Was the Soviet Union atheistic?

Karen Jacoby, author of the recent biography of Robert Ingersoll, The Great Agnostic, was interviewed in Five Books. The entire interview is worthwhile but especially her comments about the trope that the misdeeds of the Soviet Union and other secular regimes somehow discredit atheism, materialism and rationalism. [Emphasis is mine]:

Question: What do you think about the critique of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, not necessarily the book by him you’ve chosen, but God is Not Great, for example – that they put too much blame on religion? I’m in China right now, you’ve got a lot of friends in Russia, what about this argument that countries that have really embraced atheism have seen some of the worst excesses of human nature? Even if you don’t believe in God, don’t the teachings of, say, Christianity – for example loving your neighbour as yourself – help make the world a better place?

Ms Jacoby: Yeah, right. That’s why everybody was so tolerant in 16^th and 17^th century England, because they were Christians. I’m really glad you asked that question. The idea that some of the worst things happened under countries that were officially atheist, well firstly, lots of people never embraced atheism. The salient point about the Soviet Union, like Hitler’s Germany (which was not officially atheist), is that when secular ideology is treated as something that cannot be challenged and that need not be proven, then it becomes a religion. Stalinist Communism was every bit as much a religion as Roman Catholicism at the height of the Inquisition. Why? It was a religion because its tenets could not be challenged. And if they contradicted the laws of nature, they couldn’t be challenged either. An entire generation of Soviet biologists and agronomists were destroyed because Stalin had a favourite biologist named Lysenko, and Lysenko’s basic belief was – and this went right along with Communist ideology – that you could change species by changing their behaviour, in other words a new Soviet man, or a new Soviet cow, could be made genetically different by the teachings you gave them. Scientists who said no – and everything we know and have proved about science including Mendelian genetics says that it is not true – went to the gulags and were killed. Soviet science was two generations behind the West when it emerged from this era in the mid-1960s. So what I say is that in fact what is often used as proof that religion is good is proof that religion is bad, because religion doesn’t have to call itself Christianity, or have Yahweh or Jesus as its idol, it can have secular idols. The characteristic of a religion is that no evidence-based challenge is allowed. Soviet Communism fit that model perfectly, and as soon as evidence-based challenge was allowed, it took just 30 years to collapse, which may seem long, but as historical time goes is not long at all. 

Church of England Finally Apologized to Darwin

In honor of Darwin's birthday, let's remember how religion is always wrong (except when they are occasionally accidentally correct) and sometimes they are magnanimous enough to apologize later.

When Darwin's work on the theory of evolution came out, the church attacked him vociferously. Now, 126 years after his death, The Church of England has apologized to Darwin:

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well. (Source)

Jesus 'n' Mo on Metaphor

(h/t WEIT and JesusandMo)

QOTD

Quote of the Day:


"The truth is that there is an attempt to sow division that comes from the Devil."
           
      --  Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, commenting on the etiology of the Vatican leak scandal.

Is this the Onion?

Unfortunately, no.

The text of St. Matthew runs as follows:

• Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
• Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
• Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
• Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
• Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
• Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
• Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
• Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)
• Blessed are they who cold-cock some meat-head in a cage match, for they shall have balls of steel (The Forgotten Verse)

H. L. Mencken

This is from p. 333 of Minority Report: H. L. Mencken’s Notebooks:

Religion, of course, does make some men better, and perhaps even many men. There can be no doubt of it. But making them better by filling their poor heads with grotesque nonsense is an irrational and wasteful process, and the harm it does greatly outweighs the good. If men could be made better—or even only happier—by teaching them that two and two make five there would be plenty of fools to advocate that method, but it would remain anti-social nonetheless. If the theologians could only agree on their doctrines their unanimity might have some evidential value, just as the agreement of all politicians that the first duty of the citizen is to obey them and admire them has some evidential value. It may not be true, but it is at least undisputed by all save a small fraction of heretics, which is certainly something. Fortunately for common sense, the theologians are never able to agree. Even within the sects, and under the more rigid discipline, there is constant wrangling, as, for example, between the Jesuits and the Dominicans. Thus the cocksureness of one outfit is cancelled out by the ribald denial of all the rest, and rational men are able to consign the whole gang to statistics and the Devil.

