That young Earth creationist quack, the self-styled 'Dr. Dino', was sentenced yesterday to 10 years imprisonment. In addition, he is to pay restitution in the amount of $640,000, the prosecution's court costs ($7,078) and serve 3 years parole after release. When viewed against other similar crimes, such as Martha Stewart's insider trading gaffe, the sentence itself seems to be in line with the severity of the crime.
While not as spectacular as the actions of those fallen angels of the 80s, Swaggart, Roberts and Bakker, Kent Hovind is not without his own special charm: "If it's just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach," Hovind said.
He just doesn't get it. He was quite willing to reap the benefits that the state provides through taxation that he arbitrarily declared himself exempt from. In other words, he lived off everybody else like a parasite. Did anything change? Nope. He's still quite content to let everyone else pay for his indiscretions. Sentencing is not just about restitution; it's also about punishment for inappropriate actions relative to social norms.
The above quote suggests that he does not believe that he committed a crime. However, the actions of the Hovinds strongly suggest otherwise. His wife Jo was herself convicted of using various schemes to avoid triggering transactions requiring reporting to the IRS. She would visit the bank sometimes twice in a day to make withdrawals just shy of the $10,000 limit on transaction reporting. On the day of the IRS raid Kent withdrew $70,000. He must have realized that the jig was up and that he wasn't fooling anybody anymore. The raid resulted in finding $42,000 stashed in various locations of the house and several weapons! Are these the actions of someone that does not believe they are breaking the law? If he really believed he was following a higher calling, would the Hovinds go out of their way to avoid detection by the mere mortals of the IRS like sneaking thieves? A jury of 12 of his peers (I hope they were actually his betters. A jury of his peers might have come back with a verdict of kumquat.) didn't think so and raced to produce a verdict in a mere two and a half hours. That's barely time to read out the charges and vote on each one. In what I thought was an unusual step, Kent was held without bail till the sentencing as the judge was convinced he was a flight risk.
Michael Smith at the Pensacola New Journal writes: "The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that churches are not exempt from paying employment taxes, she (U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers) explained, and what happened was a result of Kent Hovind 'refusing to accept what the law is.'" It wouldn't actually matter if churches were totally exempt, since Hovind's claim of a ministry is arbitrary and he has never applied for special status to the IRS. The Creation Science Ministry is not even a non-profit organization and is therefor fully taxable just like any other business.
Religion allows believers to turn their backs on their fellow humans because they think they answer to a higher power. This makes possible the suspension of normal limitations on actions causing pain and suffering in others, or (in the case of Hovind) circumventing ethical boundaries. If he truly believed that he was doing God's work, what need did he have for money at all? Wouldn't God provide?
His son, Eric, is certainly in denial. "My father is not a man who is in love with money. He's in love with God," son Eric Hovind said. "He is a man who loves this country and loves others." Okay, but explain the $42,000 lying around the house. Talk about putting equity into your home. Then explain the guns.
How is this man considered by anyone to be moral? This man is scum! I've already dealt with his abysmal form of Creation Science in a previous blog. But not only is his 'Science' a joke, he is very dodgy about where his so-called PhD comes from and in what field it relates to. Since he is well aware that his 'Hovind Theory' has been thoroughly debunked but continues to spout his drivel I think it's safe to say that he is a liar. Now he has been publicly shown to be a cheat. But will his followers see him as such? History suggests not...
And even after all of this the sheep will still follow. Some will even believe that he is being persecuted for his beliefs, but I think it's quite clear that his actions were criminal. This man is not only financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well. When will his followers stop being mindless sheep, put that antiquated book down and start thinking for themselves like human beings?
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
10 Myths About Atheists
Sam Harris has put online his top 10 list of atheism myths.
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. I've always believed that life has the meaning that the owner attaches to it. Think about it. You have a clean slate to do whatever you want to make your life meaningful! The only problem is finding amongst the myriads of possibilities the one you want. How can anyone not find this absolutely wonderful?
