Allusive Atheist

Why is it important to convince a theist that he is wrong?

2011-12-26T20:12:00.001-08:00

(quick rant)

People allow, nay, insist that their religion inform their opinions on social, civil and political matters. This necessarily has an effect on everybody.

Even if someone's religion happened to point them in directions beneficial to mankind, their mere ability to hold a belief which is based on groundless hearsay and that horrible F word, indicates that they can not be trusted to use sound means to deliberately inform their opinions in AT LEAST one matter.

If someone can believe something crazy without harming the rest of us, no problem. But that's not how it works. If someone wants to demonstrate that having reviewed a great breadth and depth of "evidence" they've come to the conclusion that there is no reliable reason to believe... but they still believed... as long as they recognize that their supernatural beliefs have no place in deciding how best we may live, work and advance together, there's no problem. But that's not how it works.

Why is it important to convince a theist that he is wrong? Because it hurts us all, in small but cumulative, massively cumulative ways.

Can theists be convinced by reason?

2011-12-12T20:01:00.000-08:00

They can be reached by reason. However not all avenues are assailable. That which may be believed without reason may be immune to reason. The only hope is to discover the underlying foundation to beliefs and addressing those.

Belief is a subjective response to the best (also subjective) available evidence. Misinformation can be more valuable in making a decision in the mind of the subject. A convincing and engaging liar may appear more credible than a fact laden empiricist. We can try to teach and motivate our acquaintances to be more demanding in their epistemology. But convincing people to think harder and to consider the counter-intuitive is exhausting and poorly rewarded.

Generalized reasonable atheism advocacy will find purchase in some individuals. But we cannot predict whether such advances remain chronic moot doubts, get rationalized away or lead to serious inquiry. We probably won't hear about many near-success stories. Here too, general refutation of theologies and super-naturalism is exhausting and poorly rewarded. But retreating from either front would be a tacit invitation to every charlatan and would-be prophet.

When dealing with fallacious beliefs on a case-by-case basis we may ask the individual what they believe and why they believe it... and why they believe that... and why they believe that, until you either reach a point of mutual agreement or it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable foundation to the larger belief matrix. If you are rigorously skeptical and don't fall for any false syllogisms, reason may prevail.

Most religious ideologies encourage adherents to share their beliefs so it shouldn't be that hard to open this dialog. But questioning the beliefs is generally not welcome so expect that to get sticky. Whether I believe that milk is good for stronger teeth and bones or that dreams come from ethereal creatures, if I'm not willing explain why I believe these things I should not be treated as credible. Beliefs may be completely out of touch or demonstrably factual. It is the responsibility of the proponent of any belief to explain why it is true. Responsibility.

In the end every believer is left with "evidence" and reasons that are not substantially better than those for most competing supernatural beliefs. All the believer has left is faith and subjectivity. Not coincidentally, believers of most competing supernatural beliefs are identically "supported" by their faith and subjectivity.

They can be reached by reason. But your best bet is to have them search for reason, then let them wonder why they can't find it.

One nation, above all gods

2011-10-28T23:37:00.000-07:00

News item: The Obama administration does not want “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. link

This republic is not one nation under God. To say that it is, establishes the government and the governed as subordinate to a deity. This is not OK. Even if it read, “one nation, under some undefined supernatural entity," it would still not be OK as that would still imply recognition of a higher authority for America and Americans, ALL Americans . The United States government does not have the authority to unilaterally create a treaty with absentee supernatural forces. Why are we surrendering? It could even be inferred from the subordination, that the US derives its authority from such an entity. The United States government did not and does not derive its authority from a supernatural source. If we made that claim then anyone having a superior claim to knowing the will of the vague or specific god could challenge our authority to confederate, legislate and self-govern. It might also be inferred that, as a subordinate to a general deity, the US is a deist theocracy, or worse.

All that would be bad enough but the current pledge says "under God." So it's not a just a noun it's a proper noun. It's a name; the name of the abrahamic god; the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The pledge makes the US not only subordinate to a vague deist god but a specific, named god of three religions. For anyone who holds a religious belief contesting the existence and/or authority of the abrahamic god, reciting the pledge prohibits their free exercise religion. This alienates followers of Jainism, Buddhism, Scientology, Sikhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, Paganism, any number of indigenous belief systems and also non-believers. The alienated must choose to forgo the pledge, miss-cite it or display deference to the abrahamic god, if only nominally.

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, the US is a secular state. We operate as a nation of laws. We derive our authority for self governance not from the supernatural but from the people. Any statute that grants or recognizes deference to a vague or specific supernatural entity undermines the authenticity of our self governance, establishes subordination to a religious entity and encumbers the free exercise by those with conflicting beliefs.

The pledge is defined by U.S. Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, § 4. And while no one is likely to get arrested for messing up the pledge, The U.S. Code is law, enacted by Congress. How and why the 1954 addition of "under God" hasn't been overturned by the courts should baffle anyone who respects our integrity as a nation of laws.

And just so no one has to look for it elsewhere:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~First Amendment to the United States Constitution

pictured: United States Bill of Rights

With an election right around the corner the last thing President Obama needs to do is lose support from the rest of the god crowd. I can’t hold this against him. On this issue, at this time, my cynicism outweighs my idealism. It does seem as though he genuinely prefers the phrase in there. That’s disappointing. It’s really Congress’s or the court’s job to take it out. I’d prefer it were the court. But with the current lineup on the bench (ie, corporations are people) now is probably not a good time.

2+2=5

2011-08-29T20:44:00.000-07:00

I believe 2+2=5.

I can’t prove that 2+2=5.

You just have to believe 2+2=5.

2+2=5 transcends naturalist and scientific explanations.

You have to accept 2+2=5 on faith.

I can feel 2+2=5 at work in my life.

I have the right to believe whatever I want.

2+2=5 is everywhere, if you care to look.

Schools that do not teach 2+2=5 should be required to teach the controversy.

There are those who deny 2+2=5.

If they would only accept 2+2=5 they would see the truth of 2+2=5.

You too should believe 2+2=5.

2+2=5 is the foundation of morality and knowledge.

That which contradicts 2+2=5 is necessarily wrong.

We need to get this country back to 2+2=5 values.

It is the lack of 2+2=5 values that is undermining what makes this country great.

It is rude and contemptible to openly question 2+2=5.

As I believe 2+2=5 I will take it as a personal attack if anyone questions 2+2=5.

2+2=5 is the light and the way.

To claim 2+2 does not =5 is blasphemy.

Blasphemers are poisoned wells.

Gay Marriage and Subjectivity

2011-06-20T17:03:00.000-07:00

Short Version:
How would you feel about gay marriage if you learned it wasn't (whatever reason you have for being opposed to it)?

How bigots view the laws of Nature
subtitle: I wonder how they don't find it at all strange that the Universe has the same biases as them

( lolgod.blogspot.com )

Long Version:
Why are you against gay marriage? Is it because it is sinful, against the will of god or unnatural? What if you learned, irrefutably, that none of these were true. Let's not be distracted by the implausibility. We've all come to some point(s) where we realized something(s) we had believed was incorrect. Otherwise we would still believe the things we believed as children. I don't know what it would take to convince you. Certainly nothing I say or write will do the trick. But let's assume, purely to consider another question, that there was a way to convince you. Let's also assume, purely hypothetically, that somehow you've crossed that threshold.

Somehow... something... caused you to realize that the basis for your opposition to gay marriage was misinterpreted, misrepresented, faulty, wrong or completely absent. Whatever that reason was, your previous basis for opposition is now completely neutral. It's not that gay marriage is necessarily good. It's just that (again, hypothetically) you no longer have an instruction, evidence, example or reason to to be against it. Whatever reason you had, let's pretend that it is now completely indifferent to gay marriage.

How then would you feel, and I emphasize "feel," about homosexuals getting married? Remember, in this hypothetical it's not a sin. God doesn't care. It's not unnatural. Whatever objection you had, is now irrelevant. The question here is how would you personally feel about it. If your church, your holy text, your political party, your social club and everybody & everything in the world suddenly became OK with gay marriage would you still have a subjective desire to prevent homosexuals from getting married? What is it you would be feeling?

Would you be indifferent to two men talking about when one of them popped the question? Would you feel indignant if a lesbian shared her nervousness about the marriage bed? If gays got to visit their spouse in the hospital, claim "married" on their taxes, adopt as a married couple, come to you for advise on their anniversary party, be the default "by law" beneficiary, be eligible for alimony/palimony and brag about how great married life is... would that be OK with you? Or would you still find it objectionable based purely on how you feel about it? Would the way you feel about gay marriage change if cultural and religious objection vanished? Or do you think you would feel the same way?

Conclusion:
The point of this hypothetical line of inquiry is to suggest that perhaps many people hold up their ideologies as a justification of their personal objections. As it relates to gay marriage, if gay marriage would still feel somehow offensive in the absence of source-able external objections then we should consider what that might mean.

Maybe it means your ideology is justified by your feelings because your gut or intuition is reliable. Maybe it means god has written this on your heart. But if we go that route we would have to answer some tough questions. Regarding the people who were against abolition, women's suffrage, racial integration, civil rights... What is it about your gut, your intuition or what's written on your heart that is superior to their collective gut, their intuition and that which was written on their hearts? And not just you, why are the opinions of everyone who agrees with you more reliable than the opinions of those who were for slavery, against suffrage, etc.? For many things, "how you feel about it" is a perfectly legitimate factor in informing your opinion. But when it comes to limiting or liberating other people's civil participation, "how you feel about it" means very little. Just as it did for those who felt women should not be allowed to vote.

Maybe instead of your ideology being justified by your feelings you've attached yourself to an ideology that justifies your feelings... an ideology you're comfortable with. Would you cling to a belief system if it caused you emotional discomfort? Regarding belief systems, you are where you are for a reason.

For most of us, perhaps all of us, there is a vicious circle of our feelings informing our beliefs and our beliefs further (perhaps irrationally) justifying our feelings. If we can accept that this is true of many other people then perhaps we should consider that it's probably true personally as well. It isn't as simple as you having jumped on the band wagon because they were playing your tune. This is a life-long process. If your sources of information are limited then your perspective will likely be limited as well. Every belief has a cost/benefit motivator, not unlike Pascal's wager. And thinking objectively and critically is hard and can be counter-intuitive. But objectivity and critical thinking are the best tools for breaking the feelings>beliefs vicious circle.