(h/t Jerry Coyne who is running a series this week on Mencken, calling him the first New Atheist.)

FYI: The Catholic Church is NOT a democracy

...and they pretty much don't care what you think.  


Despite recent polls that show Catholics favor Obama's rule requiring provision of birth control for employees of religious organizations, 43 different Catholic organizations have filed suit in federal court suing the Obama Administration.  


From CBSNews:

Amid continued controversy surrounding an Obama administration policy mandating that women working at religiously-affiliated institutions be provided with free access to contraceptive health care, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that most Americans - including Catholics - appear to support the rule.

...61 percent said they support the requirement, while 32 percent oppose it.  Majorities of both men and women said they are in favor of the mandate, though support among women is especially pronounced, with 66 percent supporting and 26 percent opposing it. Among men, 55 percent of men are in favor; 38 percent object.

And from the WSJ:

The University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and 41 other Roman Catholic institutions sued the Obama administration in federal court Monday, the latest push by religious groups against a requirement that employers cover contraception in workers' health plans.

Your church contributions hard at work...filing frivolous lawsuits against your opinion and judgment.

Is God a testable hypothesis?

Victor Stenger

Is God a testable hypothesis? Victor Stenger says that the supernatural is indeed testable, and shows that science speaks to this issue on a regular basis as well it should. In Science and Religion Today, Stenger says:

The rationale usually given by those who reject any role for science on religious matters is that science concerns itself, “by definition,” solely with natural phenomena. Since the supernatural is unobservable, then, they assert, science has nothing to say about it.

However, while supernatural entities may not be directly observable, any effects these entities might have on the material world should manifest themselves as observable phenomena. Anything observable is subject to scientific inquiry. On the other hand, if the supernatural has no observable effects on the natural world, then why even worry about it?

In recent years, right under the nose of the NAS, reputable scientists from reputable institutions have vigorously pursued several areas of empirical study that bear directly on the question of God and the supernatural. Any one of these experiments was capable of providing evidence for at least some aspect of a world beyond the material world. I will mention just two.

Teams of scientists from three highly respected institutions—The Mayo Clinic and Harvard and Duke universities—have performed carefully controlled experiments on the medical efficacy of blind, intercessory prayer and published their results in peer-reviewed journals. These experiments found no evidence that such prayers provide any health benefit. But, they could have.

For my second example, over a period of four decades extensive investigations have been made into the phenomenon of near-death experiences in which people resuscitated from the brink of death report a glimpse of “heaven.” Despite thousands of such reports, not a single subject has returned with new knowledge that could be tested by further investigations. No prediction has been made of some future catastrophe that later occurred on schedule, and not for lack of opportunity given the many natural disasters—earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, tornados—of recent years. Similarly, no divine revelation has provided an answer for any currently unanswered question in science, history, or theology, such as the where in the universe we will find extraterrestrial life or the location of Noah’s Ark.

Jerry Coyne references Stenger’s piece and he notes:

Jerry Coyne

Now it’s harder to test one-off interventions like the supposed resurrection of Jesus, but everything we know about nature suggests that dead people can’t come back to life, and there’s no independent evidence for this outside the Gospels. And if you show that the more frequent interventions of God are bogus, one naturally begins to suspect the one-off miracles as well.  Even when one-off miracles are tested, like weeping Jesus statues or the Shroud of Turin, they, too, fail to pass the test of divinity.

... [Stephen Jay] Gould’s “nonoverlapping magisteria” brand of accommodationism works only with deistic religions that posit a hands-off God.  And, in the West, that kind of religion is found only among well-fed theologians and extremely liberal believers.

Of course, Stenger and Coyne are correct. I would add that every observation supports the lack of supernatural interaction in our physical world. Whether the children actually saw Virgin Mary at Fatima quickly becomes a matter of faith, but our immense history of observable phenomena tells us that more mundane explanations are much more likely.

