, but I can't let him off the hook that easily. Maybe I should send him a link to the child theory of development. At least next time this comes up (and I think I'll make sure it does) I won't be shocked into laughter.

I think the best thing to do is to come to some sort of agreement with him. If he really is past being open to evidence, I won't try to discuss it with him. I'll have to move on to someone who has a hope of an open mind. Until then I'll keep hoping he is open to evidence.

Just as a matter of reference a few links:
Talk Origins Response
Whale Evolution
Hominid Fossils
Human Ancestry

Answered Prayer at the DNC?

I need to post a quick follow up on the prayer for rain at the Democratic Convention. It looks like God's aim was a little off. No rain, but some fire sprinklers malfunctioned and soaked the Fox News press box. Maybe God isn't a conservative after all.

New Website

In my reading this week I came across a great website. Edger is a student initiative run through the Center for Inquiry.

"

Edger presents hard-hitting and reasoned news, views, and event promotion on issues pertaining to secularism, atheism, science, humanism, and the cosmos, and actively promotes and celebrates international freethought activism. Written in a youthful tone, but mature in content, Edger is sure to be a driving force in the new intellectual enlightenment"

I haven't completely explored the whole thing yet, but there is lots of commentary on current events, news items and opinion pieces. I especially like the Events all around the World sidebar, listing upcoming events and activities. This is a wonderful presentation of freethought, secularism and skepticism that really breaks out of the nerdy stereotype. I think this would be the first place I'd send some one looking for more information on a godless world view. It seems more accessible than some more strictly scientific based sites. I'm adding Edger to my list of favorites.

Fear the Flames

This last weekend I attended my first non-Christian funeral. It was for a kid in his 20's that died in a tragic accident. I had never met him, but was an acquaintance of his mother. Even though I didn't know the person it was a horrible loss and it did affect me emotionally. I can be slightly emotional and being a parent has accentuated that. At another level though I was curious how non-religious people would conduct the ceremony.

The ceremony turned out to be not that exotic. There were lots of wiccans involved, so I had imagined more ritual and pageantry. One thing I did find very nice was all the time spent telling stories. Stories about how one life impacts and brings happiness to another. In that sense it was a celebration of the person that was gone. I thought there was a lot of emphasis on how the happy memories could help deal with the crushing loss felt by those who knew him. There was grief and laughter. It was sad and funny. It felt therapeutic.

For me this was a contract to a lot of Christian services that I've attended. True there are often segments of sharing and memories, and rarely totally drab and dreary affairs. However, there is a element of denial at Christian funeral. The hollow reassurances that 'this is not the end' and 'he's going to a better place'. This doesn't seem healthy in working through the process of grief. There is also something darker. An unspoken implications that you had better appease the sky daddy so that you too can go to that better place. Rather than celebrate the a life and a memory, you leave burdened with guilt, fearing death and more firmly in religion's grip. Just the way it was designed to work.

While I was working through my thoughts on the topic of death this beautiful essay on death and the soul was posted by Danio over at pharyngula. I remember the fear of death was the hardest thing for me to deal with when I was coming to terms with my atheism. I already knew I didn't believe in any gods, but I didn't like what that left me with. There is so much I want to learn to see to experience to express. Life seems too short. Eventually I reached a level of acceptance, expressed well in this quote by Mark Twain:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

What's more, the idea of immortality may seem neat on the surface, but it doesn't hold up to further scrutiny. Eternity is a long time. It is appealing to think about having time to explore all your interests, but really eventually the boredom would drive you insane. What will you do after you've skied every mountain in the universe a billion times, or had sex with every other life form a couple or trillion times? What will you do after you've experienced every possible thing so many times that you'd rather die than do any of them again, but you can't because you have eternal life? Not so appealing when you think about it that way.

So, I've come to accept that life is short and we are lucky just to be alive considering all the possible people that never did live. I do not really fear my own death other than the possibility of suffering, but I do fear the death of those who are close to me. My family and friends. I don't want to lose them. Unfortunately that is a fact of life, but it sure is better than eternal hell.

Prayer Power?

So a few people have pointed out a news story to me. It looks like Focus on the Family wants to wreck Obama's speak at the Democratic National Convention. They are encouraging people to pray for rain since the event will be held outside. This got me to thinking about the power of prayer.

I've come to the conclusion that even the True Believers and Focus on the Family don't really think prayer is worth much. A little research tells me that afternoon rain showers an pretty normal for Denver in the summer. They are just playing the odds. The expected rain falls at some point during the day in question and they get to shout, "Look our prayers work, God hates Barak Obama."