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. My favorite is the Holocaust. Hitler was a practicing Roman Catholic and stated in Mein Kampf and in speeches that he was doing God's work. Doesn't sound much like an atheist to me. As Harris points out, the truly despicable regimes of Pol Pot and Stalin were dogmatic of their own accord. Extremism and fundamentalism have proven over and over again how truly terrible they are, whether or not it is religious in nature.
3) Atheism is dogmatic. A nonsequitor. We simply lack any belief in a deity. As Stephen Henry Roberts said (and I've heard Richard Dawkins reiterate): “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance. As Harris points out, this is usually thrown up as an attack on evolution. Unfortunately, there is nothing random about evolution at all, and just shows the total ignorance of the attacker on the subject.
5) Atheism has no connection to science. Unlikely, as 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are agnostic/atheist, while the same proportion of the general population is theistic. This says volumes.
6) Atheists are arrogant. No more so than theists. It just depends on the viewpoint. Me, I like to think of myself as more "adamant" than "arrogant"...
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience. If by spiritual experience you mean a religious one, then this is actually true for me. But if you mean having an epiphany about something amazing, then all of us, religious or not, have experienced this.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding. If anything, it is religious dogma which limits our understanding. It single-handedly stalled advancement in all aspects of society, not just scientific, in the dark ages. It took a wresting of control from theocratic institutions to start things moving again, a fact which gives me hope that theistic institutions can not bottle the human spirit indefinitely, try as they might! Indeed, it has always been Science that has been in the vanguard of human understanding, not religion.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society. Another nonsequitor. How can systematically teaching people to unquestioningly live a lie be at all beneficial? To behave in certain manners to appease god and obtain the love of a deity out of fear is good? Sounds rather totalitarian to me.
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality. True, in a sense. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. Fortunately, there is no need for atheism to provide morality. It's simply something that evolved as part our species' group survival strategy. I find it ironic that when a theist asks where do atheists get their morals from, our answer is the same place the theist does. Does anyone really believe that I will not think that harming others is bad just because I don't worship a dusty old book of dubious origins? Heck, that book and others of similar ilk have been responsible for a immeasurable harm on their own. Where do you think we get the term 'witch hunt' from? My surprise has been that theists have not argued that it was god that instilled morality into each and every one of us. My only conclusion after giving it much thought is that this would be too gnostic a belief. You don't collect much money in the coffers when people realize they don't need to show up every Sunday morning to worship. Their whole industry would shut down!
Yet we are still haunted by these beliefs born of ignorance. I see it all the time on the web. It is time we atheists banded together into a real lobby group and change perceptions. Maybe we can finally politically "herd the cats" into having one voice. I'm tired of sitting on my hands and allowing right wing conservative religious groups having more than their say and we remain silent. Heck, even those loons at the Westbro Baptist Church get more coverage. Enough is enough!
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. I've always believed that life has the meaning that the owner attaches to it. Think about it. You have a clean slate to do whatever you want to make your life meaningful! The only problem is finding amongst the myriads of possibilities the one you want. How can anyone not find this absolutely wonderful?
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. My favorite is the Holocaust. Hitler was a practicing Roman Catholic and stated in Mein Kampf and in speeches that he was doing God's work. Doesn't sound much like an atheist to me. As Harris points out, the truly despicable regimes of Pol Pot and Stalin were dogmatic of their own accord. Extremism and fundamentalism have proven over and over again how truly terrible they are, whether or not it is religious in nature.
3) Atheism is dogmatic. A nonsequitor. We simply lack any belief in a deity. As Stephen Henry Roberts said (and I've heard Richard Dawkins reiterate): “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance. As Harris points out, this is usually thrown up as an attack on evolution. Unfortunately, there is nothing random about evolution at all, and just shows the total ignorance of the attacker on the subject.
5) Atheism has no connection to science. Unlikely, as 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are agnostic/atheist, while the same proportion of the general population is theistic. This says volumes.