Holy books have such a marked resemblance to fictional literature, and such literature is so pervasive in human experience that it’s hard to countenance any other explanation but fiction for the existence of the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, et al. We have no problem concluding that the Odyssey was manufactured in Homer’s brain, and the X-Files was borne out of imagination, yet so many accept similar stories as factual with no reliable evidence.

Obama vs The Bishops

Obama's latest gambit, putting the contraception imperative onto health insurance companies instead of Catholic employers, is interesting.  My take is that it necessarily starts the removal of responsibility for health insurance from employers altogether.  What if I choose not to cover Lipitor, cancer surgery or blood transfusions for my employees because I feel it's unethical?  Too many side effects, not efficacious, goes against God's laws, etc... and strong arguments can be made for or against almost any therapy.

The "slippery slope" (and I usually hate that term), if there is any such thing, is that we may all be heading for a govt supplied single-payer like Medicare, or at least we are slouching toward a single "payment" system with the employer out of the picture and insurance regulators in control like all other types of insurance. And is that a bad thing?

We already have mandated provision of care by physicians and hospitals thru EMTALA statutes and I hear nothing from the conservatives to repeal those laws (except from Ron Paul).  If we all want to compel doctors to provide care, and we obviously do, then we should also compel patients to pay for it. After that it's just discussing the details about what is covered-- and I guarantee that birth control is more medically efficacious and cost effective than 98% of all other drugs and therapies on the market...and besides, 98% of Catholics are using artificial birth control anyway.


TBogg gives some advice to the Catholic clerics:

It would be in the Catholic Bishops best interests to claim victory and go home since this takes them out out of the equation, allowing them to do what they do best: pretending that they don’t know that their flock is already telling the Vatican to pound sand by using birth control. 

Alternatively, the churchmen could go to bat for the insurance companies, which seems far afield from their calling and it would be pretty unseemly after all.  Obama may be playing eleventy-dimensional chess with the Bishops... and it's their move.


(h/t @gooddoc01)

Obama's jujitsu on health care: Using Catholic power for good

Subtitle 1: "Where I agree with the Roman Catholic diocese..."

Subtitle 2: "The merciful end to employer-based health insurance."

President Obama's recent announcement that he would delay, but definitely require, religious organizations to provide health coverage for birth control, was a mystery to me. Why was he picking a fight with large employers like the Catholic Church who have the ear of millions of voters? Now the fog is starting to lift and I can see his rationale as the Catholic Church shows unease with the federal mandate.

Bishop Olmsted

Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix is renown as one of the more conservative office holders in the US; if you remember he was the outspoken critic of the nun who approved a life-saving abortion for a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension a couple years ago, winning the bishop the undying admiration of authoritarian orthodox Catholics everywhere.  Now Olmsted is in the news for drawing a line in the sand over providing health care for his employees that includes birth control. From Mike Clancy in the Arizona Republic:

According to Catholic News Service, bishops in nine of the nation's 195 dioceses are preparing letters to be read at Masses on Sunday encouraging churchgoers to lobby against the measure....
Of the group that has gone public so far, Olmsted appears to be the only one who has said specifically that Catholics should defy the law, according to the Catholic news agency.
"Unless the rule is overturned," Olmsted wrote, "we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health coverage for our employees."
Olmsted added, "We cannot -- we will not -- comply with this unjust law." [bold mine-- Tony].

It's not surprising that a hard line bishop would take a hard line stance on the issue, after all he is merely honing to the standard Catholic dogma, and frankly, I can see Olmsted's point. Okay, but doesn't this emphasize that President Obama should not be picking a fight with a huge organization that influences so many people?  Then I started reading the comments to the paper's on-line edition and the light bulb went off with this one comment from a Catholic:

JeffGannon:
Olmsted is an idiot and an embarrassment to the Catholic Church as a Catholic whose son and daughter attend BCP and Xavier [two local Catholic schools in AZ] he does not represent the thinking within the congregation his conservative socialist extremism would be better served with the other conservative communist teachings of Stalin. We within the Church support pro choice. We pray every day for his soul to be relieved of his conservative corrupt leanings.