Returning to the point, if gay marriage would still feel somehow offensive in the absence of source-able external objections then what does that say about your objection? I'm not asking you to defend your objections. I am asking you to try to better understand it. Where does that feeling come from? Do the feelings justify the beliefs or do the beliefs justify the feelings? Or would you benefit from taking a step back and considering just how much your feelings and beliefs are dependent on each other. That interdependence is fine if you just wanna live your life. But if you feel the need to speak on matters of public policy and to restrict the civil participation of other people, maybe your feelings and personal beliefs aren't enough. If I wanted to limit or change your civil liberties based on my feelings and personal beliefs, how seriously should you have to take me?

We have a responsibility to each other as members of a society, and especially as members of a democracy. We know that we have had, will have and do have the capacity to be wrong. We have been, will be and are probably right now wrong about something. For this we can forgive ourselves and each other. But if we ignore that capacity and allow our feelings and personal beliefs to be the the only sources informing our discussions and decisions on matters that effect other people, then we have ignored our responsibility.

It is my hope that people will consider the correlation between what they believe and what they feel. It is my hope that people will recognize the fallibility of basing beliefs on feelings. It is my hope that people will try to understand how to distinguish between facts, informed opinion, ideologically-driven opinion and pure speculation. It is my hope that people will try to understand how to recognize what makes information reliable. It is my hope that people will care enough to want to.

Unless these hopes are realized soon we will be remembered as the generation that got it wrong on gay rights.

In a democracy surely an uninformed or misinformed opinion has greater weight than an informed opinion. For which will do the greater harm?

People: our best hope

2011-05-29T16:37:00.000-07:00

Let me share this comment in case it gets deleted:

Joplin is full of relgious groups, you know, all those people with false hope whom you say aren't looking, do everything they can to help.

I have seen no atheist organizations making a concerted effort to help.

Where are those atheist activists like who went down to Joplin last year organizing meetups?

Where are the American Atheists and FFRF?

On their blogs.

Taking swipes as Christians.

Atheist spells Eatshit as far as I am concerned anymore.

Where is Doctors Without Borders? Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? Where is the Heritage Foundation? Where is the United Nations? Midwest relief from natural disasters does not fall within the purview of any of these organizations. Likewise, American Atheists nor Freedom From Religion Foundation.

RichardDawkins.net, in partnership with many non-belief organizations, has set up a donation link for Joplin relief, just as they did for Haiti relief:
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/

And of course Westboro Baptist Church is also doing their part.

There are a lot of good people doing good work in Joplin. Some of them might even tell you they are doing so because Jesus wants them to. But even if you could convince these people there is no divinity, they would not abandon their efforts. So too there are many non-religious christians and non-christians that are helping their neighbors. Tightly knit pre-organized church communities are going to make the most of their bonds. The rest of us sift into where we are needed. If anyone bothers to claim they are helping in order to glorify atheism, hopefully those tempted to claim they are glorifying their religious icons will recognize how silly that is.

"...all those people with false hope whom you say aren't looking, do everything they can to help."

While I was speaking more generally, this complaint exemplifies my point. They are doing. There will be those who do nothing more than pray. That's a great way to feel like you're doing something without really doing anything at all. And their prayers will be answered not by angels but by humans. For in other humans, there is real hope. The potential for help, progress and salvation are tangible in social groups, civilization or more specifically: people.

When the buildings once again stand, the foliage fills and the biggest concern is who will make the playoffs too many people will give a perceived deity all of the credit and none of the blame. Maybe we could run an experiment and see how much gets done without any human intervention. Is there any real hope that a supernatural being will replace or repair all those buildings and all that infrastructure? Or maybe we could bet on a sure thing: people. Real hope.

False Hope

2011-05-24T21:00:00.000-07:00

I would say that false hope is better than no hope except people who find false hope tend to stop looking for real hope.

The Great Joplin tornado of 2011

2011-05-23T13:17:00.000-07:00

(It's somewhat ironic that my last Note was "This Day.")

I haven't seen any of the damage first hand. But from what I'm piecing together... imagine (for my Santa Clarita friends) a force of nature starting at Newhall Ave on Lyons and and demolishing everything from there to I-5. I'm told this may have been a mile wide. From pictures, it leveled everything, cutting a path at least six blocks wide. Does "everything" include sturdy brick buildings? Yes it does. The path the tornado took in Joplin was about 70-80% residential.

I always thought it was a supremely bad idea that both hospitals were tucked in the same corner of town, about half a mile apart. One of those hospitals, St. John's, was hit. I'm told it was "destroyed." From pictures it *looks* like the structure is intact but everything else will need extensive repairs or replacement. A casino/hotel about 5-7 miles away is being used as a hospital.

caption: Water gushes from a broken pipe in a building along Rangeline Road.
credit: Globe/Roger Nomer

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=DO&Date=20110522&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=105220802&Ref=PH&odyssey=mod|mostpopphotos

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x433426155/Widespread-damage-reported-after-tornado

I took a circuitous route home, around the north side of town, to avoid the problem areas. My folks were without power the last time I had spoken to them. They report they lost some siding off the house. Mom described the storm to me as being on the other side of the railroad tracks. The tracks are about 100-150 yards from their house. There's a ridge about 300 yards beyond the tracks so "the other side of the tracks" is less than 400 yards away. Mara, Rose and Wolfgang were with them when all this happened, hunkered down in the laundry room. That is some scary shit. I had just dropped them off not an hour earlier. I had remarked to the kids during the drive that the clouds looked angry. I had no idea.

At work I was so busy with IT outages that I was mostly shielded from the news, certainly from details. Phone and cell service was spotty over the area. And everybody that had a phone was trying to use it. Luckily I was able to verify and occasionally re-verify that everyone was OK. But it was fairly frantic trying to juggle responsibilities and confirm that my nearest and dearest were out of danger and not taken from me.

As I neared home the clouds to the south were ablaze with lightning. There was barely time for them to grow dark between arcs. Power was out in patches. The light pollution from the city was noticeably dimmer. Traffic lights were out. The path of destruction ended a between one and three miles from our house. The direct suffering this tornado has brought me amounts to inconvenience. We're almost out of laundry detergent. I would go to the nearest Wal-mart super center but there is probably still debris in the road and, oh yeah... that Wal-mart won't be open for a long time. We suffered some anxiety and fear. Sharin had to navigate an obstacle course to pick the kids up and get them home, suffering a flat along the way. Road debris? Can we count that as tornado related property damage? By the time this is over the death toll will probably be in the hundreds. 1000 plus would not surprise me. But me and mine have escaped unscathed.

I am thankful. I got lucky. We (my family) got lucky. But if anyone wants to give the credit for that luck to anything or anyone STOP. Tell it to the people who lost their place of employment. Tell it to the hundreds of people who lost their homes. Tell it to the people who were injured. Tell it to the people who did lose loved ones. Tell it to the dead. Tell them why my family was lucky but they were not. Only tell me if you want me to jump down your throat. I know my family was lucky. I actually wish I had someone or something to thank. I'm not ungrateful. But if there were a something or a someone to thank then I would surely also have to damn them/it for the horrifying devastation visited upon the people of my city.

Which reminds me: Mara won't be going to pre-school in the morning because the church facility where she attends was at least partially damaged. A lot of nice people with good hearts work and attend there. I kind of like the place except for all the displays of archaic torture/murder devices. I don't know how bad the damage was to the buildings. Hopefully not too bad. But it's only about half a mile from St. John's hospital and directly between my folks house and St. John's. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Human interest story: At a fast food restaurant, Wendy's I think, people took cover in a bathroom as the tornado hit. The building was leveled. The survivors had dig themselves out of the ruble. The good new: they all survived. I'm hoping that story is true and stays true. Damn, now I'm hungry.

So far this whole thing hasn't really sunk in emotionally for me. I keep catching myself on the verge of make glib comments, gallows humor. If this had happened the first year I moved out here I'd be on the road back to earthquake/brush-fire/mudslide country. But I've been here so long, it feels like tornadoes aren't real or they only happen to other people. I am completely serious (and completely selfish) when I say I hope it stays that way.

This Day

2011-05-23T13:16:00.000-07:00

Every day is special. It is easy to forget as we busy ourselves with the seemingly meaningless day-to-day details. We think of birthdays as special. And anniversaries. We perceive a day as special only if has some historical significance. We are told to remember the sabbath and keep it holy. The other six days it would seem may be forgotten and desecrated. We celebrate secular and religious holidays and bemoan the days between. It is what is expected of us. But every day is a treasure. Every day is fraught with challenges and opportunities. Every day is a gift from god or good fortune. Through suffering and joy we have ourselves, each other and we have this day.

God's Parasites

2011-05-20T18:02:00.000-07:00

Assuming for a moment that evolution, or macro-evolution, is not responsible for the diversity of life then explain where these little devils came from.

You probably recognize the tick, flea and mosquito. The parasitic wasp of the Ichneumonidae family may be less familiar. Malaria might be hard to recognize. As for the cymothoa exigua, do not research this creature on a full stomach.

I could have added snakes and spiders with necrotic venom, lampreys, anthrax, chiggers (OMG the chiggers!), tapeworms... the list goes on. For that matter, why would a god make a world for humans and include ANY plants that are toxic or even irritating to humans? "Mysterious ways" or fallacious mythology? Would you call this "un-intelligent design" or "malicious design?" Does anyone want to blame this on scrumping? If we owe this world to a creator, it was either cruel, indifferent or incompetent.

Morality Is Not Objective

2011-04-10T19:04:00.000-07:00

Morality, the intrinsic sense of right and wrong, is not objective. If there were a single fount of morality then surely we would be able to trace it back to the head. Our connection to that fountainhead would necessarily correlate to our morality. That's not what we see in churches. That's not what we see in mixed (secular and non-secular) society. And that's not what we see in cultures largely untouched by Abrahamic faiths. Morality is the adhesive between social creatures in the struggle for finite resources. Sometimes we cooperate. Sometimes we compete. Usually we do both.

It is a balancing act between perceived self interest, varying degrees of loyalty to various group with which we self-identify (in-groups) and perceived out-groups. In any given situation we have to consider what is best for our self, what is best for our group(s) (family, employer, political party, nation, denomination, neighborhood, etc.) and what forces or entities encroach on our self- or group-interest. This is the way of all social creatures.

But this is a motivator that works primarily at an emotional level. And like most emotions, reasoning beings can intellectually overrule their feelings. Well, theoretically. When resources become more available at the self level we tend to be more charitable to the group. When resources become more available at the group level we tend to expect to benefit personally. When we and our group are doing well we tend to be less hostile to minor encroachment. So too do we reduce our hostility to out-groups when we recognize they are merely a more remote extension of our in-groups.