6) Atheists are arrogant. No more so than theists. It just depends on the viewpoint. Me, I like to think of myself as more "adamant" than "arrogant"...
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience. If by spiritual experience you mean a religious one, then this is actually true for me. But if you mean having an epiphany about something amazing, then all of us, religious or not, have experienced this.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding. If anything, it is religious dogma which limits our understanding. It single-handedly stalled advancement in all aspects of society, not just scientific, in the dark ages. It took a wresting of control from theocratic institutions to start things moving again, a fact which gives me hope that theistic institutions can not bottle the human spirit indefinitely, try as they might! Indeed, it has always been Science that has been in the vanguard of human understanding, not religion.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society. Another nonsequitor. How can systematically teaching people to unquestioningly live a lie be at all beneficial? To behave in certain manners to appease god and obtain the love of a deity out of fear is good? Sounds rather totalitarian to me.
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality. True, in a sense. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. Fortunately, there is no need for atheism to provide morality. It's simply something that evolved as part our species' group survival strategy. I find it ironic that when a theist asks where do atheists get their morals from, our answer is the same place the theist does. Does anyone really believe that I will not think that harming others is bad just because I don't worship a dusty old book of dubious origins? Heck, that book and others of similar ilk have been responsible for a immeasurable harm on their own. Where do you think we get the term 'witch hunt' from? My surprise has been that theists have not argued that it was god that instilled morality into each and every one of us. My only conclusion after giving it much thought is that this would be too gnostic a belief. You don't collect much money in the coffers when people realize they don't need to show up every Sunday morning to worship. Their whole industry would shut down!
Yet we are still haunted by these beliefs born of ignorance. I see it all the time on the web. It is time we atheists banded together into a real lobby group and change perceptions. Maybe we can finally politically "herd the cats" into having one voice. I'm tired of sitting on my hands and allowing right wing conservative religious groups having more than their say and we remain silent. Heck, even those loons at the Westbro Baptist Church get more coverage. Enough is enough!
Monday, January 1, 2007
No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Or God.
I received a comment on one of two (but not the last) blogs that I've written about Kent Hovind, PhDuh. I feel compelled to respond to it in more than just a return comment because I think this person is representative of a fundamentalist view of atheism and is deserving of a proper response. I mean no disrespect by any of this, but some things must be addressed because we atheists seem to be the most misunderstood group on the planet. This person is exactly the type that I wish to read my blog and hopefully get something from it.
Kent Hovind opened the door to criticism of the beliefs he espouses simply by making them public. His intent is not only to make you believe evolution is a myth, even though the overwhelming evidence makes it a fact, but to win you over to religion. Just another reason to examine his ideology. My initial intent with the blog on him was to critically examine his views in the debate that I dissected, but it soon turned out that I could no longer take his inanity. His recent legal problems, while not related to his personal beliefs per se, do in fact go towards who he is. I have a rule: I respect others' right to beliefs, but I do not have to respect the beliefs others hold when such beliefs are demonstrably wrong and harmful. It is the courage of people such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins that have moved me to come forward and make my voice heard. I save my vitriol for those that deserve it: the Bill O'Reillys, Ann Coulters and Kent Hovinds of this world.
Am1specialkitty wrote:
But his speech is not his own. Yes, indeed much of it is. The creation story may not be his own, but trying to shoehorn dinosaurs into this mythology is very much his own idea. And not a good one. It shows the desperation and the lengths people will go to to try to preserve their beliefs, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented to them.
History is documented for that period. Only the misguided try to discard it. Indeed it is. The Romans were almost obsessive in their record keeping. Curious that there is no mention of a miracle-working carpenter in any contemporary literature. If you are thinking of the gospels as your documentation, forget it. It is well-documented that none of the gospels was written during Jesus' life, nor are their authorship known. How could the gospels be at all accurate after 40 years of word-of-mouth?