What can I say? This particular Catholic commenter is just plain wrong. He doesn't understand Roman Catholicism. He's been basking in democracy too long and doesn't understand what a top-down authoritarian hierarchy is all about.  Leila, on her conservative Catholic site , puts it best:

Oh, how I love our shepherd [ie, Bishop Olmsted]! He is a gentle, humble soul, but he has courage in abundance! A true disciple of Christ!

But isn't she the outlier? Almost every Catholic woman in the United States has used or is currently using birth control, 98%*.  The Papal stance is very clear--- this is sinful-- and counting the men who have had vasectomies or have used condoms, well over half (if not close to all) of nominal Catholics are willfully defying the Catholic hierarchy and will go to hell.  Period. Up til now the Vatican has seemed content on looking away from this travesty within it's power mandate and has happily accepted donations and financial support from sexually active hell-bound Catholic sinners.

Which brings us to President Obama.  Why on earth would he insinuate his presidency, his legacy of health care mandates, into this primordial struggle over Catholic sexuality? Two reasons that I can see.

The first is the obvious but less likely: moderate and liberal Catholics may realize that their Church is still operating on the antique and medieval principle that women must bear 10 or 12 children to ensure the survival of 3 or 4 necessary to harvest the crops and do the household chores. Thomas Aquinas would be so proud. The Catholic Church has missed the whole 98.5 % reduction in infant mortality with which science has blessed us.  Maybe Obama is hoping this battle will help the scales fall from the eyes of the the faithful and they will leave the Church altogether, since most have effectively left the Church long ago anyway. Frankly, I doubt Obama cares too much about the Catholic hierarchy.

The second reason is more likely: the destruction of employer-based health insurance . All employees, not just Catholics, will view this debate and begin to see the complete silliness of having your employer, any employer, make decisions about your health insurance. Does my employer provide my auto insurance? Let's face it, the Catholic Church is correct, it is unjust.  If some law required that I furnish coverage for a service I felt was immoral, I'd be pissed too, and isn't that the ultimate point? The Affordable Care Act, like it or not, is a product of our democracy and reflects our essential view as a society that health care is 1) necessary for all  and 2) should include certain things like hard-on pills and birth control as well as heart surgery and cancer treatment. We recognize human sexuality as equal to life-saving therapies, like a pursuit of happiness thing.  Just ask Newt.

By making this an issue, President Obama is pushing us one more step to the eventual single-payer (or at least single payment) system we will one day enjoy. It will start next year when employees of Catholic organizations will be required to obtain health insurance outside their workplace, then others will follow and will realize how painless the process can be. Soon, the whole charade of employer-based health insurance will be seen as pointless. The government will regulate coverage on secular democratic principles, like they do all other necessary commerce, eschewing 16th century Church dogma spewed from men in dresses a world away. Obama is willing to have this debate.

President Obama is using the vast resources and power of the Catholic Church to undo employer-based health insurance coverage. Citizens overwhelmingly want health insurance and view it, correctly or not, whether they realize it or not, as a right...and if they cannot get it from their employer they will take it from the government.  If the Catholic Church wants to fight this, they will be fighting Obama's battle for him. 

And the good news: we become a tiny little bit more like Finland.

* this number seems improbable if you consider that 8-10 of women are homosexual and are likely engaging in other sins, but whatever, I'm confident the percentage is still high.

The God of Mind: Neurotheology

Why do some individuals believe in God and others do not? From Nirmukta:

Neuroscientists have discovered curious truths about religious experience and their potential enhancement through drugs, disease or even practice. In this article I explore the implications of the apparent malleability and non-universality of religiosity.A relatively new area in neuroscience gaining momentum rapidly is neurotheology – a field which investigates the notion that within the brain are neural structures which give rise to the potential for religious experience. More studies are beginning to show not only that neural correlates exist, but that they have susceptibility to pharmacological and pathological modification and potentiation, much as the same as we have found for many of the complex emergent properties of the brain.

