Good Reason

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

Category: post (page 83 of 125)

Religious ‘bigotry’

Hitchens:

Isn’t it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It’s not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of “faith” at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It’s not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything “faith-based.” It’s that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted.

I do hear this from some Latter-day Saints, partly concerned that Romney’s presidential bid has thrust their (in some ways secretive) faith under the microscope, and partly worried that Romney won’t carry the day because of the resulting criticism. They call it ‘religious bigotry’, and it may indeed be that for a portion of the electorate. But it’s also a real worry when a major candidate thinks that God lives on planet Kolob, or that peoples’ skin colour can be changed because of their moral behaviour.

Refusing to vote for someone because they believe fairy tales is not bigotry. It’s an acknowledgement that the job of president may require some critical thinking. As Hitch says:

However, what Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment.

Worth reading.

Happy birthsecond!

I use Time and Date.com all the time for their time zone and calendar info. But I’ve just discovered their Birthday Calculator. When will you be one billlion seconds old? (At about age 32.)

I plan to have a party when I’m 15,000 days old — that’s June 8th next year. I suppose I should call it Nerdmas.

Do you find it sobering that we only get about 30,000 days of life, if we’re lucky?

w00t

I don’t think it’s that interesting that ‘w00t’ was Merriam-Webster’s word of the year. After all, it was an internet poll, and you know how those things can get freeped. And I thought their putative etymology (We owned the other team) sounded hell dubious.

No, what I liked was that Pecksniffian is an actual word with no sexual connotations whatever. I’m going to be working that one into a conversation near me.

If you want words of the year, leave it to the pros at the American Dialect Society. They’ll be meeting in January to settle the matter so we can all palliate our logovoric proclivities.

Suddenly skeptical!

Who cares what the Pope thinks about global warming, but check this lede:

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

That’s one snarky writer over there at the Daily Mail.

Meme tag: Life and how to live it

I’ve been tagged by snowqueen to answer these questions.

1. How did the world and all that is in it come into being?

My son says that it was barfed up by Burunfa, the Great Sky Dog. Dinosaur fossils are just stuff that Burunfa had eaten. He also says that if you do what Burunfa says, you get to go Barunfa-land, which is a really great place. Also, he says that he is the sole emissary of Burunfa, and you have to do what he says, including giving him money and chocolate. He could be wrong, but with so much at stake, can I afford to take the chance? Or perhaps he’s just a clever scam artist, like everyone who runs a religion.

You should probably ask someone who knows about physics.

2. What is reality in terms of knowledge and truth?

Reality is that which an idealised scientific community agrees is true, over the very long term.

3. How does/should the world function?

I don’t have an answer for this. I don’t have any special understanding of how the world works, or else I’d be better at navigating around its systems.

4. What is the nature of a human being?

Human beings are bundles of desires, preferences, and memories. They have generally good intentions and brains that make reasonably good decisions when conditions are not too complex. Otherwise, they fall victim to short-term gratification, perceptual bias, and paralysing fear. The antidote to these less-than-helpful behaviours is to behave ethically, use the scientific method, and calm the fuck down.

5. What is one’s personal purpose of existence?

I used to think there was a purpose that was the same for everyone, and if only we could find that purpose in life, then we could all just do it and be happy.

Now I think it’s more individuated. My purpose in life is to raise my children, do well in my work, and have loving relationships.

Rather than ask, “What’s the purpose of existence?”, I’d like to ask, “What purpose are you bringing to your existence?” It may not be out there to be found. You may have to make it.

6. How should one live?

One should survive, and seek ethical pleasure, in that order.

7. Is there any personal hope for the future?

If by ‘personal hope’ you mean ‘continual existence as an individual after your death’, then no, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Hope is in humanity and in the monuments you create and leave behind.

8. What happens to a person at and after death?

As an LDS missionary, I used to teach that we had a spirit inside us that went to the spirit world. I even used the metaphor of a hand in a glove — the glove dies, but the hand lives on (wiggle fingers). But that’s just a metaphor, not evidence, and I was wrong to teach it.

I might just as well have said that we’re like a lightbulb. A light bulb is a machine for making light, but once the filament goes, the machine doesn’t work anymore. But we don’t treat the light like some kind of entity that persists after the bulb burns out. Our bodies are like machines for living, and our brain is the filament.

Now maybe that’s wrong too, but it’s just as good a metaphor as the spirit idea, and I think it’s backed up by evidence better.