In addition to the emotional responsibility we feel toward our groups we can also understand and appreciate the benefits of an official civil structure based on codified ethics, rules and laws. While these go hand-in-hand with morality and tend to serve similar functions they are artificial constructions, both extragenic and extrinsic.

If we want to credit a capricious ghost in the sky for our morality (intrinsic selfless social responsibility) but not our selfishness we still have to speculate where that selfishness came from. Assuming we were created, and the god did not put selfishness in us, where did that extra ingredient come from? Were there more fingers in the pie than were reported in the Judeo-Christian creation myths? God and divine creation are very poor explanations for the visceral gymnastics we experience when our various interests are in conflict.

Apologists argue that without an objective source there can be no morality, or perhaps that it is meaningless or that there can be no true justice. But morality is not something that comes to us, it is something that comes from us. It is a balance of interests which are ultimately self-interest. It may seem counter-intuitive to credit self-interest for the creation of morality and selflessness. It may seem vulgar to think that our finest examples of humanity are merely extensions of our basest drives. Though the idea may be hard to stomach, it is staring back at us with pedantic patience. Morality is an intrinsic emotional balancing of often conflicting personal interests in a social environment. While Creation skips over the creation of selfishness, evolution explains both selfishness and selflessness, lo, they are the same.

If everything we could ever need or desire were infinitely available, there would be no competition for resources. Nor would there be an evolutionary selection force for cooperation, other than reproduction. But even reproduction is a need/desire.

When I first recognized that I was no longer a theist I came to the conclusion that morality is a lie and that we need rely only on ethics. Some years later I realized that ethics is a construct that we build. Ethics are cultural and intellectual. And yet even children have an innate sense of justice when objectively observing social exchanges. While they may not be able to articulate why something is fair or unfair, but they are good at identifying injustice when they are a disinterested third party. When they are not disinterested, they tend to make excuses favoring their self or their friend/family.

My first guess is that we are using the term "morality" to represent two different but similar and overlapping ideas. Traditionally, morality is an system of conduct based on ideas of absolute right and wrong. Additionally, such a code of morality is or was typically ascribed as divine edict. That which is permissible by that doctrine is moral. That which is forbidden by that doctrine is immoral. There is also the common belief that morality is ingrained in us by supernatural authority as a sense of right an wrong.

In the absence of divine authority "ethical" and "unethical" should carry the same weight as "moral" and "immoral". Yet they do not. Why is that? What is the difference between ethics and morality? If "morality" deserves more weight than "ethics" we should be able to say why.

When we speak of morality we tend to suppose that good and bad, right and wrong are absolute (or nearly so) and must be recognized. We seem to be appealing to an inescapable source of discernment. When we speak of ethics we are never referring to an innate sense of right and wrong, rather mutually accepted rules for civility or specific activities. Ethics tend to be based on common values. These values are not arbitrary or prescribed. These values are the description of what most people feel intrinsically about what is good or bad, right or wrong. It is not a matter of what is believed, understood or reasoned. It is a matter of what is felt. Is there a word for this raw, unreasoned, pre-intellectual, intuitive, subjective sense of what is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust?

What is that word?

I use the label "morality" for that unreasoned sense which is within us as the foundation of social responsibility. If we had another word for it I would use it happily. It is unfortunate that we do not. The traditional definition of morality as a moral code of conduct leaves the subject wide open to the theist's favorite tool of misinformation: the equivocation.

Where I describe morality as "an intrinsic emotional balancing" I refer to that innate feeling of right and wrong that triggers our conscious intellectual consideration of what is right and wrong. In this sense morality is not our end judgment, not our conclusion of what is right and wrong, but rather our initial motivation (in any given situation) for considering what is best.

Before we devote any objective reasoning to a "moral" or ethical question, it is likely that the more subjective regions of the brain have already assigned values to the variables.

Ten Commandments, Remarkably Undivine

2011-04-09T19:26:00.000-07:00

People continue, unchallenged, to cite the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament as the herald and pinnacle of human morality. The Ten Commandments is strong evidence that Yahweh was either made up by frustrated uneducated old men or that the creator of the universe has the mentality of a frustrated uneducated old man.

1. I am your god Have no gods before me. (Not “the” god but “your” god. Are there other gods to have before you? Research on “Who wrote the Bible” explains this one. You should look into that.)

2. Make no graven image (No statuary? It’s easy to see how important that is. Right, Barbie?)

3. Take not my name in vain (OMFG. WTF. Petty and insecure? Or is it just crowd control?)

4. Keep the Sabbath holy (Why is it OK to allow any unholy (or less holy) days? Is it because if you’re not in temple they can’t squeeze or control you.)

The first four protect only the religion and religious leaders. NO ONE is harmed by ignoring the first four commandments. And Jesus said you could ignore number 4 if you had a good reason. So he contradicted his timeless god-self. Furthermore, when asked which of the commandments we should keep to, Rabbi Jesus doesn’t mention any of the first four. Hmm. (Matthew 19:17-19, Luke 18:20, Mark 10:19)

5. Honor Mom and Dad (Vague and unconditional)

6. Don’t kill (Potentially good but doesn’t protect non-Israelites or sinners)

7. Philander not. (Good advice, bad commandment. Also, the bible suggests the severity of the offense depends only on who is doing it. Male adulterer: bad. Female adulterer: Kill the whore!)

8. Don’t steal (also doesn’t include stealing from non-Israelites, especially if you’ve killed them)

9. Don’t lie (the ultimate irony… Did god commit the first lie in Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”)

10. Don’t covet (Don’t desire what other people have? That’s just un-American and also hypocritical coming from a privileged shaman class or an entity that created everything from nothing.)

It is disgusting that anyone considers the Ten Commandments to be worthy of consideration, let alone reverence. This most exalted and timeless example of the “moral” superiority of the abrahamic religious systems could be vastly improved by most modern educated adults.

What about rape or statutory rape? What about slavery, which is actually acceptable throughout the rest of bible? What about non-lethal violence? What about domestic violence? Why is it that violating any one of the commandments is punishable by death depending on interpretation and who is in charge? Contemptible are the Ten Commandments and the backward blood-thirsty archaic desert dwellers that made them up.

What would you add, remove or change from the Ten Commandments?

Quran burning

2011-04-04T19:38:00.000-07:00

Fundamentalist cleric Terry Jones made headlines with his plan for an "International Burn a Koran Day." Jones ostensibly canceled the event but managed another public display (International Judge the Koran Day) that ended with quran flambé. As a result several UN workers and 2 US soldiers have been killed abroad in some ill conceived attempt at retribution. AP article on Yahoo here.

Sam Harris does well in speaking my mind here:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/do-we-have-the-right-to-burn-the-koran/

By placing ANY responsibility on Terry Jones we are assuming that islam is not the religion of peace and its adherents are not capable of morality or humanity on a person by person basis.

Even if we assume that muslims are semi-human hornets, should we ignore the nest in our midst and merely eschew provocation? The real problem is much harder to solve. By ignoring it we allow the problem to fester, mutate and grow. Focusing on Jones' stupid grandstanding diverts our attention from an issue... we were already ignoring.

If moderate and liberal muslims don't want islam associated with acts of violence they need to do a lot more than remain silent in the wake of these events. If they don't take their religion back from the fundamentalists then I am quite happy to assume the louder more violent voices are the true representatives of islam. How can the apparent silence of moderates be interpreted as anything anything other than tacit approval?

Terry Jones is just one more false prophet. That's not a crime in the US. I'd be more than happy to make it a crime here and everywhere. But what criteria would we use to determine falsehood? That's where we'll have a hard time finding consensus. I may not like the idea of book burning, probably due to historical correlatives. If the world wants to condemn Terry Jones for being a charlatan, grand-stander, troll, attention whore, self-important prick, asshole or something other than quran burning, I'm OK with that. If anyone wants to gag Jones because we can't hold violent muslims accountable, I'm not OK with that. This is definitely a case where the easier thing to do is not the right thing to do.

If the right thing is the hard thing and the hard thing is getting muslim hardliners to be reasonable, then we better get started.

"F" word, Round Three

2011-02-26T21:53:00.000-08:00

The issue that was bothering me when I wrote “More "F" word” is that there is one word, "faith," that is used to mean everything from "This is impossible but I believe it anyway," to “If the ball I’m holding feels heavy then it will fall if release it.”

Youtube user C0nc0rdance does well in describing faith as a lack of doubt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkuaT3FaoQA From time mark 1:38 through 2:50 it’s like he’s reading my mind. I’m sure somewhere I’ve previously used the example of when taking a step we have faith that the floor will meet our sole. Based on sensory input and experience it may be reasonable to expect that the floor will be there. As likely as it is though, it is not certain.

When it comes to belief, trust, expectation or faith we are dealing with probabilities. And hopefully credibility figures into our assessments of probability. Thus all things are almost certain, almost certainly not or somewhere in between. While many things fall somewhere in between it is difficult, if not impossible, to function without some expectation/faith that our environment is how (or at least similar to how) we perceive it. Conversely, if we assume everything, or any one thing, is exactly as we perceive it, we leave no room for correction… we couldn’t learn nor could we respond to change.

So we need something like faith to function. But we also need skepticism or doubt to reduce and correct errors. “Faith” is used for too wide a spectrum of belief and expectation. If one speaks out against intractable belief, the least doubting extreme on that spectrum, a proponent of faith is likely to cite the benefits of faith in the form of reasonable expectation, optimism, altruism and adventurous exploration. But the necessity of reasonable expectation and the potential benefits of speculative assessment do not justify convicted belief in anything that defies objective evidence. And this is a problem.

“You just gotta have faith.” “You just gotta believe.” “Believing is seeing.” Believing something does not make it true. I don’t think anyone outside of children’s authors is making that argument. But these clichés are appealing to the faithful. The suggestion is that through belief or faith the truth (or a truth) will be revealed. But this blatantly ignores very real psychological stumbling blocks. If we approach a subject with an assumption of truth then any point of doubt may be dismissed as generally untrue or untrue specifically as it relates to the belief. Cognitive dissonance insures that if conflicting information threatens the perceived truth, the conflicting information (true or not) will be mitigated, discounted or disbelieved. Something's gotta give. While all this is going on, that which is believed is not any truer though the believer may be further convinced.

