Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: foolishness (page 12 of 14)

Understand the liberal-conservative divide, before it’s too late!

A political message from Tom Tancredo:

ZOMG! They’re gonna kill you in your beds at night KABOOOOMMMMM!!!!!1!!!

Someone had to say it.

What kind of person would make this kind of argument, and what kind of voter would buy into it? A cynical fear-mongering manipulator, and an awfully scared bed-wetter, respectively.

I have moved on from my “Bad Person” theory of political conservatism, and am now working on a new model. Here it is.

Let’s say there’s a guy over there that you don’t know, who looks kind of different.

  • You might think, “Watch out for that guy. He might try to beat you up and steal your wallet.” You’d be a conservative.
  • Or you might instead go up to the guy and say, “Hey, cool shirt.” In this case, you’d be a liberal.

Fear of perceived threats v. openness to experience. I think it goes a long way toward explaining the difference between the two political tendencies.

And the reason conservatives have had their victories in the last decade is that they’ve been very successful at joining with a third group of people: the people who would go up to that guy, beat him up, and steal his wallet.

Why science is better than religion, part eleventy-bajillion

I caught this quote from Republican presidential candidate and evolution denier Mike Huckabee.

A reporter asked Huckabee how he thought his views — including his view on evolution — might play in the general election.

“Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do,” he said. “In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don’t think there’s a conflict between the two. But if there’s going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn’t. So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict.

He’s actually hit upon the very reason why science rules and religion drools.

Yes, our scientific understanding changes. The ideas we hold as true will in 100 years’ time be superceded by better and more refined knowledge. But that’s a good thing. That’s what’s supposed to happen. Science is good at changing and updating our canon of knowledge as the facts demand it. That’s why our scientific knowledge has increased exponentially, while religions… look pretty much the same as they did hundreds of years ago.

Because religions are based on beliefs instead of facts, they’re not very good at updating when new facts come in. It takes a long time for religions to change, and there’s usually a lot of resistance. To some, this looks like constancy in a world of change, but it’s actually a drag on human knowledge.

And take a look at the direction of flow. Science is considered good if it’s new and current, while there’s a very strong tendency for some Christian churches to be as ‘first-century’ as possible.

I went to an observatory with the boys the other night. I found out how we know how far away the stars are. I heard about what’s likely to happen to our Sun in the future. Best of all, I got to see clusters of nebulae. There’s so much to learn about our universe, and the scientific method is the most successful way to do that. But for people like Huckabee, if this knowledge doesn’t agree with their biblical preconceptions, they’ll stick with a cosmology made up by people who didn’t have telescopes.

If it hadn’t been for those meddling gods

Gods have been interfering in construction projects.

A canal in India may not go forward over protests of an unusual nature.

Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by [Hindu god] Ram and his army of monkeys.

Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram’s bridge) – or Adam’s Bridge as it is sometimes called – is a natural formation of sand and stones.

In their report submitted to the court, the government and the Archaeological Survey of India questioned the belief, saying it was solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.

They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.

Hindu activists say the bridge was built by Lord Ram’s monkey army to travel to Sri Lanka and has religious significance.

In the last two days, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has launched a scathing attack on the government for questioning the “faith of the million”.

Sometimes people ask me if I ‘believe in X’, and like Carl Sagan, I wish they’d ask instead: ‘How good is the evidence for X?’ Here, the BJP is claiming that the beliefs of millions must not be questioned, but they don’t examine the evidence for the belief. Seems to me that respect for the belief should be consonant with the evidence for it.

Now I’d hate to see a natural bridge destroyed, even if some people think it was built by a mythical being and an army of monkeys. (Because that would actually be pretty cool.) In fact, I wouldn’t care to destroy an object of ‘religious significance’ to anyone because people seem to like things that make them feel spiritual, and that’s okay.

What I think is interesting about this story is that the government decided to tell people that a deity was imaginary. A very encouraging tendency, but it’s a shame that the government caved in when fundamentalists freaked out.

In a similar story, roads in Iceland are sometimes diverted or delayed because people think it will annoy elves. Seriously.

“There are all sorts of beings beneath our stones,” said Brynjolfur Snorrason, a folklorist often asked to advise contractors on how best to avoid the lairs of Iceland’s elves and other seldom-seen creatures whose presence nonetheless still seems to permeate this far northern island nation.