9. Why is it possible to know anything at all?

Your question presumes that we can. In fact, it is very difficult to say that we know something.

In the church I used to go to, they would perform a kind of communal reinforcement ritual every month. People would tell each other, “I know the gospel is true.” After 35 years, it really grated on my ears every time I heard it. They did not know it was true, they were merely certain, which is different.

To say that a claim is true, we need to have factual evidence for that claim. Even then, we may need to adjust the claim if new and better evidence comes in. So the things that we ‘know’ are true will all probably be disproven or updated beyond recognition in 200 years’ time. What we should be saying is not ‘I know X is true’ but ‘At this point, the best evidence we have suggests that we can be pretty certain that X is the case.’

That doesn’t give much room for certainty, does it? Welcome to the universe.

10. How does one know what is right and what is wrong?

Let’s say you have two tribes of humans. In one tribe, they never help each other. In the other, they sometimes do. The second tribe will do better at surviving, since two people together can do things that one person can’t.

We’re like the second tribe. We’ve survived long enough that human evolution has given us some traits, like compassion and altruism, that help us to live together in a somewhat orderly and helpful fashion. When we feel that something is right or wrong, we may be drawing upon our evolutionary heritage.

11. What is the meaning of human history?

Human history is an enormous bunch of cases where things happened. We use them to figure out what’s going to happen in the future, and how to stop it.

12. What does the future hold?

My future holds love, some sadness, time with people I love, good food, and a lifetime of striving for the good. I hope your future is good to you.

And now, a thought on language.

An excerpt of a column from Marilyn vos Savant, who is a very smart person (putatively), but I’d say not a linguist.

My students increasingly question the value of learning basic grammar. They say that, in the future, computers will correct their mistakes automatically. What would you tell them?
—Name withheld, Sanford, Maine

Even if computers could discern what students wanted to say (despite their errors), students must learn not only basic grammar but also sophisticated and highly complex grammar. Otherwise, the students won’t be able to comprehend what they read to the fullest extent. Almost as important, they won’t realize their limitations.

She’s not making sense here, but perhaps I haven’t studied enough sophisticated and highly complex grammar.

And another gem:

Marilyn: I’d like to add to your answer about why students should study basic grammar. Not only must they be able to comprehend the written language, they must be able to speak it. If you can’t speak grammatically, you will not rise beyond the lower levels in most job categories.

Marilyn responds:

John: How true. Although spoken English doesn’t obey the rules of written language, a person who doesn’t know the rules thoroughly is at a great disadvantage.

This moment of surrealism has been brought to you by the letter ð.

It’s official: Mitt Romney is a fucking douche

I am all kinds of pissed-off about Das Speech. I was expecting Romney to say that he wouldn’t take orders from Salt Lake (and he did), but he also went out of his way to malign people of reason.

I’ll just comment on the greasiest morsels.

America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we’re troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

Fear buttons activated. The audience is now primed to reject rational thought and swallow authoritarian dogma.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.

Obstreperousness requires pomegranates just as pomegranates require obstreperousness.

Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Tell that to people in secular countries. Japan. Norway. Most of Europe. You can use your freedom to commune with any beings your imagination can contrive, but don’t go saying religion is some kind of prerequisite.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It’s as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Us them, us them. I know Republicans like to hold up this imaginary scarecrow, but it’s so dishonest. If secularism were a religion, I’d be paying tithes. And it’d be a lot better organised.

Do you ever wonder how it is that Mitt knows the ‘original meaning’ of the Separation Clause so much better than the rest of us? Was it a result of personal revelation? Was Romney doing Jefferson’s proxy temple work, and have a visitation? It’s as if he was intent on establishing a new religion in America – the cult of revisionist channeling.

Yes, I do think religion is a private affair. I don’t think all this public god-posturing is a good use of airtime (and no small amount of money as well). I’d love to see less of it in public life. If, just for once, a candidate for office were to able to express an honest doubt about theism, I would fall over. I might also think that maybe rational thought in the public sphere were possible. But that will never happen in today’s America because religious folk have a stranglehold on the discourse. It’s not the secularists.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation “under God” and in God, we do indeed trust.

I think this just shows how insidious religious faith can be. All that God stuff is a relic of the Eisenhower years, and now it’s entrenched.

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: Does he share these American values – the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

Which Romney has already explained is predicated on religious faith.