“Faith” by its various names is a useful tool for basic human functionality. But it is the worst possible tool for reducing ignorance. When gaining knowledge the presenter may be correct but if we don't question why it is true then our understanding is less complete. The type of faith that is promoted by the religious and their prophets as the most valuable or most important kind of faith (it’s really the only kind they refer to) is the unquestioning intractable faith in that which cannot be seen. It is this kind of faith by which good people can be convinced to do bad things. It is this kind of faith that convinces people to act against their own best interest. It is this kind of faith that allows people to justify harming the innocent. And yet, this insidious mode of belief is labeled with the same word as well-reasoned assumption.

There are really two problems. From the perspective of the prophets, it is an insult that such lackluster common everyday reasonable belief is in any way compared the blessed unquestioning faith of the devoutly faithful. Desiring that faith be supported by reason or evidence only diminishes the purity of one’s faith. It’s practically sinful. From the perspective of the otherwise rational believer, it is impossible to function without the reasonable-expectation variety of faith and therefore faith itself is not the problem. Should we infer that if it is detrimental to distrust everything and everyone it is therefore better to have faith in everything and everyone? Unearned trust may be part of the answer but it is definitely not the whole answer.

To call reasonable expectation “faith” is an insult to the prophets, their deities and their ideals. To call blind adherence to an unsubstantiated belief “faith” makes it sound more reasonable than it is. To call cautious optimism “faith” is to miss the point entirely. This word leaves too much open to interpretation. It is self-equivocating. Using the word “faith” circumvents clarity and intellectual responsibility.

Atheist Blogroll

2011-02-24T04:18:00.001-08:00

Allusive Atheist has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

"The Selfish Gene" describes genes that are selfish.

2011-01-11T20:53:00.000-08:00

Thirty years after the publication "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, detractors still contend that Dawkins is wrong. In every case I've seen, the arguments they advance make it clear they haven't even read the dust jacket.

The eponymous "selfish gene" is not a gene for selfishness. The title of the book "The Selfish Gene" describes genes as acting (replicating) without concern for consequences.

Referring to "the selfish gene" as a genetic predisposition for selfishness displays an ignorance of the original material.

It is the genes that behave selfishly. The degree of selfishness or charity in an organism (including humans) resulting from genetic influence is irrelevant to how a gene or group of genes behaves at the molecular level. It is this molecular level behavior, by molecules, that is selfish.

Genes are incapable of caring, but if we were to anthropomorphize them, the one thing they would care about was self-replication with a high degree of accuracy. The gene would not care about what type of phenotype (including behavior) it generates. Genes merely replicate, sexually or asexually. Selection pressures (i.e. natural, artificial and sexual) favor some phenotypes over others. The genes associated with favored phenotypes acquire more replication opportunities. But the genes don't care. They are incapable of caring. It is this lack of caring that earns all genes the descriptor of "selfish."

Genes, polypeptide components of biological machines (organisms) go about their business single-mindedly. All organisms act toward their own best interest. Altruism, kindness, charity and sharing behaviors are symbiotic rather than pure self-sacrifice. This is detailed by the work of George Price and subsequent evolutionary psychologists. Every animal that behaves socially does so because the selfish genes of its ancestors capitalized on the benefits of cooperation and were favored by selection pressures. Even genes that are themselves selfish may produce organisms that that make small, or even substantial sacrifices that benefit other organisms. The flower/pollinator relationship bares this out.

More examples? Parasite eaters that go unmolested by predators. Animals that call out an alarm upon detecting a predator rather than merely hiding. Hive insects that protect their nest against an overwhelming attacker. For that matter, the maternal instincts of every animal that rears its young.

An organism will act unselfishly if the selection pressures encountered by its lineage rewarded cooperation. This is because all genes are selfish in that they strive (if I may again anthropomorphize) to replicate. If selfish genes that promote altruistic behavior are favored by selection pressures then symbiotic (or reciprocal) altruism will increase.

The selfish gene is not a gene for selfishness but rather a gene that is itself selfish.

What do you call someone who doesn't believe

2011-01-09T03:02:00.000-08:00

Language is not liquid. Language is LEGOs (tm). If you use too few blocks you create a very rough form. To add detail you must add scale. So too with language, complex ideas tend to be poorly represented in sparse wording. Once more efficiency is the enemy of quality.

I am a staunch and unashamed atheist. And when I describe myself as an atheist I know exactly what I mean. But I've exchanged ideas with enough people who call themselves atheists to know that though they use the same word they may not mean the same specific thing.

And I've seldom exchanged ideas with theists (on points of contention) when I didn't find it necessary to clarify definitions and implications of words and phrases to avoid equivocation and general miscommunication. Again the words atheism and atheist are likely to create misconceptions. When I use these words I know I am probably seeding a conversation.

I like the term naturalist. But that can be confused with bird-watchers or nudists. I like the term humanist but it seems new-age-y, evasive and doesn't really get the point across. I like secularist but that is more of a political position. "Bright" is immodest. If there is a better word than "atheist" it may not be coined yet. It was super-naturalists who coined and wielded the word atheist. Would it not be poetic justice if they were undone by it?

One way to have the atheist conversation while avoiding the stigma is to balance the Socratic method with dismissals of ungrounded ideas. For some reason it is more acceptable to hold and share a perspective of non-belief as long as you don't seem to have an actual position. By "playing dumb" you can avoid a lot of labels and prejudice. By asking for explanations and details you can also un-stuff or avoid many strawman arguments.

English language and Western culture seem particularly unfavorable to non-super-naturalist. For instance we still say the Sun comes up. And though we know it is the Earth's rotation moving into view, we still think of it as the Sun coming up. Try to describe a situation wherein someone experiences random but favorable circumstances without referring to luck or providence. So too "atheist" carries culturally and historically ingrained stigmas similar to "pagan," "witch" and "devil worshiper."

But by shying away from this word we give it power. We would be foolish to allow "atheist" to become "the A word." Let us instead change the meaning, not by committee or decree, but by action and example. And when archaic stigmas are made moot by an overwhelming inability to stereotype a subset of society who share nothing in common but a lack of belief, what we are called will be equally arbitrary. Let the "non-religious" and "unaffiliated" look on us with admiration so that they too may call themselves what they really are: people find no merit in religious claims, aka: atheists.

More "F" word

2010-11-09T22:39:00.000-08:00

(This is taken unedited from comments I made elsewhere. Where it lacks context or reiterates earlier postings... that's why.)

Faith is unworthy of reverence. Faith, on any consequential scale, is absolutely deserving of despite. It’s only a state of mind, but then again so are bigotry and hubris.

If the religious and non-religious could stop using the world faith to describe reasonable naturally-supported expectations then there would only be one reason to object to its usage. And the rest of the crap could stand or fall on its own merit. If the twenty or so church marquis I pass on a regular basis are any indication, equivocation is a siren song to christians. They eat that shit up. So if non-believers seem overly reticent about broad usage of the “F” word it is a well founded concern rather than unreasonable anxiety.

One stumbling block we are going to run into is semantics. Subtle (and not so subtle) differences in the definition and proper range of usage will (and seemingly have) lead to disagreements based on misunderstandings. As a proponent of secularism and as an anti-theist I’ve come to expect this from supporters of superstitious and religious orthodoxy. But we are not evaluating “faith” for its poetic value so there is no honest benefit to leaving the door open for further equivocation.

* Faith is a belief or convicted decision made in the absence of adequate objective evidence.

There are occasions when expedient decision making is required. This is usually a matter of urgent need and limited resources (time and information being considered resources). This is not faith, unless you’d like to consider faith to be synonymous with desperation. When inaction and indecision equate to increased risk of suffering even a gamble or poorly informed guess is reasonable. In the cost/benefit analysis of “Known bad” vs. “Unknown alternative” wherein the “known bad” is severe enough, most people will brave the unknown.

There is a degree of uncertainty is every aspect of life. But the natural world, especially the civilized world at peace, is fairly predictable. We develop expectations and they are generally met. Gaping sink holes under the street seldom collapse our driving surfaces under us. But it does happen. Is it reasonable to expect it is going to happen to you at any moment? Is it more reasonable to expect that while this could happen to you it probably never will? We can make a fairly well informed decision in such matters (local geology, history lacking sink holes and undermining, competent geologists and civil engineers) and develop reasonable expectations. We might even call it trust, informed trust. To call this faith belittles the faith of the religious. There is nothing preventing you or anyone from calling this faith, except (I hope) intellectual integrity.

In situations where objective evidence is missing and there is no impending peril it is better to admit ignorance. We may operate under assumptions but if we don’t recognize that that is what we are doing we are likely to reinforce our ignorance. Where the resources exist to make informed decisions, relying on faith is willful ignorance, absolutely. If someone is too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence regarding a matter they clearly consider important… it is mildly tragic. When they think their ideas are important enough to share with others but are still too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence… it is disgusting.

*Faith may also be a belief or convicted decision made contrary to objective evidence, sometimes overwhelming evidence.

This type of faith goes beyond willful ignorance. This is delusional fanaticism. It can even be self-inflicted. Outside of “spiritual” matters and Cubs fans this is recognized as psychological affliction. And here we return squarely to the realm of beliefs based on wishful thinking and fear. This is faith at its purest (as in undiluted) ugliest form. This is the faith that too often rationalizes incivility, inhumanity and atrocity. This is the faith wherein a preconceived belief negates any contrary evidence *a priori*. This faith is a weapon, loaded and looking for a target. Most people will stop short of violence to themselves or others. But few people have difficulty condemning non-conforming culture... evidence and facts be damned.

> “Faith in vows made to others, and by
> others”

Why do these deserve faith? If they are deserving of trust (trust that you give and/or trust that you feel), that is, if they have earned trust, it’s not faith. If they are not deserving of trust neither are they deserving of faith.

> “in talent, ability, skill”

If there were anything to this then no one would ever practice. Faith is meaningless. Reasonable expectation based on previous performance is meaningful.

Positive outlook does not have a statistical influence on recovery rates. It just makes us more sympathetic to the patient. Everyone seems to think it does but studies do not back it up.

Self confidence is more reliable as a manifestation of reasonable expectations than it is as a manifestation of faith. A lack of self confidence may also be described as faith in inability. A lack of self confidence is a self fulfilling prophecy in that it deters effort. Faith or over confidence is also detrimental in that early failures tend to deter further efforts. Reasonable expectations and the knowledge that real challenges generally require tenacity are much more reliable.