Now if they really had faith in the power of prayer shouldn't they pray for Obama to just loose the election. Focus on the Family really wanted Mike Huckabee to win, but that already didn't work out. Were they praying for his campaign or not? Or, if what they are really after in a demonstration of their god's power, why not have him swallowed up by the earth or eaten by a swarm of bears? You know, something that isn't very probable.

And really, if prayer is so potent, couldn't they be focusing on the big picture a little better? What about genocide in Darfur? African drought and the resulting starvation? No, these petty and immoral nut jobs would rather have their jealous god piss on the democrats shoes.

Book Report:: There is a God by Anthony Flew

I first heard of There is a God from a post on pharyngula when the book first came out last fall. The original post was followed by a few others. I'd never heard of Anthony Flew and the consensus of opinion was that he was an aging philosopher who was being manipulated by an unscrupulous fundamentalist nut job - coauthor Roy Varghese (see links for post and interviews). I I read PZ's posts, figured the book wasn't worth my time and carried on with out a further thought. Then, my parents mentioned that they'd read the book and asked if I'd take a look at it.

At first I thought I'd just breeze through it and then disregard it based on the reviews I'd already seen, but after further consideration I realized that wasn't a good skeptical approach. To reject the book before even considering it would be as dogmatic as any fundamentalist. So instead I read it carefully and took pages of notes for the purpose of writing a little book report.

First off Anthony Flew was a philosopher. I'm completely unqualified to read and understand philosophy, so I'm sure I missed some subtleties. On the other hand the book was written for a general audience so hopefully what I was able to understand most of what was going on.

Preface:
The preface was written by Roy Varghese. In my opinion he overstates Flew's significance. Yes, he was an atheist philosopher for a long time and wrote lots of books. He wrote more books than Bertrand Russell. Not a strong argument to my mind. He then proceeds to quote mine Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and uses those distortions question the quality of the reasoning employed by the "new atheists". He wraps up with two familiar assertions: Einstein believed in God and atheism is a religion. Of course what Einstein believed about a god is irrelevant. He had no special ability or information to base his belief on. And atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair style.

Section 1:
The first three chapters of the book deal with Flew's career and antitheological writings. He chooses to highlight three problems for theists. 1) How is god to be identified 2) How positive terms can be applied to god and 3) The problem of evil. He also asserts that the burden of proof for a deity is on the one making the positive claim - that there is a god. The theists should be the ones supplying evidence of god. Not expecting everyone to believe until proven otherwise. This is all pretty reasonable. Then things start to get a little off track. He finishes the section with a several familiar arguments against a naturalistic universe. DNA is complex therefore god. Monkeys with typewriters trying to duplicate Shakespeare. These are a result of flawed methods or poor understanding of biology.

Overall I found the first section rather dull. Lots of book titles and philosophical name dropping. No real discussions or arguments to be found.

Section 2:
Chapters 4-10 contain the arguments for theistic belief. They are built around "three dimensions of nature that point to god". These dimensions are 1) nature obeys laws 2) life exists and 3) there is something rather than nothing.

Flew begins by noting that the universe appears to obey laws, and claims that this requires an author of those laws. Related is that the universe and the laws of nature seem fine tuned for the kind of life we see in the universe. This is unconvincing. The fine tuning argument is dealt with nicely in this quote by Douglas Adams.

. . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

From the 'fine tuning' issue Flew moves to abiogenisis. This is where the god of the gaps is in full force. His claim is that since science as yet has not developed a good theory for the origin of life, it must have been god that started it all. There is no evidence for this position and science is not static. It is impossible to predict the future of science, but odds are on science to fill the gap and force theist to find another gap for god to fill.

Finally we get to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. The discussion here is essentially personal incredulity. The origin of the universe may always be a mystery. There are ideas like quantum vacuums and zero net energy. But those don't don't seem like satisfactory explanations to Flew. He doesn't find it compelling or he doesn't understand it. This doesn't make it wrong. Since this is a place where science hasn't come to definite conclusions, Flew says that makes it a philosophical problem rather than a scientific one. I think that is a bunch of garbage. Philosophers can sit around all day and wonder about hard questions, but they won't gather any data to answer those questions without doing science.

From here the rest of the book is lots of philosophical talk that sort of didn't mean anything to me.