Listen: we’ve tried having a person of faith as president. He had so much faith that he could believe anything he wanted was true, without any evidence at all. It was a disaster. Why don’t we try a person of doubt? See how that works for a while.

If you’re a secularist, or if you’re not particularly religious, or even if you’re just suspicious of religious involvement in government, you now know exactly where you stand in Mitt Romney’s America: on the other side of the Wall of Separation.

That does it! This relationship now has 50% fewer people in it!

People are concerned about divorce. I keep hearing that half of all marriages end in divorce. I happen to think that half of all marriages bloody well should end in divorce, but that’s beside the point.

And then there are people who are somewhat inappropriately concerned about divorce, viz two Michigan State researchers. They’ve released a study that divorced people are harming the environment.

The analysis found that cohabiting couples and families around the globe use resources more efficiently than households that have split up. The researchers calculated that in 2005, divorced American households used between 42 and 61 percent more resources per person than before they separated, spending 46 percent more per person on electricity and 56 percent more on water.

Their paper, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also found that if the divorced couples had stayed together in 2005, the United States would have saved 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water in that year alone.

Wow, people who live in separate houses use more energy? I could never have thought of that. By this reasoning, single people are also hard on the environment. And kids who move out of their parents’ house. But the article doesn’t seem to mention them. That’s because divorced people represent Some Kind of Problem.

And the researchers haven’t taken into account the extra energy usage of unhappily married couples who stay together even though they despise each other.

  • Keeping the lights on when you stay up late and fight.
  • Extra petrol usage from driving around until you’re sure your spouse is asleep.
  • Petty toilet flushing when your spouse is in the shower.
  • Repeated hotel room trysting has an impact similar to a small apartment for that couple of hours or so.
  • And don’t forget all that seething with resentment, which releases a lot of heat into the environment.

I suppose all those extra houses full of divorcés could be a bit of a problem. But if you’re looking for reasons to stay together, and you’re down to ‘saving water’, it’s time to start looking for an apartment.

Thanks to Jessica for some ideas on the list.

Secular school

Are people good because they have an evolutionarily-endowed drive toward compassion? Or is it because parents teach them? That’s one of the arguments for taking kids to church, isn’t it? — that they learn moral principles. Of course, kids learn a lot of immoral brain-crippling things in church too, like belief in non-existant entities and short-circuiting reason via faith. So wouldn’t it be good for secular parents to be approaching their children’s moral upbringing in a more structured way?

That’s the idea behind Atheist Sunday school for kids.

The lives of these young people would be much easier, adult nonbelievers say, if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S. “It’s important for kids not to look weird,” says Peter Bishop, who leads the preteen class at the Humanist center in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it’s O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have.

I like the idea of inoculating children from religion by educating them about it. Too many people raise their kids without any knowledge about religion, only to have them get older, hear about Christianity (or whatever) and think it’s the greatest thing.

So you think, great, now we can bore children with secularism like we bore them with religion. But don’t be like that. It’d be good.

Imagine starting out with a child reading a quote from Tom Paine. Then an opening song: John Lennon’s Imagine. (Well, maybe something else.)

Then a story; perhaps a Norse creation myth. The children could then make up their own creation story and illustrate it.

After a quick round of Spot the Fallacy, it’s TV time: something about dinosaurs.

Wrap it up with something about any of the following areas:

  • critical thinking
  • science and nature
  • logic and reason
  • self-worth and confidence

I think it’d be great. Just make it no more than an hour long, and have ice cream. They love that.

The two flavours of LIHOP

Scripps News thinks that America is crawling with conspiracy theorists:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings, according to a Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll.

But wait, if it really did happen, it’s not a conspiracy theory, is it?

The Carpetbagger points out that this actually describes two different points of view: one, that Team Bush allowed 9/11 to happen because it fit conveniently into their nation-building agenda; and two, they allowed it to happen because… they were so clueless that they ignored warnings about it just as they ignored warnings on everything else. In scenario 1, they’re evil, and in scenario 2, they’re just incompetent.

So which is it? Surely they’re not so evil as to permit Americans to die so they can have their way. Oh, wait, they are. But no one knows if that’s what they were thinking, and the incompetence theory assumes less. So what it comes down to is: which is greater, Team Bush’s capacity for evil, or their capacity for incompetence?

Damn. Put it like that, and you could go back and forth all day.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2026 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