Highway engineers in recent years have been forced to reroute roads around supposed elf dwellings. Similarly, builders of the country’s first shopping mall took care to lay electrical cables and other underground installations well away from suspected abodes of gnomes and fairies. Couples planning a new house will sometimes hire “elf-spotters” to ensure the lot is free of spirit folk.

What do you do? Elf-spotter.

One resident reported seeing one.

Despite having seen the elf only once in 15 years – enough time to determine that she was “bigger than life and dressed like my grandmother, in a 1930’s national costume” – Ms. Hakonardottir, 67, has no doubt of her existence. “My daughter once asked me, ‘How do you know where elves live?’ ” she said. “I told her you just know. It’s just a feeling.”

And if you feel it, it must be true. Intuition over evidence. You just know.

Another resident reports:

Recently, she said, some elves borrowed her kitchen scissors, only to return them a week later to a place she had repeatedly searched. “My philosophy is, you don’t have to see everything you believe in,” she said, “because many of your greatest experiences happen with closed eyes.”

Please remember, these are real people. Who believe in elves. The evidence they accept is feelings, intuitions, and unusual occurrences. They also disdain the need for physical evidence.

But of course, no one you know would be so silly.

Next question: what is the number after 14?

I am gobsmacked.

I’m watching ‘1 vs 100’ on Channel 9, and they asked the question: What is the average of these numbers: 5, 15, 10?

The guy got it right, but twenty people in the mob missed it. Twenty people. About one in five. I couldn’t believe it. Such a basic skill and such an easy question.

The next question: In palm reading, which line is meant to indicate longevity?

This time, only 4 people missed it. Everybody knew about stupid palmistry, but at math they sucked.

Science is in serious trouble. People who have televisions and cars should know how to do these things, but they don’t. And people are just going to have all the dough sucked out of their wallets until they’re able to increase their mental skills past the level of ferns. I’m sorry, but I am blown away.

Well, we’re not too fond of you either.

So scary it’s funny! Or… so scared it’s scary!

Click for a bigger image.

Silly writer. Atheists aren’t to be blamed for all the world’s ills. It’s teh gheys.

I like how atheists are responsible for crime, even if they haven’t committed any. Anything’s possible with magic thinking! Still, I guess it does say that on money, so she’s got us there.

I’d love to discuss this in more detail, but I have to do the laundry and shopping — things that could only be described as ‘evil’. While I’m gone, a question for consideration: Is being an unbeliever all it takes to make a believer feel frightened or threatened?

Bridge collapse

I realise it’s been a while since the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge, but it’s taken me a while to sort out my thoughts on it. I’ve thought about how we trust others as we cross bridges and eat food and breathe air, and for the social contract to be violated in this way I find inexcusable. I’ve thought of how we plan our lives, and how those plans can be cut short.

But the thought that keeps coming back to me is this: No astrologer saw it coming. No one’s horoscope said ‘Don’t cross the I-35W today.’ No psychic predicted the collapse. No tea-leaf reader prognosticated such a tragedy. No readings of entrails gave a hint. And no prophet, priest, or pastor prophesied the event in any way that would have been of any help to anyone.

Foretelling the future is something that they all claim to be capable of, but they never actually do. Because they can’t. The only thing that could was the scientific method — someone inspecting the bridge and looking for things that would signal danger. And it turns out that no one was listening.

Hey, guys, don’t fight! You’re both insane.

Brownback and Huckabee trading barbs over whose religion is better is like watching clowns whacking each other with big fish, but slightly less entertaining.

[A] pitched battle has broken out involving two lesser-known candidates who are trading accusations of religious bigotry and hypocrisy. The battle has become the most heated and personal rivalry in the Republican field.

The current tensions stem from an e-mail message sent to two Brownback supporters by Rev. Tim Rude, the pastor of an evangelical church in Walnut Creek, Iowa. In the message, Mr. Rude, a Huckabee volunteer, compared the religious backgrounds of Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist pastor, and Mr. Brownback, who is Roman Catholic.

“I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002,” Mr. Rude wrote. “Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor’s.”