All of these examples fail for the same reasons. Placing trust in something or someone that doesn’t deserve it is a gift or a gamble. Placing trust in something or someone that has earned it is evidence-based reasonable expectation.

Faith, religious or otherwise, should be despised. Using the word “faith” to describe what should be reasonably expected is an indirect, possibly unintentional, endorsement of uninformed epistemology. Willful ignorance should be mocked, not praised. The quality of a belief cannot and should not be measured by conviction of believer. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and irresponsible.

I like fiction too but I don’t see the point in celebrating the excuse a girl used to explain how her full-term baby was born 7 months (I’m guessing) after her marriage… two thousand years ago. Not even if she had a note from Epstein's Mother's deity.

Some thoughts on the "F" word

2010-11-07T22:42:00.000-08:00

"We are most superstitious when we are least in control." I believe it was Andy Thomson who said that.

Faith should be despised as a venom inflicting insidious credulity.

The definitions of "god" change as needed by the believer. It is essentially impossible to disprove god because any attempt nearing success prompts the believer to "move the goal." That which defies observation is at a neutral buoyancy between "indisputable" and "incredible." Every person has an array of motives driving their epistemology. Just as we may find some people's behavior confusing, we tend to interpret their thoughts and motives through subjective filters. What we want and what we fear seem to be most influential. Likewise, the existence of a superghost is supported through selection bias, wishful thinking and, of course, fear.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for." ~inane christian babbling

If you encounter this platitude issue the following correction:

"Wishful thinking is the substance of things hoped for." ~me And then you can debate the subtle differences between the two statements or the complete lack of difference.

"Faith" is an insidious social tool that preys on our desire to belong... our desire to be civil. In all non-religious matters we are told: caveat emptor... "Let the buyer beware." But how often are we made to feel guilty with phrases like, "Don't you trust me?" "What are you afraid of?" For some reason it is uncouth to suggest to someone they haven't earned your trust.

Side note, old joke: How does someone from Los Angeles say "Screw you?" Answer: "Trust me."

We are told to be wary of salesmen, to convict only in the absence of reasonable doubt and "Don't believe everything you read." But with religion the rules are reversed. For "spiritual" matters belief is touted as superior in the absence of evidence. It's not hard to understand why. "Evidence" that supports supernatural claims is at best subjective and suspiciously incomplete.

"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence" ~Christopher Hitchens

And yet, the believer puts stock in the lack of evidence DISPROVING the existence of whatever supernatural phenomenon they cling to. It doesn't seem to matter that every alternate supernatural claim shares equal footing through the same stale argument. It seems quite possible for anyone to believe anything. The main steering point seems to be self-preservation. In order to believe in flying pizzas or to disbelieve in gravity it is useful to have an alternate explanation and essential to have a reason to do so. If you can overcome those two hurdles you could probably convince people of ancient space warlords, magic underwear or an intangible eternal essence of self.

This is why skepticism is so important. It is not just in legal matters, financial matters, physics and used-car purchases. If there is an omnipotent deity that wants to interact with us it would be a fairly important issue. Why would we go with the least reliable, most abuse-able epistemology? Who is making these claims? Why should we believe them? Why should we believe their claims? Is it trust? Faith? Tradition? Fear? Desire? These are all horrible reasons to accept something as true. These are the weaknesses that grifters and charlatans rely on. You do get the "benefit" of being able to believe in something that is otherwise unbelievable.

It is only by faith that we may be fooled.

Sometimes the word "faith" is misapplied when what is meant is "trust." For instance, "I have faith in my friends." If that faith is based on a track record of reliable behavior then that's not really "faith." If that faith is based on a history of unreliable or consistently detrimental behavior then it should be called "faith." It should also be called "sick."

Most people who try to justify their faith in something supernatural do so by crediting (confirmation bias) welcome events to that supernatural entity. As mentioned before: subjective, incomplete evidence. Unwelcome events? For some reason the entity gets no blame. The distribution of welcome and unwelcome events across cultures and belief systems is suspiciously uniform. If there is a supernatural influence casting benevolence upon the world it doesn't seem to matter if you believe in it.

There is a certain comfort to be gained in a single tidy supernatural explanation for everything you don't understand. And it is a lot less embarrassing than admitting you don't understand the myriad details of how the world works. In light of reality, empiricism, demonstrable facts and technological progress faith has become an embarrassment and a burden. People can, may and shall believe whatever Determinism or their freewill dictates. But as long as people continue to value faith over evidence, regardless of quality, regardless of quantity, people will continue to thank god for the airbag or medical treatment that saved their life. As much as I enjoy irony, the injustice makes me cringe.

When someone says, "You gotta have faith," ask them not to use the "F" word around you because it is perverse.

Deity asks: you feelin' me?

2010-10-24T23:56:00.000-07:00

How might one respond to the claim...

"I believe in God because I feel his presence."

Always keep in mind that you will almost never win an argument WHILE it's happening. You may influence onlookers. And your partner (a term which some may find preferable to "opponent") may give honest and earnest consideration to your points upon review. That being said, how might we respond?

Seek clarity. Theists tend to dodge by changing the subject or definition when their suppositions are deflating. Here too, any direct assault will be like squeezing a wet watermelon seed. In seeking clarity regarding the "I feel" pseudo-evidence try to establish why the claimant believes that statement is meaningful.

A possible question to ask: "Should I (or anyone else) believe because of what you feel?" If the answer is "yes" then we might ask why this single perception of presence countermands the presence perceived by adherents of non-abrahamic faiths both today and historically. If the answer is "no" then we might ask how they can recognize that their perception of presence is insufficient second-hand evidence but as the object of the unreliable subjective experience they feel justified in accepting it as irrefutably divine.

The senses can be fooled and the psyche may be led astray.

The same experience of "divine presence" is available through every faith system, electromagnetic bombardment of the brain, neural chemical imbalances, physical brain damage, intoxicants, mental illness and the good ole natural high (usually brought on by awe, wonder or enthusiasm). That such a feeling is so commonly a result of religious fervor should not be considered "inspirational" as much as it is should be considered "embarrassing."

In every other realm of the human experience, loss of bodily function or mental faculty is either tragic or comical. But we've bound this psychological handicap to culturally accepted intangible forces that defy all objective observation. Somehow this disguises our pitiful and primitive misunderstanding of the world (and of ourselves) with a euphoric facade of exalted cosmic self-importance.

What is "felt" does not indicate substance. What is "felt" can only influence valuation. If you don't believe me just ask every girl I thought I was in love with as a teenager.

Upon hearing, "It's a miracle!"

2010-10-18T00:14:00.000-07:00

A deity deserves exactly as much credit for the salvation as it does blame for the adversity.

“Rally to Restore Sanity” possible signs

2010-09-27T21:19:00.000-07:00

Not much of post here. But reading some of the ideas other people had for signs they will or would carry to the Jon Stewart "Rally to Restore Sanity," I had a minor brainstorm of several signs I might carry... or vend, hmmmm. I won't be making it to DC. That's probably for the best as I would be too ambivalent to choose ONE sign. Some are funny. Some are serious. Some might be both.

Signs suggested by The Daily Show:
-I DISAGREE With you, But I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler
-GOT COMPETENCE?
-9/11 WAS AN OUTSIDE JOB
-LEGALIZE POT

What sign would like to see? Or maybe if you're reading this after the rally, what sign did you like seeing? Here are some of my ideas. Be forewarned, many lean to the left... a bit.

-I was mad ’til I checked the facts.
-No foxnews is good news
-Boycott fear mongers (network logos?)
-“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” — Sinclair Lewis (?)
-I was mad ’til I stopped watching the news.
-The old deities aren’t working, let’s make (or make up) some new ones.
-I can no longer decide who is more wrong.
-”…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” Treaty of Tripoli 1797
-Willful ignorance is still ignorance
-Wishful thinking is the substance of things hoped for
-It is only by faith that we may be fooled
-Keep Jefferson in the text books
-Texas School Board, America is ashamed of you
-Stop shouting… um, please?
-GOD HATES CRABS (leviticus 11:12)
-Speak up, just a little.
-No Pot? No Tea Party.
-Want to lose my vote? Try to scare me.
-I have unqualified unreasonable belief in you.
-Remind me what you mean by “fact.”
-Hey Mister, you forgot your sign.
-He was all like “Yahweh!” and I was like “No way.”
-He who is least of my brothers doesn’t have a lobby.
-It's time for Congressional Turnover, or Apple
-Who do you have to blow to get press credentials?
-I can’t picture mohamed here. Can you draw him?
(alternative)
-DRAW ~blank vertical space~ MOHAMED
-Are ya gettin’ this, camera guy?
-Thanks to Bush I can watch foxnews 24/7
-Thanks to Bush I didn’t have to miss work today.
-No reasonable person ever called me “heathen”
-Without fear and anger how will I rant?
-Prayer not working? Sacrifice a goat… or kid.

Some aren't really in the "Take it down a notch for America" theme. Oh well.

my Stephen Hawking rant

2010-09-11T23:21:00.000-07:00

Hawking irritates me anymore. Certainly there's a lot to admire about him. But there's a caginess that suggests he may be motivated toward marketing more than toward candor.

His "know the mind of god" quote was sheer frickin' genius, if his goal was to sell books. Did that book sell a lot of copies? Oh, yea. Maybe he was just being poetic? pfft That line seems more like disingenuous populist drivel.

The need for supernatural investment to explain the origins of the universe has been superfluous for years. But now that Hawking is publishing it suddenly people notice? I suppose I should be grateful that his celebrity status has gotten this information some media attention. I guess I'm just mad at the world. Why should it take years for natural cosmology to seem interesting. Why does it need a celebrity endorsement? Why is that celebrity Hawking? ARGH!

Misreporting of what was actually written may be part of the what is stirring the hornets' nest. I've probably seen three different outlets headlining that Hawking wrote he had proved god didn't create the universe, and several others that implied as much. Again, I guess I'm just mad at the world. Competition in the media markets rewards controversy and punishes accurate unbiased un-hyped reporting.

And Hawking is JUST NOW sharing this information with the public? He waited until he was ready to publish again? That seems too coincidental to be anything but mercenary.

Maybe I'm just cranky. Maybe I just hate capitalism. Maybe I'm just jealous. Maybe I'm just a cynical idealist (actually, I am). Maybe I shouldn't be picking on Stephen. I don't know what it's like to be him, what motivates him, what worries him. I learned from and enjoyed Brief History and Nutshell. But once more, by being just the right amount of controversial, he is getting another avalanche of free publicity for his book.