Why are you so scared of the truth? I am a man of Science and am thus interested in nothing but the truth. I do not blindly accept anything, however. I've found that common sense often enough turns out to be common nonsense. If you take everything at face value you get what you deserve in the end. So-called creation science is a good example. Proponents assume the Genesis story as truth without question, and then try to find evidence in support of it. See anything wrong here? If you blindly believe in the creation mythology, what need do you have for evidence? It seems to me that it is creationists that are afraid of the truth. The tendency to ignore all other evidence in favor of tidbits supporting the creation legend is not scientific in the least. Especially when those tidbits are generally twisted by omitting important adjunct information. One of Hovind's beliefs is that dragon legends are evidence for dinosaurs living amongst H. sapiens. He also believes (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that T. rex was a herbivore (this allows T. rex to be on the ark without making a meal of Noah). It seems to me, however, that dragons had a fondness for princess meat. So, he picks and chooses the parts he likes, ignoring all else. This is just sad. He has no interest in looking for the truth at all. I'm sure he believes the creation story, but if he truly believes it to be true, then what does he fear from starting ab initio without assuming any end point? If Genesis is true, all evidence (not just the ones he picks) will point to it as being truth no matter your starting point.
What have you done that you feel you can't be forgiven for. Nothing. I actually have a clear conscience. Why do Xians always feel that atheists deny the existence of god out of guilt and fear of punishment for some terrible act? Why this assumed immorality of atheists? This is actually downright insulting, even in ignorance. You know nothing about me, yet you assume I must be some sort of axe murderer. Sorry to disappoint you, but I will put my sense of ethics and morality, and indeed my whole life, up for comparison with any Xian's.
This is so similar to a point that Hovind attempted to put forward that I have to discuss this further. Why do Xians (not all, certainly, but often enough to exasperate me) think that atheists are denying the existence of something that to them is so obvious, there must be some nefarious reason? They say, "Look around you! How could this all have just come into being?" But instead of trying to answer that very question, some supernatural being is generated to explain it. It is the very fact that some people weren't satisfied with the accepted answers obtained through sheer laziness and apathy, and began to search for real answers that many like me have come to realize that there was never a need to have created a deity in the first place. This planet's inhabitants would be much happier without religion to create intergroup violence.
Why must you have so much hate for christians that you feel the need to attack them. I have absolutely no hate for Xians. None. I can see that some would think that Xians are my target. It is baseless belief that I fight against. I find it interesting that religious people are allowed to proselytize and convert others to their beliefs, but when an atheist does it he/she is condemned. People of all sorts of faiths put aside their differences and attack free thinkers like Richard Dawkins. Why are religion and religious beliefs held unaccountable? What makes them sacrosanct? We have this social taboo that religion is not to be touched. That changes now. When inappropriate beliefs affect myself and others I will challenge them with vigor. So why do I not think that religion is harmless? Watch CNN. America has become a theocracy in all but name. This endangers everyone's freedoms. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what is happening south of the Great White North.
My sympathy is with you. For if you are right and I am wrong you lose nothing, but if I am right and there is a God, you lose everything. Ah, Pascal's Wager. You realize that this is perhaps the most discredited argument of the religious apologist? Aside from the fact that you have only a small chance of having selected the right god if god indeed exists, you do indeed have much to lose if you are wrong. You have wasted the whole of the one life you had to live on a lie. If I'm wrong I can hold my head high when I meet god and say to him, in the words of Betrand Russell, "Not enough evidence!"
And for that I pray for you, that one day you find faith. I know you mean well, but having someone pray for me is insulting. I would prefer that you do something constructive with your time. Prayer has indeed been shown to have no effect at all, aside from possible psychological factors. It is much better to have said that you would hold me in your thoughts, or something along that line. I can respect that. I think about friends and family all the time, and I hold hopes for their happiness and well-being in my mind. That's just caring. I think you meant that, but you were being totally (probably unintentionally) insensitive to the beliefs I hold, and hold because of evidence.