The neuroscientist VS Ramachandran has extensively investigated a curious condition known as temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Studies have shown that after TLE patients undergo an epileptic seizure, they uniquely describe having a profound “spiritual” experience. They claim to understand their place in the cosmos, and how everything suddenly becomes saturated with significance and meaning. Such experiences occur independently of prior beliefs held by the patient. Ramachandran has explained that the phenomenon is not evidence for “God module” as the media initially popularised. Rather that there are perhaps a variety of structures which work together to give rise to such spiritual experiences, which is the case with other specific systems of the brain. The visual system for example has many quite distinct components (colour, movement, object recognition, facial recognition) working together to produce vision, rather than a “vision module” located in a single area. TLE patients also show a reduced response to normally provocative images (such as sexual images), but a heightened response to religiously-loaded words or imagery.

The serotonin (5-HT) system has long been of interest in biological models of human personality. Psychopharmacological research has investigated the effect of psychedelic drugs in relation to religious experience. The drugs which have been studied include adrenaline derivatives (e.g. mescaline) and serotonin derivatives (e.g. LSD, psilocybin, DMT). It has been found that these drugs cause transcendental or spiritual experiences as well as intense visual hallucinations. The remarkable finding is that all of these drugs act on one specific type of neuroreceptor called serotonin 2A (or 5-HT2A) receptors, which are found all over the cortical surface of the brain. 5-HT2A receptors are stimulatory, which means when these drugs acts on them they increase production of serotonin in the brain, and this gross overstimulation of the 5-HT2A receptors leads to what are interpreted as religious experiences.

[snip]

The most significant question that arises from these discoveries is the implications on the theistic account of free will in choosing faith. In other words, the typical monotheistic description of a God who gives us the ability (free will) to choose to worship him becomes problematic, since we find that the capacity for religious experience seems to be as varied among the population as any other personality trait, individual characteristic or innate ability. Some people are simply born with a brain that has a greater chance of finding God, as they are “wired up” that way. We are restricted in our choice, much the same as we are restricted in our choice to prefer chocolate or vanilla, Bach or Mozart, men or women. Neuroscientific studies have consistently shown that all the choices we make in life are far more greatly influenced by genetic makeup, rather than our environmental influences. In this regard, we are certainly not equal in finding pathways to God.

This issue dovetails with the book I recently reviewed called The "God" Part of the Brain, by Matthew Alper, which is much more complete thesis on the neurotheology or "biotheology."  Morality has a biological basis, free will is an illusion.

Adopt a Catholic!

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is asking his members to adopt an atheist in time for Christmas:

If we hurry, these [Atheists] can celebrate Christmas like the rest of us. As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who “believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.”

Biologist Greg Laden, in excerpt:

Oh. Bill. It makes me feel bad when you say things like that about me.

I “believe in” quite a few things, at least by my use of the phrase. I believe in my Christian friends, and my Atheist friends, as people, in that I trust them and hold them as important in my life. I stand for many things. I stand for a progressive society, and I stand for making a difference in this world. So, I hope I’m good for something. I feel that my main role in life is to carry out acts that improve the lives of those I love, sometimes by making them laugh, sometimes by helping them stop hurting themselves, sometimes by standing up for them, sometimes by leaving them alone, sometimes by doing stuff for them, sometimes by doing stuff with them so they know they are not alone.

Damn. I suppose that makes me a lousy Atheist.

Religion changes its “morality” based on secular considerations

From Jerry Coyne:

Religious morality appears to change under only two conditions: either secular morality moves ahead of religious morality, causing it to change... or scientific advances show that the scriptural basis of religious morality is simply wrong (e.g., there’s no Adam and Eve and hence no Original Sin).

If a religion’s moral dictates remain fixed in stone for centuries, even under the press of secular advances, then that religion loses adherents.  This, of course, is what is happening to Catholicism in so many places.

My comment: I agree.  Consider that the vast majority of nominal Catholics do not adhere to the fundamental behavioral teachings of the Church: 98% use artificial birth control and abortion rates among Catholics are the same as society in general. Church leaders seem to look the other way in order to keep the “faithful” in the flock, although this remains a sore point among conservative, ie, orthodox, Catholics whose numbers are dwindling.