Maybe I should be mad at humans and western culture for being such easy targets. But I find it hard to overlook crafty opportunism, even if I may benefit.

Fillet of souls

2010-09-07T23:43:00.000-07:00

Assuming there is a soul... and assuming souls have an influence on people, presumably on the brain(?)... then there would be a natural and physical (therefore observable) effect or result on the brain with no natural cause. This is not what we observe.

One might try to impose the idea that consciousness is a direct result of the soul. But if this were true then the brains of infants, amnesiacs and victims of brain trauma would be on similar consciousness footing with custodians of "normal" brains. This is not what we observe.

And if there were souls wouldn't they (therefore "we") have a much clearer picture of the nature of the supernatural realm, all things spiritual, the nature of deities and the afterlife? Yet what we observe is many disparate supernatural belief systems. Culture seems to be a bigger influence on supernatural expectations than any commonly held unseen informed "soul."

What we do have in common is the ability to identify the agency (consciousness or intent) in people, animals, plants, fire, gravity... This is a great survival tool. It allows us to make predictions. Though we might not always predict correctly we can make partially informed decisions. And we usually chose what we predict is safest or most satisfying.

Animals, plants, fire, gravity, etc. all have behaviors, some more predictable than others. But do abrahamic adherents suppose these things have souls? I am not suggesting these things do have souls. We are very similar to a great deal of the animal kingdom. Physically, what most separates us from the animals is our neurophysiology.

Our fore-brain activity, predictive thinking, organizational assessments, pattern recognition, imagination... make us distinct, arguably "special" on Earth. Do we have a more "special" neurophysiology because of our un-observed souls? Or do we have un-observed souls because because of our "special" neurophysiology? Or does that neurophysiology allow us to believe we have souls despite a lack of any objective informed reason to do so? Or maybe it is just a coincidence that only humans have both souls and imagination.

The neurophysiology of the human brain does not require a soul to explain its functionality. Subjective experience, fear of death and wishful thinking may make the idea of an eternal soul so appealing that confirmation bias will overwhelm reasonable and objective skepticism. If someone has any objective evidence of a soul, by all means, let's take a look at it. But if you want to present a cosmic conspiracy theory about why souls exist but can't be observed, I already have a shelf full of fiction I've been meaning to get to.

~

2010-08-28T15:21:00.000-07:00

Wishful thinking is the substance of things hoped for.

~

2010-08-27T20:35:00.000-07:00

Religions are the most divine of all conspiracy theories.

Does atheism need a popular quote, a la John3:16?

2010-08-06T22:33:00.000-07:00

Among those who lack belief in gods there is a movement for secular politics and civility. There is a movement skepticism. There is a movement to mitigate the influence of ideologies that lack objective support. There is a movement to free people, as individuals and in general, from the lies of charlatans and mystics.

But among those who lack belief in gods there is no pervasive dogma. There is no common doctrine. Even among those who rally, fuel and advance the movement there are no central treatises or tenets. Atheism does not value ideology. Atheism may be subjective or objective, passive or active.

Atheists do not require a verse or quote. Atheists need only know that the empty testimonies and scriptures offered do not merit belief. It is only by unqualified belief that such reveries may be accepted. It is only by a lack of discretion that phantoms may be thought tangible.

It is only by faith that we may be fooled.

If we adopt a quote, a secret handshake, a coat of arms… we become something more than skeptics. It may be out of necessity that we organize to push back against anti-secularists, liars and child abusers. But let us not forget we bind together because the spiritualists are wrestling for the reins.

Transcendent B.S.

2010-07-25T20:17:00.000-07:00

This is a response to Reza Aslan’s OpEd at newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices. I assume this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan) is the same Reza Aslan. I like his name so much I had assumed it was a pseudonym. I also like his writing style. I imagine it’s very influential to anyone like-minded or uninformed. But while he brings up some good points he manages to suggest that the subjective “evidence” for spirituality, transcendence and the supernatural are equal to or greater than the objective and subjective evidence against them. So I thought I’d point out a few points he managed to get…

Wrong.
There are "new atheists" who have never been burdened by unqualified subjective supernatural explanations of the aspects of consciousness that are popularly thought of as spirituality or transcendence. But vast numbers of "new atheists" are apostates who have first-hand awareness of the religious experience.

Wrong again.
The histories of philosophical and theological study do not support the validity of the supernatural any more than do the histories of tarot, astrology or voodoo. The supernatural is entirely dependent on a lack of understanding of natural relationships and causes. As our understanding of the natural world has increased, natural explanations have had a nasty habit of debunking supernatural beliefs. So too, improved understanding of neuro-physiology removed any objective reason to suspect that "spiritual transcendence" is anything more than brain function. Stimulating the brain naturally/artificially (electromagnetically, via brain damage or chemically... as opposed to supernaturally) results in the same experience as that induced by religious fervor. This is not coincidence or mere correlation. There is a cause and effect here. Artificially stimulating the brain doesn't induce a spiritual episode, it induces the perception of a spiritual episode. When a "spiritual" episode is induced by religious fervor the same brain function is taking place. Do supernatural occurrences have the same effect on the brain as artificial stimulation? Does artificially induced perception of spirituality merely open a window in the brain to let transcendence in? Is brain function is a side effect of supernatural influence? If so, and we take away the side effect, where is the spirituality? There's nothing left.

There are arguments to be made on behalf of "spirituality." But every argument that mitigates natural explanations (which we can observe and measure) also may be used equally well or better against supernatural explanations (which we can't observe for some strange reason).

So right, you're wrong.
Additionally Aslan supposes that the ubiquity of "spiritual" or "transcendent" experiences is evidence of the supernatural. And I have to admit that this is subjective evidence. But it is also evidence that no religious doctrine can claim authority. If there is a supreme supernatural entity being accessed through spirituality then apparently every religion, as well as deism and agnosticism have equal access, contrary to the claims of at least the big three religions. So thank you Reza for debunking judaism, christianity and islam.

And would you believe: Wrong?
Is the supernatural knowable or not? (not = unknowable)
Does the supernatural influence the natural or not?
Is the influence of the supernatural observable (objectively attributable) or not?
If the answer is "no" then there is no point in pursuing the supernatural even if it is real. If the answer to any one of these questions is "yes" then the answer to all of them is "yes." If the answer is “yes” then the supernatural is subject to scientific investigation. Well, it could be that the supernatural can only be known through subjective intuition and/or unassailable prophets. But even then, observations and predictions should be possible. But for some reason attempts to observe supernatural influences either rely on bias or result in random (non-confirmational) results. Supernatural influence is exactly as reliable as random chance. So even if the answer were "yes," even if it is real, the supernatural is moot.

Fundamentally wrong.
If there is anything new about "new atheists" it is their motivation. As a movement, atheists are responding to the growing influence of religious fundamentalist. While most religious people are "watered-down" or moderate about which cherry picked specifics deserve their faith, it is the believers who submit more of themselves to faith that grab the reigns* and pull the rest along. The very nature of faith is to believe without evidence, or worse: despite evidence. Beyond the topic of religion faith is recognized as being unreasonable or ideological. But in a religious or spiritual context, it is somehow considered admirable. It is the less reasonable, more faithful people who are motivated to represent their groups. These faithful are the people who drive their groups’ agendas. And it is the most faithful who taint civil progress with archaic superstition and dogma. It is these people who disrupt secular politics and education with claims of moral superiority and magic origins. They have become better organized, better funded and more intrusive with their "spirituality." The only thing new about "new atheists" is their new-found motivation from necessity.

The term "atheist fundamentalism" is either an oxymoron or redundant. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods(s). For purposes of this argument I would even allow a substitute definition: belief in the absence of god(s) (assuming we all understand the distinction). This definition is the sole and fundamental belief of atheism. What does the fundamentalist atheist believe that the non-fundamentalist atheist does not? Their belief is the same. Their interpretation of their belief is the same. If their behaviors differ it is not because one follows a more fundamental or literal interpretation of the sole belief. Attempting to liken verbose atheism to bible literalism is a disingenuous ad hominem distraction. In short, it’s dishonest.

*(Yes, I know how to spell “reins.” The homonym was too good to ignore.)

blame or credit...

2010-07-05T19:04:00.000-07:00

If we don't treat our own beliefs with adequate skepticism our various successes and failures are likely to be attributed unjustly. ~T. Ray

The right to believe vs. the responsibility to doubt

2010-06-29T00:51:00.000-07:00

We are quick to claim our rights. We are not so swift in owning our responsibilities. I am reluctant to suggest that there be a moratorium on any particular belief, any brand of belief or any style of belief. I agree that some beliefs will land you in a padded room but no belief should land you in jail.

Behavior. Actions. These we not only may police but we must police them. It is very nearly the definition of belonging to a social group. We have rights as individuals but we also have responsibilities to the group, at least if we are to be part of the group.

But beliefs... Erroneous belief is but a symptom. Unqualified belief, likewise. It is the process of thought (or lack thereof) that allows and leads to faulty and/or unqualified belief that is the underlying issue. We (humans) are quick to claim superior knowledge, quick to defame conflicting opinions and information but reluctant to meticulously verify the evidence and lay out a case. That's hard work. No wonder so few people make the effort. And many of those who appear to make the effort use erroneous or subjective evidence, faulty reasoning and fallacious premises. Trusted "thinkers" often jump to ostensibly solid, often predetermined, conclusions.

We have the right to speak. We have the right to hear. We have the right to draw conclusions. But do we not also have the responsibility to think clearly, rationally, logically, rigorously, deliberately, diligently...?

We are quick to claim our rights but slow to own our responsibilities.

No new mosque near ground zero! (part 2)

2010-06-12T22:08:00.000-07:00

After writing “No new mosque near ground zero!” I had a subtle but nagging sense of anxiety. I realized that I was thinking viscerally. Thinking viscerally is a course of action I generally discourage. What bothered me is the question of "What is right? What is just?" I allowed (or maybe forced) myself to focus more on what would be the right, fair and constitutionally consistent course of action. While I FEEL the mosque is a bad idea, while I can identify why it's a bad idea, I can't deny that preventing its construction would be government infringement on religion.