Faith isn't something that can be documented. Faith is something that's not touchable. Faith is simply belief in what you know inside to be true and no longer deny. Faith is asking a friend for a favor and believing they will carry it out because they have always been there for you before. Faith is believing that Science will continue to find answers to the questions rightly important to our species, such as where did we come from, is there anybody else out there, how did the universe come into being? I have more faith than you can know. Believing in something devoid of any supporting evidence and all evidence pointing to the contrary is not faith, however. It is BLIND FAITH. Blind faith is not something to be admired or congratulated. Blind faith is like a someone falling from a cliff desperately grasping at the lone blade of grasp to avoid their doom. It is blind faith that has lead to witch hunts, burning of heretics and suicide bombers.
I do have one question: why do you believe what you believe? Everyone should answer this question for themselves. I would really like an answer. And not one like "Because it's in the bible." That answers nothing and creates more questions. I mean, really dig deep down to understand why it is we believe what we believe. The answers are far more difficult to express than you might think. If your faith can survive that, I'll have a lot more respect for it.
Kent Hovind opened the door to criticism of the beliefs he espouses simply by making them public. His intent is not only to make you believe evolution is a myth, even though the overwhelming evidence makes it a fact, but to win you over to religion. Just another reason to examine his ideology. My initial intent with the blog on him was to critically examine his views in the debate that I dissected, but it soon turned out that I could no longer take his inanity. His recent legal problems, while not related to his personal beliefs per se, do in fact go towards who he is. I have a rule: I respect others' right to beliefs, but I do not have to respect the beliefs others hold when such beliefs are demonstrably wrong and harmful. It is the courage of people such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins that have moved me to come forward and make my voice heard. I save my vitriol for those that deserve it: the Bill O'Reillys, Ann Coulters and Kent Hovinds of this world.
Am1specialkitty wrote:
Maybe this man doesn't have a degree. But his speech is not his own. History is documented for that time period. Only the misguided try to discard it. Why are you so scared of the truth. What have you done that you feel you can't be forgiven for. Why must you have so much hate for christians that you feel the need to attack them.Maybe this man doesn't have a degree. He does, but it is not from an accredited university. This makes his PhD null and void, so I guess I don't disagree with this. But he is certainly insecure about it.
My sympathy is with you. For if you are right and I am wrong you lose nothing, but if I am right and there is a God, you lose everything. And for that I pray for you, that one day you find faith. Faith isn't something that can be documented. Faith is something that's not touchable. Faith is simply belief in what you know inside to be true and no longer deny.
But his speech is not his own. Yes, indeed much of it is. The creation story may not be his own, but trying to shoehorn dinosaurs into this mythology is very much his own idea. And not a good one. It shows the desperation and the lengths people will go to to try to preserve their beliefs, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented to them.
History is documented for that period. Only the misguided try to discard it. Indeed it is. The Romans were almost obsessive in their record keeping. Curious that there is no mention of a miracle-working carpenter in any contemporary literature. If you are thinking of the gospels as your documentation, forget it. It is well-documented that none of the gospels was written during Jesus' life, nor are their authorship known. How could the gospels be at all accurate after 40 years of word-of-mouth?
Why are you so scared of the truth? I am a man of Science and am thus interested in nothing but the truth. I do not blindly accept anything, however. I've found that common sense often enough turns out to be common nonsense. If you take everything at face value you get what you deserve in the end. So-called creation science is a good example. Proponents assume the Genesis story as truth without question, and then try to find evidence in support of it. See anything wrong here? If you blindly believe in the creation mythology, what need do you have for evidence? It seems to me that it is creationists that are afraid of the truth. The tendency to ignore all other evidence in favor of tidbits supporting the creation legend is not scientific in the least. Especially when those tidbits are generally twisted by omitting important adjunct information. One of Hovind's beliefs is that dragon legends are evidence for dinosaurs living amongst H. sapiens. He also believes (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that T. rex was a herbivore (this allows T. rex to be on the ark without making a meal of Noah). It seems to me, however, that dragons had a fondness for princess meat. So, he picks and chooses the parts he likes, ignoring all else. This is just sad. He has no interest in looking for the truth at all. I'm sure he believes the creation story, but if he truly believes it to be true, then what does he fear from starting ab initio without assuming any end point? If Genesis is true, all evidence (not just the ones he picks) will point to it as being truth no matter your starting point.