Believers, of course, will maintain that any changes in morality are "inspired" by divinity while all the observable evidence is otherwise-- that moral behavior is determined by very human desires and secular considerations.

Should Romney embrace his Mormonism?

An interesting "Open Letter to Mitt" from the WaPo Faith section, an excerpt:

The Mormon story is a quintessentially American tale. Joseph Smith, the prophet of the Mormon Church, was a farmer’s son, persecuted for his interpretation of the Christian story and assassinated in 1844. After his death, 70,000 of his followers eventually took a grueling overland trek from the Midwest to Utah’s Salt Lake Valley. The faithful undertook this six-month journey, often in covered wagons, at great personal risk of injury, illness and death. Proud of their pioneering ancestors, Mormons tend to value self-reliance, grit, optimism, hard work. Your faith may be the source of your most defining personality traits.

Leave out the magic underwear and it's not much different than other faith communities.

Catholics make stuff up...

Jerry Coyne gets theological:

The Assumption—the Catholic “truth” that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven—was proclaimed an official dogma of the Church by Pope Pius XII in his Munificentissimus Deus on November 1, 1950. This was announced ex cathedra, so it’s an irrefutable truth coming directly from God. The Pope said:

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

{snip}

Now the Bible says exactly nothing about Mary’s death or fate. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known.” The doctrine of the Assumption was made up centuries after the supposed death of Jesus. As usual, this fabrication rested on dubious interpretation of the Bible, Church “tradition” (i.e., stuff that Church fathers made up), and “reason” (i.e., theological “logic”).

Coyne reviews the dubious "evidence" used to corroborate this belief: spurious passages from Psalms and Revelation, and letters from various saints from the 5th century CE. Not convinced yet?

Finally, to Pope Pius, Mary’s assumption must be true simply because it makes sense:

Among the scholastic theologians there have not been lacking those who, wishing to inquire more profoundly into divinely revealed truths and desirous of showing the harmony that exists between what is termed the theological demonstration and the Catholic faith, have always considered it worthy of note that this privilege of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption is in wonderful accord with those divine truths given us in Holy Scripture.

When they go on to explain this point, they adduce various proofs to throw light on this privilege of Mary. As the first element of these demonstrations, they insist upon the fact that, out of filial love for his mother, Jesus Christ has willed that she be assumed into heaven. They base the strength of their proofs on the incomparable dignity of her divine motherhood and of all those prerogatives which follow from it. These include her exalted holiness, entirely surpassing the sanctity of all men and of the angels, the intimate union of Mary with her Son, and the affection of preeminent love which the Son has for his most worthy Mother.

That’s about all the “evidence” for a bedrock doctrine of Catholic faith. In fact, it’s considered such a solid truth that if you deny it or scoff at it, you’ll go to hell!

The presentation of "evidence" for the Assumption tries to mimic empiricism. I always find it interesting when various religions try to give a veneer of respectability to their beliefs by presenting “evidence” that their mythologies are real. They torture logic and reason and call their fantasies logical and reasonable. I would have more respect for them if they’d just just chalked it up to an article of faith and moved on. Instead their leaders say with a straight face that the Assumption makes sense.

Good stuff, read the whole post.

The Perils of False Certainty

Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog has an excellent post on doubt.

I find it galling that it always seems to be atheists who get lectured about false certainty, or who get likened to religious fundamentalists in their dogmatism. Unless the intention is to say that fundamentalists meticulously sift the evidence to assess the balance of probabilities, and then hold their conclusions tentatively pending the arrival of new evidence, the comparison is completely inapt.

On the other hand, I see considerably less criticism of statements like this: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” That's from Pope John Paul II. It takes some serious audacity for the Pope, who claims to be able to speak infallibly at least some of the time, and who heads an organization that claims to be in a privileged position to interpret the scriptures, to scold others about false absolutes.

Christians in Egypt

In my car yesterday, NPR had a radio piece about Egyptian Coptic Christians now living in Florida and belonging to St. John the Baptist Church. They were concerned that the ouster of Mubarek would lead to more oppression of Christians in Egypt; as with most dictators in pluralistic societies, the one common denominator that concerns leaders is their hold on power. Keeping the peace among the various religions seems to be a priority, even if it means tolerance of heretics. If the less tolerant Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas takes control of Egypt, the Christians would have the most to lose.