While it’s refreshing to see the term ‘recovering Catholic’ in print, I’ll just put something out there that I’ve been thinking for a while: Insane people hate competing insanities. I mean, both Huckabee and Brownback put their hands up as evolution deniers in a debate. They’re both religious nutters. Why can’t they get along?

Fallacy of the Day, part 2

The fallacy of today is Appeal to Consequences, courtesy of Michael Gerson.

What Atheists Can’t Answer
By Michael Gerson
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A17

Proving God’s existence in 750 words or fewer would daunt even Thomas Aquinas. And I suspect that a certain kind of skeptic would remain skeptical even after a squadron of angels landed on his front lawn. So I merely want to pose a question: If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?

And on he goes for the rest of the column.

Well, perhaps atheism has some bad consequences, and perhaps some good, but this is irrelevant to whether a god actually exists or not. There would be many good consequences of being able to make hot pieces of pizza come out of my ears, but that isn’t a good reason to believe that this is so. I could also list some bad consequences of theism, but again.

And actually, yes, I would be skeptical if a squadron of angels landed on my lawn. I could hallucinate angels, or UFOs, or I suppose a good many other things. I’ve been wrong before. However, if the landing could be examined and verified by many people, reproducibly, then that would be good evidence.

I thought they were in favour of mixing religion in government.

Today in the Senate.

WASHINGTON: Christian activists briefly disrupted a Hindu invocation in the US Senate on Thursday, marring a historic first for the chamber and showing that fundamentalism is present and shouting in the US too.

Invited by the Senate to offer Hindu prayers in place of the usual Christian invocation, Rajan Zed, a Hindu priest from Reno, Nevada, had just stepped up to the podium for the landmark occasion when three protesters, said to belong to the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America, interrupted by loudly asking for God’s forgiveness for allowing the ”false prayer” of a Hindu in the Senate chamber.

“Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight,” the first protester shouted. “This is an abomination. We shall have no other gods before you.”

Democratic Senator Bob Casey, who was serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately asked the sergeant-at-arms to restore order. But they continued to protest as they were headed out the door by the marshals, shouting, “No Lord but Jesus Christ!” and “There’s only one true God!”

This is what they say about school prayer. Oh, it doesn’t have to be explicitly Christian. But would they be happy with a Wiccan prayer? A prayer to Allah? A Hindu prayer? Evidently not; America’s a Christian nation.

The organisation Operation Save America later issued a press release confirming that Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate “as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god.”

“The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ,” the statement said, adding, “This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.”

Well, at least one. Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.

It was adopted in 1779 with the valuable assistance of james Madison but not until a proposed amendment attempting to insert the words “Jesus Christ . . . the holy author of our religion” was rejected. In his autobiography, Jefferson notes the defeat of this proposed amendment “by a great majority, is proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindu and the Infidel of every denomination.

Let’s all remember that pandering to these people just feeds their hunger for domination. They won’t be happy until other views are eliminated but their own. It’s never Jesusy enough for them. Abomination, indeed.

I could never be president of the USA.

Atheists don’t get elected to public office in America (very often). And so we see all the major players paying lip service to Gawd, or a higher power, or ‘spirituality’ or some other such claptrap.

But if I’m annoyed by political goddiness, colour me supremely irked by this:

Sen. Barack Obama drew his heartiest welcome of a two-day swing through Iowa in the state’s capital of inner peace.

To the frustration of the cameramen in the Fairfield town square, Obama delivered his remarks facing east, with the setting sun behind him blotting out their shots.

But here, there’s a power even higher than the television networks: Obama had positioned himself in alignment with the rotation of the earth, in accordance with the teachings of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, whose followers moved en masse to this small Iowa city more than 30 years ago.

You need votes, and you’ve got to pander to respect people’s beliefs. That’s the part I’d be rotten at. I’d probably tell them that the Maharishi was a fraud, that spirituality is just made up, and then I’d challenge them to show me some yogic flying. In short, I’d get nowhere at all with the nutball New Agers.

Obama needs to pander to faith, I suppose, but does he have to wallow in it? Surely part of the job of President must be calling out bullshit of one type or another, and Obama looks incapable of it.

And how does the Democratic Party hold together when it contains the secular Left and the New Age spiritual left at the same time?

Older posts Newer posts

© 2025 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