What have you done that you feel you can't be forgiven for. Nothing. I actually have a clear conscience. Why do Xians always feel that atheists deny the existence of god out of guilt and fear of punishment for some terrible act? Why this assumed immorality of atheists? This is actually downright insulting, even in ignorance. You know nothing about me, yet you assume I must be some sort of axe murderer. Sorry to disappoint you, but I will put my sense of ethics and morality, and indeed my whole life, up for comparison with any Xian's.
This is so similar to a point that Hovind attempted to put forward that I have to discuss this further. Why do Xians (not all, certainly, but often enough to exasperate me) think that atheists are denying the existence of something that to them is so obvious, there must be some nefarious reason? They say, "Look around you! How could this all have just come into being?" But instead of trying to answer that very question, some supernatural being is generated to explain it. It is the very fact that some people weren't satisfied with the accepted answers obtained through sheer laziness and apathy, and began to search for real answers that many like me have come to realize that there was never a need to have created a deity in the first place. This planet's inhabitants would be much happier without religion to create intergroup violence.
Why must you have so much hate for christians that you feel the need to attack them. I have absolutely no hate for Xians. None. I can see that some would think that Xians are my target. It is baseless belief that I fight against. I find it interesting that religious people are allowed to proselytize and convert others to their beliefs, but when an atheist does it he/she is condemned. People of all sorts of faiths put aside their differences and attack free thinkers like Richard Dawkins. Why are religion and religious beliefs held unaccountable? What makes them sacrosanct? We have this social taboo that religion is not to be touched. That changes now. When inappropriate beliefs affect myself and others I will challenge them with vigor. So why do I not think that religion is harmless? Watch CNN. America has become a theocracy in all but name. This endangers everyone's freedoms. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what is happening south of the Great White North.
My sympathy is with you. For if you are right and I am wrong you lose nothing, but if I am right and there is a God, you lose everything. Ah, Pascal's Wager. You realize that this is perhaps the most discredited argument of the religious apologist? Aside from the fact that you have only a small chance of having selected the right god if god indeed exists, you do indeed have much to lose if you are wrong. You have wasted the whole of the one life you had to live on a lie. If I'm wrong I can hold my head high when I meet god and say to him, in the words of Betrand Russell, "Not enough evidence!"
And for that I pray for you, that one day you find faith. I know you mean well, but having someone pray for me is insulting. I would prefer that you do something constructive with your time. Prayer has indeed been shown to have no effect at all, aside from possible psychological factors. It is much better to have said that you would hold me in your thoughts, or something along that line. I can respect that. I think about friends and family all the time, and I hold hopes for their happiness and well-being in my mind. That's just caring. I think you meant that, but you were being totally (probably unintentionally) insensitive to the beliefs I hold, and hold because of evidence.
Faith isn't something that can be documented. Faith is something that's not touchable. Faith is simply belief in what you know inside to be true and no longer deny. Faith is asking a friend for a favor and believing they will carry it out because they have always been there for you before. Faith is believing that Science will continue to find answers to the questions rightly important to our species, such as where did we come from, is there anybody else out there, how did the universe come into being? I have more faith than you can know. Believing in something devoid of any supporting evidence and all evidence pointing to the contrary is not faith, however. It is BLIND FAITH. Blind faith is not something to be admired or congratulated. Blind faith is like a someone falling from a cliff desperately grasping at the lone blade of grasp to avoid their doom. It is blind faith that has lead to witch hunts, burning of heretics and suicide bombers.