In a semi-related note, the picture making the rounds on reddit (below) is of a group of Christians in Egypt standing guard with a human chain as Muslims kneel to pray. Kumbaya...

as long as we have a common enemy.

Colbert rips O'Reilly and Thomas Aquinas

Blasphemy!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Crisis in Egypt - Anderson Cooper & Bill O'Reilly<a>
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

"Joseph, we need to talk."

The modern nativity.

width="640" height="390">

My Comment in the Atheist Forums...

After an afternoon wading through my twitter feed filled with #catholic hashtags, I had to cleanse my palate over at the Atheist Forum. I came across a newbie who had some questions.

Micah asks,

Anyway, if thought is merely a chemical reaction, how can two people sit and discuss thought? Is their discussion just random? Also, how can someone think about making plans for something a month away, and when the time comes they fulfill those plans. Is that also just random? To a Materialist, nothing can exist outside the material, right? If so, there could be no "mind." ...

If morality to an Atheist is simply treating our fellow humans kindly, how do we come to that conclusion? Why should we not steal from the supermarket? It is beneficial to me; I gain something without having to suffer the loss of money. If morality is subjective to the person, why would Hitler killing the Jews be bad? To Nazi Germany it was perfectly fine under their own subjective morality.

My response:

All good questions that may or may not have answers. How can we discuss thought? Well, we are right now! That's how. Biologists talk about "emergent" phenomena that are greater than the chemical reactions at the foundation. Atheism does not have to equal Materialism, there is room for phenomena that are inexplicable and we shouldn't feel that we need to explain everything. When a theist friend asks "why this", it's okay to say "I don't know"... but quickly add "And neither do you.".

Can emergence be understood by everyone at all times, or by anyone at all for that matter? Maybe not. Even the Buddha said that Enlightenment is fleeting, one might only attain it for a brief moment in an entire lifetime. or maybe never at all after a lifetime of striving. None of this inability to explain and understand is a "proof" of an anthropomorphic god. You can call the answer "god" if you want, but it certainly does not resemble the God of the Bible or Koran, so it depends on what your definition of god is. For centuries we could not explain all manner of things: planetary movement, weather, animal behavior, ocean currents, human medicine and physiology, germ theory, etc, etc, etc and we gave "God" credit for intelligently designing the universe and controlling it. Ha! We know now through empiric scientific reductionist study that supernatural gods do NOT controls these things. The British science journal New Scientist listed "Consciousness" and "Mind" as phenomena that scientists will strive to explain in the next century, quite an undertaking-- but remember that only 160 years ago we didn't even know that bacteria caused disease or how vaccines worked or even that hand-washing could protect our health. Take that, Howie Mandell!

Morality. Thich Nacht Hahn, the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, says "Kindness is my only religion." Evolutionary biologists will say that morality is an adaptation encoded in our genes since those ancestors that were amoral were selected out when their social structures broke down, thus only the moral genes survived. Robert Wright*, in his book The Moral Animal, explains this concept very eloquently. No man is an island and we rely on our strong social structure to survive, grow crops and hunt and protect each other. This is not to say that every single person acts morally all the time. Hardly. We all decide who is in our moral community and deserves our "kindness." Most would agree that supermarket owners fall within that category and thus we would conclude that we should not steal from the supermarket. Al Qaeda? Maybe not. Each of us may have different views about whether animals belong within our moral community as well. We are kind to dogs and even protect them with laws, but yet we slaughter cows and pigs for food, for example.

One other item off topic. I hear many fellow atheists bemoan the failings of "religion" and equate "religion" with theism. Firstly, a large plurality of religious people in the world count themselves as atheist, Buddhists for example. One can be religious, even devout, but not believe in god. Secondly, are religions perfect? No, but that does not mean that they are worthless... all religions have the potential to be beneficial.

*Currently, I've just started Wright's latest, The Evolution of God, and I may review it at some point.