As a militant atheist I would love to see the mosque blocked by a "community standards" decision the way we might restrict porn shops and strip clubs from opening near a school. As a militant atheist I would love to see the mosque blocked by public safety standards the way we might restrict toxic dumps from opening near populated areas. As a militant atheist I would love to see this applied equally to all buildings and organizations dedicated to the promotion of unqualified belief, for example a church, or a temple, or a Discovery Institute…

But as an American I have agreed to the EULA, the terms and conditions that apply to being American. Due to the underlying jihadist motives of the 9/11 attackers I don't want to see a mosque built near ground zero any more than I would like to see a Japanese embassy built within site of the USS Arizona memorial. (and I love Nihon) I don't want it there. But (back to the terms and conditions) if a mosque can be built at any other US location and there are no restrictions for other religious or secular misinformation centers then obstruction there would be serious Infringement issue.

While the attackers were fringe followers of a more common ideology their heinous act was accepted, and even praised, by many muslims of the "moderate" or "religion of peace" variety. Even some among those who regard the attack as unjust may still regard the attackers as martyrs for the cause. In a community where it is universally considered good to be a follower of the faith, stronger convictions are (intentionally or otherwise) encouraged. Throw in political discord, a lack of opportunities and a feeling of unused potential (or self-importance) and the resulting militant extremists should not come as a surprise. The wider islamic community is a crucible for extremists and fanatics. Not that we don't have a similar (typically less violent) problem with christians here in the U.S.

It is illogical to infer causation from correlation. (begin facetiousness) As long as we can count on eastern muslims (liberal, moderate and fundamentalists) to be logical we shouldn’t need to worry that a new mosque will be perceived as the result of the 9/11 attack. (end facetiousness) But to the wider islamic community, the building of a new mosque near ground zero will be interpreted as being a direct result of the 9/11 attack. It will be interpreted as the mayor of New York posthumously presenting the attackers with the Ahmadiyya and the key to the city. It will legitimize (in their eyes) future attacks. Generally, information proliferation is driven less by factuality and relevance than it is by how interesting it might be. And this story has been sensationalized. It is likely this story will be shared around the world. Maybe not. I have yet to find it at english.aljazeera.net. There's room for hope. How it is presented and how it will be received is more likely to be tied to ideology than to reason. It could catch some positive spin overseas. The idea that America is a land where spite, paranoia and persecution do not reign could come through. I would expect that to come from a quiet minority but it is an idea that could spread and perhaps outlast initial propaganda. Maybe.

While the perception of jihadist victory may be a good reason to block construction I must acknowledge it is not an adequate reason. And I don’t see how we can justify blocking it based on the palpable sensitivity of an historical event. It's as though New York has to choose between unjust or stupid. Maybe someone will present a legitimate, legal and just reason for the cancellation of construction. As much as I want to, I haven't found it. I doubt there such a reason can be found.

I was staunchly against this project. And I still don’t like it. But I’m more interested in seeking the right answer than clinging to what I find most comfortable. For my aversion to feeding the hand that bit me and for my revulsion toward organized disinformation, I oppose this mosque at the location. But if the burden were placed on me to decide whether the mosque should be blocked or permitted I would have to permit it. Foreign perception and the harm of unqualified belief do not supersede the values of law.

If we are at all concerned about doing what is right, what is fair, then this project will not be obstructed.

No new mosque near ground zero!

2010-06-05T18:54:00.000-07:00

Building a mosque near ground zero (and as a consequence of 9/11) reflects the wisdom of Montezuma when he sent gold to the conquistadors in an effort to make them go away.

Am I the only one that sees this sends the message of, "Want to proliferate islam? Maybe you can get things rolling with some preliminary demolition work."

What? I'm being extremist? I'm being xenophobic? I'm being a bigot and intolerant? BULSHIT. Every muslim extremist and nearly all moderate non-American muslims will interpret (and laud) the building of a mosque near ground zero as a justification for and victory brought about by the 9/11 attack. "At least something good came out of it. It must have been allah's will."

It doesn't matter how non-muslim Americans view this. It doesn't matter that this may display an ostensible warmth to muslim Americans. It doesn't matter that this could be a symbol to show we can all be friends. What does matter is that this action rewards the faithful for biting us. And apparently we are so worried about the feelings of the few faithful who haven't bitten us that we can't see the scope of our magnanimity.

And it will be there forever. I like the Haghia Sophia as much as the next secular human. But as a society that pretends to value education, the rule of law and a better tomorrow how can we be so desperate to anchor ourselves to the dark ages? Maybe they could build a sharia courthouse? Oh wait, that would be seditious to American law. We better get some more mosques built first.

God is: 1. Incapable, 2. Indifferent or 3. Fictional (choose all that apply)

2010-03-28T21:24:00.000-07:00

“Without a god in this universe the world would be full of evil.”

“Without belief in god people would just live their lives according to themselves.”

These claims are not new. The fallacies of these and similar statements have been and are continually exposed and dismissed. Countless cultures managed to function socially (as opposed to individuals living “according to themselves”) before the Romans conquered Israel. Countless cultures managed to function socially without any awareness of the mythology of the Hebrews. Most cultures have managed roughly the same evil-to-good ratio without yawei or Jesus. There is no objective reason to think that without believing there is a god in the universe “the world would be full of evil.”

But maybe they are referring to god’s existence rather than belief therein? Evil does exist in the world. (I hope we can agree on this premise. If it is not obvious to someone that there is evil in the world there is little hope of reaching them with demonstrable facts, let alone logic.) The definition of “evil” is a slippery and a possible point of equivocation. But whether we define “evil” as “a metaphysical force that erodes morality,” “that which causes physical or emotional harm” or “malicious intent,” the same conclusion is inevitable. Let us assume (as has been suggested) that a god capable of influencing how “full of evil” the world is, actually exists. Evil does exist so this god is either incapable, unwilling or both to reduce evil to zero.

Metaphysical evil. If evil is a malevolent force, independent of humanity, then it falls entirely under the purview of such a god. Humans could not eliminate or create this kind of evil. The quantity (or absence), quality and placement of such a metaphysical evil would be the responsibility and fault of the god. Whether the god directly created the evil or merely created the possibility/potential for metaphysical evil, attempts to direct blame at mankind for metaphysical evil make as much sense as blaming mankind for any other supposed metaphysical manifestation. Ghosts? Souls? Dualistic consciousness? If the god is capable and willing to reduce metaphysical evil then why does metaphysical evil exist at all? There are four possibilities: 1. The god is incapable of reducing/eliminating metaphysical evil. 2. The god is unwilling to reduce/eliminate metaphysical evil. 3. The god is a fictional construct. 4. Metaphysical evil is a fictional construct. At LEAST one of these possibilities is true.

Harm. This is basically natural evil. Plenty of people point to volcanoes, earthquakes, tornados, tsunami, hurricanes, sickness, death, hunger… as evidence that there is no omniscient omnipotent sympathetic intervening god. Some will even include our fragile emotional reliance on moderately benevolent circumstances and order (as opposed to chaos.) But the claim is that without god the world would be full of evil. If we are talking about natural evil, once again the responsibility and fault go to the supposed creator. If humans were created then their creator is to blame for their nature and potential. If the universe, Earth and life were created then their creator is to blame for their nature and potential. Once again we must consider: 1. The god is incapable of reducing/eliminating natural evil. 2. The god is unwilling to reduce/eliminate natural evil. 3. The god is a fictional construct. 4. Natural evil shouldn’t even be called “evil” though the described phenomena do exist… because they can.

Malicious intent. Let’s broaden “malicious intent” to include selfish indifference along with cruelty for the sake of cruelty. This kind of evil is uniquely human. Certainly in nature we’ve seen predators sate their hunger via the suffering and death of another animal. We’ve seen cats toy with their prey. But we are reluctant to name this imposed ill “evil” in the absence of conscious self-awareness. When we have the capacity to sympathize with another being and still intentionally allow or cause them to suffer is this not evil? Certainly we prioritize, rationalize and justify our choices before and after the fact. But if this is not evil then what is? If we assume humans were created we can credit the creator with giving us the potential for intentional conscious evil. But given that we have consciousness, we have sympathy, we have choices, we must take the lion’s share of responsibility for our malice. I wouldn’t characterize the world as being FULL of malice or self-interest. Although both spite and egoism are very common. But we also have cooperation and altruism. Could there be altruism and cooperation without god? These are the traits by which we categorize creatures as being social. Behavior that benefits the group increases the likelihood that the group will have descendants, descendants that also have social tendencies. While we may credit/blame a god for our potential to do good and evil we must take responsibility for our decisions to cooperate or harm. Does the balance of good and evil rely on the existence of a god? There is no objective reason to believe it does. 1. Incapable? 2. Unwilling? 3. Fictional?

It has been suggested that sincere prayer will lead us to revelation, epiphany and the holy spirit. I’ve already done that. Thankfully, the delusion wore off. The world works fine and doesn’t need a supernatural entity to explain how or why. And even if it did need supernatural explanations the available mythologies (religions) are inadequate at best. The more popular mythologies are generally self-contradicting, especially christianity. And why is it not suspicious to everyone that the same feeling of transcendence is available no matter which religion a person chooses? How can a Tibetan monk, a muslim, a baptist, a catholic, a lutheran, a voodoo priest, a jew, a rastafarian, a hindu (and the list goes on) all receive what christians call the gift of the holy spirit? Alternate religions may call it something different. And they too know it to be Truth. How is it different? That’s funny; they said the same thing about yours. It is a subjective knowing. It is a conclusion based on (and reliant on) what is felt internally. How is it that all religions can provide the same feeling of transcendence? Is it that none but one religion is correct and the others are tapping into something internal and natural rather than external and supernatural? Is it that all religions tap into the same supernatural source and that our natural understanding is too simple to see all religions are true? Or is it that they are all false, all rely on the same internal human foibles and provide nothing that isn’t already in us?

I cannot tell you what you won’t hear; show you what you won’t see. You will make excuses, rationalize and generally find a way to believe what you want to believe. But if there is a god, it did an excellent job of making itself deniable and irrelevant.

The fox (Mark Signorelli) and the sour grapes (meme theory)

2010-03-09T22:58:00.000-08:00

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/57077/sec_id/57077
The subject is memes. The author criticizes the meme concept and its proponents.

From wikipedia.org (3/10/2010):A meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/, rhyming with "cream"^[1]) is a postulated unit of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. (The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word μιμητισμός ([mɪmetɪsmos]) for "something imitated".)^[2] Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.^{[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme}
(It should also be pointed out that memes originated simply as a metaphor for the way genes transfer genetic information. But the meme concept caught on with intellectuals and the perspective the concept grants has proven itself valuable.)

Is Mr. Signorelli deliberately misrepresenting the meme concept or does he actually lack the acumen to grasp it?