I do have one question: why do you believe what you believe? Everyone should answer this question for themselves. I would really like an answer. And not one like "Because it's in the bible." That answers nothing and creates more questions. I mean, really dig deep down to understand why it is we believe what we believe. The answers are far more difficult to express than you might think. If your faith can survive that, I'll have a lot more respect for it.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
A short history of the Babble....
I was reading a schlock novel recently, one partaking in the Da Vinci Code craze, and one chapter dealt with a history of the Bible which is starkly different from what most Xians (and atheists) believe. The reaction of atheists to this is probably quite different from that of a typical Xian (let alone a fundamentalist). Atheists will typically respond with surprise, and yet without surprise. Xian responses will probably centre around complete denial.
Very little actual documentation from Jesus' time exists. Actually, it closely approximates none. The discussion in the novel I was reading (The Last Templer) was a succinct synopsis of its early history, but being a work of fiction I wanted to take a deeper look. While not a novel I would put in the same class as The Da Vinci Code, this part seems to have been well researched. The first big surprise lies in that not one of the four gospels was written in the time Jesus supposedly lived. In fact, none of the authors is really known. Their authorship is ascribed to the four apostles without any real evidence. The earliest, Mark, is a good 40 years after Jesus' death. That's 40 years of playing the telephone game without any newspapers, video feeds or audio clips. Matthew was likely written between 70 and 100 CE, Luke between 50 and 100 CE and John anywhere between 90 and 120 CE. With only oral tradition keeping the story alive, what are the chances of the Jesus story being at all accurate, even if such a man lived? Certainly, since it is more likely that Jesus was a man with a vision, the story of Jesus took on a life of its own. It certainly bares a remarkable resemblance to the story of Horus. I've recently had an interesting thought about the Resurrection. Jesus rose from the dead three days following his crucifixion. That number 'three' has some significance in relation to crucifixions: if the victim survived three days the sentence was considered to have been fulfilled and he was released. I wonder if, along with the telephone game, this somehow mutated into being raised from the dead.
There were many more gospels than those attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, as the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1946 demonstrated. If there were many such codexes available at the time, why only these four? Well, the blame comes to rest with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in the 2nd century CE. Essentially, he took the gospels which were consistent with who he believed Jesus was and considered the others heresy in his Adversus Haereses. Well, that seems somewhat arbitrary, doesn't it? To further distance the church from gnosticism, which many of these codexes espoused, he declared these four gospels divinely inspired in an all too human manner. I have yet to discover on what basis such a statement was made.
So, what do we have? A religion based upon stories of a man that may or may not have existed (but the one in the Bible certainly did not), and which suspiciously strongly resembles earlier mythologies; of the many written works only four which were reasonably consistent were chosen in an ad hoc manner, arbitrarily declaring all others as heresy. It simply stuns me that after all this people can still possibly believe.
This is the power of blind faith (NOT faith!). Faith is trusting someone with a task because you know from previous experience that they always keep their word. There's a history, something to fall back on as a predictor of outcome. Science is like that. I have faith in Science because it works! Blind faith, on the other hand, is like the manual for my Focus SVT telling me my car can actually fly and believing it. Not many of us would take that without a grain of salt and would like to see some evidence. Why not for the Bible? Why is religion exempt from skepticism? I have no idea. Every part of one's life should be looked at critically!
Often, as discussed in this novel, people will look to the good that Xianity has brought, like the code of morality and ethics. But it has done far more harm than good, as history shows. The moral tenet, Thou shalt not kill, only applied to fellow Jews. It was quite alright to kill gentiles. There were even rules on what to do if in your fervor in slaughtering a group of gentiles a fellow believer was also killed. (It was decided that this is okay, the loss of one believer was considered acceptable in eliminating numerous unbelievers.) It's modern meaning post-dates Jesus. Indeed, the holocaust could not have happened without Xian anti-semitism. The Crusades had little to do with freeing the Holy Land and more to do with lining pockets. The biggest problem is that because religious people look to obey a higher power, turning their backs on their fellow humans. The moral and ethical codes presented in the Bible are out of date, as I've demonstrated in an earlier blog. It was meant for an earlier society, where technology meant a new way growing whatever it is they grew out there.
