Quran burning

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.

Deity asks: you feelin' me?

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.

my Stephen Hawking rant

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.

Transcendent B.S.

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 god(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.)

No new mosque near ground zero! (part 2)

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!

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.

When fatwa should be welcomed

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

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.