Overall there was nothing new in this book that I hadn't seen before. A few weak god of the gaps arguments, and a bit philosophical hand waving. Not the kind of thing you'd hope for in a book that is supposed to make a convincing stand for the existence of god. What would be convincing for me might be some physical evidence or hypothesized mechanisms for how a god could answer the questions posed in the book.

Crackergate Wrap Up

This was just to good to not repost on my own blog. The cracker has been desecrated.

Yeah!!!

Reverted has a new post. It is about time. He is a really excellent writer. Well worth the read. If he starts getting some comments he might post more often and that would be a good thing.

Atheist Literature in the Waiting Area

Yesterday I found myself with some time to kill at one of Naval Base Kitsap's pass and ID offices. I have this habit that annoys my wife from time to time, where I find it impossible not to read something that is in front of me while I'm sitting around. I read cereal boxes over and over at breakfast or grocery store ads or Target receipts. So I was sitting in the waiting area flipping through mostly dull Navy magazines, when I discovered a fairly extensive set of American Atheist magazine in the rack. I have no idea who might have been responsible for getting the subscription there I was pretty happy. I'm used to hearing about the challenges of being and atheist in the military, primarily via the FFRF's Free Thought Radio podcast. I know the Northwest is supposed to be a very atheist friendly area, but I was still pleasantly surprised to see "a journal of atheist news and thought" on a military installation.

Some Links

I some times feel like the only thing this blog is good for is condensing pharygula down to the parts that are most interesting or entertaining to me. However, I do actually have a life of my own. I even managed to find out that Lucy was coming to the Pacific Science Center before PZ posted it . I just happened to be at the PacSci last weekend, and saw the posters advertising the Lucy exhibit. So, I do do thing other than read blogs.

However, the last few days on pharyngula there has been some stuff too good not to shamelessly steal. I just can't pass up reposting the ongoing uproar over the communion crackers. Some one walked off with a wafer from a mass in Florida. And then PZ's post about it got some people very upset. I must say I'm very entertained by it all.

Expelled Exposed

I just finished the Eugenie Scott interview on Skeptics Guide to the Universe. I thought I'd do my part and link to the Expelled Exposed website. The aim to to have the National Center for Science Education's official response at the top of a Google search for the movie. I'll do my part and add a link here.

For Quick Reference

Found this up on Pharyngula today. It was just too perfect to ignore. The ridiculousness of 'teach the controversy' is obvious when illustrated with a simple substitution.

Still Here

I return to my long dormant blog to post a link to Pharyngula. I just wanted to have this reference handy for my own use or to direct people to should I have need.

In a week and a half I'll be visiting my parents. I suppose we will have the atheist chat sometime over the weekend. I'll try to have a post about that after.

My Label

I've noticed in my reading that most everyone who blogs on atheism or something related at some point gives some time to defining atheism. Since so many people feel the need to offer their idea, it must mean that there is no universally accepted meaning for the term. Atheist don't have their 28 fundamental beliefs. I've seen dozens of versions of an atheist Ten Commandments, but nothing central that you can point to and say 'you're an atheist so I know this about your beliefs. Certainly no label can adequately describe someone's world view. At any rate I got to thinking that it would be a beneficial exercise for me to take my turn at trying to express what being an atheist means to me.

There is a down side to this exercise though. I run the risk someone looking at this post and this is all they need to know about what I believe. However, my sincere desire is that a week from now I will have learned something or experienced something that will require me to refine my world view. I hope for my way of thinking to alway be flexible adapting to new information. If I'm ever static in my approach to interpreting the world I have failed. With that in mind I will try to describe what I believe. At least for today.

I call myself an atheist. I don't know if there is a god, but I don't think so. I suppose give some amount of evidence I could believe in a god. Given that I don't actively deny the existence of a god, sometimes I'm asked why I insist on labeling myself an atheist since the term is viewed so pejoratively (especially considering my background). I choose to use such an aggressive term because it does come the closest to what I believe. With the social circles that I run in, I don't want to misrepresent myself and have to deal with people trying to reconvert me. I'm past that. Proof of god's existences is not possible, but I have yet to come across any evidence that there might be a god. If there were evidence I would believe.

I am, however, definitely post-Christian. There is too much of the 'they just made it up' stuff associated with the Bible for me to ever go back to that. Not to mention all the dogma, institutionalism, bureaucracy and procedural garbage that is tied up with religion.

To sum up: I don't deny that god could exist, but I doubt it. Never-the-less, I will continue to refine my views to adapt to new learning.