Why is it so hard to understand that extragenic information and behaviors may be replicated from one organism to another, one brain to another? “Monkey see, monkey do” was hardly a new idea when I was a child.

Why is it so hard to understand that in the process of replication the copier may inadvertently or otherwise make minute but distinguishable alterations to the information or behavior? Does Signorelli have no grasp of information theory? He doesn’t address it in the sections to which I subjected myself, but I feel comfortable speculating he does not.

There may yet be no objective way to quantify discrete units of extragenic information or behavior. But they are subject to being copied, to being repeated. Is there a name for these analog bits (pardon the equivocation) of information and behavior? Thanks to Dawkins, there is: memes. And the process by which these memes and their subsequent versions (or perhaps subversions?) are spread (or not) by various means of communication is highly analogous to asexual reproduction or viral pathology and also somewhat analogous to sexual reproduction. (Preexisting memes may interact with new memes to produce something like a hybrid.)

They are also subject to not being copied, of going extinct. For example, in thirty years Dawkins’ books and other writings will likely be available in libraries and online. Signorelli’s? Probably not. The main driving force for replication is interest… how interesting the meme is. That which is interesting is more likely to be repeated/replicated. Factuality and utility may factor into how interesting a meme is. But Cinderella, moon walking (the dance) and (insert your least favorite deity here) are all fictional and (arguably) lack utility. An interesting lie spreads farther and faster than its rebuttal.

But memes, like ideas are not tangible. We can observe an example of an idea but not “ideas” themselves. And while information may be digitized, ideas are a little more slippery. And to use the gene/meme analogy, it is generally a lot easier to identify physical peptide chains that correlate to phenotypes than it is to quantify and display discrete units of replicable analog cultural information.

Neither Dawkins nor the English language are perfect. Dawkins' approach may throw in a dash of dramatic or poetic license to which a willful dissenter might cry foul. And his metaphors, like most metaphors, also leave room for misinterpretation, more so when the interpreter is predisposed to do so. Here too Signorelli is more confounded than confounding.

But to get back to the original question: Is Mr. Signorelli deliberately misrepresenting the meme concept or does he actually lack the acumen to grasp it? While I would like to give Signorelli the benefit of a doubt the vituperation he applies to Dawkins and Dennett strongly suggest a prejudice. It is possible Signorelli only scanned the source material for opportunities to disagree. It is possible that his only exposure to the source material was through a disingenuous third party, perhaps the Discovery Institute? If he were genuinely attempting to refute the theory he has failed. Even the “straw man” he attacks is largely unscathed. The only real damage is to those who are first exposed to the idea of memes through his writing. Upon reflection, his own credibility is damaged as well. So while I can not assert Signorelli is technically lying, I suspect if he were actually capable of understanding the simple idea of “monkey see, monkey do” or the game of “telephone” that he would still do his best (don’t laugh) at trying to refute it.

I'm forced to wonder why Signorelli even wrote this. It reeks of assigned work. The conclusion seems to have been reached before the subject was broached. Did Dawkins and Dennett steal his girl, or otherwise wrong him? Sig (can I call ya Sig?) surely can't have stumbled upon the concept of memes, investigated further and gone into a rage over the audacity of such a flagrantly bogus concept and the detriment that it will or has caused? Even his corrupted perception of memes doesn't warrant his misguided rage.

There's something else at work here, another layer. This isn't just Sig expressing his internal musings. Maybe the piece was commissioned. Maybe he's seeking favor or employment from a think tank or special interest. It could be that he is just a bitter but florid idiot. But it doesn't seem that simple. It doesn't sit right. Something is askew.

Two of the best meme examples I rely on are toilet paper folding and grain floating.

Toilet paper folding. Susan Blackmore gave a TED talk (ted.com) on this phenomenon. It is not quite universal, but extremely common for professional housekeepers to fold the end square of toilet paper. Typically it is folded under creating a triangle. It is actually counter-productive but it signals deliberate and detailed preparation of the facility. Thirty years ago I had never seen an example of this display. I was introduced to this form of "salute" during basic military training in the late eighties. A few years later I would sometimes encounter this display when taking lodging. Many years later it was quite common. And in the last few years I am not likely to notice unless the salute is missing.

Grain floating. I think I may have learned of this from Carl Sagan's 'Dragons of Eden.' The details are fuzzy to my recollection. A group of humans, for a reason I have forgotten, would often have left over grain, possibly rice. They would scatter it outside to be rid of it. Local primates became aware of the routinely available free food and made a practice of collecting and consuming it. (Sort of a meme in itself there) The humans were unhappy with the primates so took to discarding the grain on a convenient beach. It was so difficult for the primates to separate the sand from the grain that most would give up. But one primate took some of the sand/grain and put it in the water where the sand fell away and the grain floated. It continued to do so and the younger members of its social group copied the behavior. The point of the story was the older primates were less receptive to new behavior. But if ever there was an example of a meme, this is it.

Memes exist in the same capacity as consciousness or nature. They may be difficult to pinpoint, define or prove but they give identity to very real phenomena.

When fatwa should be welcomed

2010-03-05T18:54:00.000-08:00

In response to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8544531.stm
Islamic scholar Tahir ul-Qadri issues terrorism fatwa

Some contend that just because someone is a theologian or religious scholar that anything they have to offer is without value. There are all kinds of scholars. Just because they specialize in fiction doesn't mean they are less studied than scholars of non-fiction. There is an argument to be made along the lines of, "That which isn't worth doing, isn't worth doing well." But I'm reluctant to rob experts of the title "scholar" just because their field of expertise might be the works of Jane Austin, Homer or even Gary Gygax. Furthermore, I wouldn't necessarily want Alan Dershowitz defending me if I were on trial in China. When considering things within a particular framework, of which we are not subject, an expert in that field (regardless of the merit of the field itself) should be given due consideration.

But the bigger question is, "Why is this news." Several islamic scholars/leaders have pronounced similar rulings. Why hasn't EVERY islamic scholar/leader pronounced similar rulings? These fatwa may not dissuade many (perhaps ANY) indoctrinated jihadist, but it may make recruiting more difficult. For people who can't think beyond "If you're not with us you're against us," clearly defined and universal exclusion of and opposition to violent extremism would make the path of al qaeda anathema.

Suicide bombers are touted as heroes within their social-religious-political circles. If that does not change then they are almost certain to continue. Religions may be short on fact and merit but still hold influence. I would prefer every cleric and believer to simultaneously realize and confess that their religion is irredeemable fiction. But that's not going to happen. Proponents of supernatural ideologies are essentially intractable. As long as there are believers there will be paragons. If fellow believers regard violent extremists as role models and we can't yet dissipate general belief perhaps we can welcome the reproval of the misguided and misnamed martyrs.

As homo sapiens we may be embarrassed (to whom?) that the majority of our species still clings to superstitious beliefs. As an atheist it is not the fairy tale beliefs of the religious that gall me (well, OK. Maybe a little). It is the social-political impact of their ideology that riles me. As a non-muslim, it is not the minarets or kowtowing that I find offensive. It is the inhumane practices such as violent jihadism and misogyny that cause me to recognize my own ferocity.

So if islamic scholars can (within the framework of their common fictitious superstition) refute and rebuke the unfounded rationale of self-righteous criminals, we should encourage them (the scholars). So the questions remain: Why is this news? Why hasn't EVERY islamic leader/scholar pronounced similar fatwa? Why has it taken this long for this lone fatwa? Why is official islamic condemnation of violent jihadism STILL so sparse and even then spoken softly?

The Hardest Part

2010-01-17T23:24:00.000-08:00

What is the hardest part of being atheist?

Maybe it's finding that balance between being candid and being considerate. Is it OK to tell children there's no Santa Claus? Is it OK to tell someone in AA there is no "higher power?" Is it OK to tell someone who is basically a wounded bird that the perceived source from which they think they draw strength, which allows them make it through their perpetual hard times... is all in their head? Is it OK to tell fellow atheists that the spirituality or Harmony or Enlightenment they covet is a delusion? Is it OK to interrupt a wedding to point out that while "we ARE joined here" we are not "before God?" Even the most militant atheist is likely to consider the consequences of unwavering candor.

Maybe the hardest part is the difficulty of learning, understanding and explaining the natural mechanisms of nature and people (and how people are part of nature.) Conversely, if you want to learn, understand and explain how a supernatural being did something you just need three words: god did it. You don’t need to know where he came from or how he did it.

Maybe the hardest part is answering the same questions over and over ad nauseam. Maybe the hardest part is unlearning superstitious indoctrination. I envy atheists who never gave supernatural concepts serious consideration.

Maybe the hardest part is knowing that even in a secular state, my children's curriculum will be undermined by scripturalists. The people that accuse fellow citizens of hating America (or of being un-American) continue to call the US a Christian nation. They don’t know, understand or appreciate the first amendment. They accuse the founding fathers of being christian. They perpetuate misquotes. They push for less secular government and education. But they don’t recognize that islam is spreading in the US. Christian prayers in school this year makes muslim prayers in school inevitable.

Maybe the hardest part is seeing "faith" cherished when it should be reviled and recognized as a favored tool of charlatans. If that linchpin (faith) could be extracted there might be real hope for common ground. Theist arguments almost always fall back to faith. To be clear, I define ‘faith’ as a belief that doesn’t rely on objective evidence or even defies objective evidence. Faith is how you place trust where it has not been earned. Faith is the anchor. Just don’t try flying, swimming, running or any other kind of progress.

Maybe the hardest part is the misconception that the religious are the underdogs. They have the numbers. They have the money. They have the lobbies. They have the ideologies, doctrines and dogmas. They are rather short on facts and evidence but that doesn’t make them underdogs.

Maybe the hardest part is seeing science and scientists dismissed by people benefiting from computers, cell phones, satellite TV receivers, pharmaceuticals & inoculations, satnav, transportation, climate control… Today’s technology is yesterday’s science. Yet despite science’s track record and tangible benefits faith in the supernatural and the erroneous ancient texts still supplant empirical evidence among the faithful. There’s that word again.

Maybe the hardest part is knowing which way to turn to make progress but feeling obliged to answer the doubters and the deluded in hope that a few under-motivated fence sitters will turn to the light and help pull humanity out of the dark ages.

Maybe the hardest part is knowing when to stop whining about it and try doing something... anything. I don't even live in a time or place where I would be killed for my lack of belief. Derided, chastised, berated, reviled, discriminated against? Sure, but not killed. If there is an objective "hardest part" I probably haven't seen it yet.