In fact, religion is not the source of morality and ethics; it codified these principles which exist whether religion does or not. Xians would have us all believe that morality was given to us by god. But if you witness an act that you find morally reprehensible, did you have to consult scripture to come up with a moral value judgement first? I doubt it. You made a mental calculation using moral grammatical rules that bypassed your conscious mind. Morality is inherent within each of us, not obtained from some old book. An evolutionary origin to morality explains a great deal about the diversity of morality and ethics which religion does not. If you would like to see where we really get our morals from I strongly recommend Marc Hauser's Moral Minds for further study.
Very little actual documentation from Jesus' time exists. Actually, it closely approximates none. The discussion in the novel I was reading (The Last Templer) was a succinct synopsis of its early history, but being a work of fiction I wanted to take a deeper look. While not a novel I would put in the same class as The Da Vinci Code, this part seems to have been well researched. The first big surprise lies in that not one of the four gospels was written in the time Jesus supposedly lived. In fact, none of the authors is really known. Their authorship is ascribed to the four apostles without any real evidence. The earliest, Mark, is a good 40 years after Jesus' death. That's 40 years of playing the telephone game without any newspapers, video feeds or audio clips. Matthew was likely written between 70 and 100 CE, Luke between 50 and 100 CE and John anywhere between 90 and 120 CE. With only oral tradition keeping the story alive, what are the chances of the Jesus story being at all accurate, even if such a man lived? Certainly, since it is more likely that Jesus was a man with a vision, the story of Jesus took on a life of its own. It certainly bares a remarkable resemblance to the story of Horus. I've recently had an interesting thought about the Resurrection. Jesus rose from the dead three days following his crucifixion. That number 'three' has some significance in relation to crucifixions: if the victim survived three days the sentence was considered to have been fulfilled and he was released. I wonder if, along with the telephone game, this somehow mutated into being raised from the dead.
There were many more gospels than those attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, as the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1946 demonstrated. If there were many such codexes available at the time, why only these four? Well, the blame comes to rest with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in the 2nd century CE. Essentially, he took the gospels which were consistent with who he believed Jesus was and considered the others heresy in his Adversus Haereses. Well, that seems somewhat arbitrary, doesn't it? To further distance the church from gnosticism, which many of these codexes espoused, he declared these four gospels divinely inspired in an all too human manner. I have yet to discover on what basis such a statement was made.
So, what do we have? A religion based upon stories of a man that may or may not have existed (but the one in the Bible certainly did not), and which suspiciously strongly resembles earlier mythologies; of the many written works only four which were reasonably consistent were chosen in an ad hoc manner, arbitrarily declaring all others as heresy. It simply stuns me that after all this people can still possibly believe.
This is the power of blind faith (NOT faith!). Faith is trusting someone with a task because you know from previous experience that they always keep their word. There's a history, something to fall back on as a predictor of outcome. Science is like that. I have faith in Science because it works! Blind faith, on the other hand, is like the manual for my Focus SVT telling me my car can actually fly and believing it. Not many of us would take that without a grain of salt and would like to see some evidence. Why not for the Bible? Why is religion exempt from skepticism? I have no idea. Every part of one's life should be looked at critically!
Often, as discussed in this novel, people will look to the good that Xianity has brought, like the code of morality and ethics. But it has done far more harm than good, as history shows. The moral tenet, Thou shalt not kill, only applied to fellow Jews. It was quite alright to kill gentiles. There were even rules on what to do if in your fervor in slaughtering a group of gentiles a fellow believer was also killed. (It was decided that this is okay, the loss of one believer was considered acceptable in eliminating numerous unbelievers.) It's modern meaning post-dates Jesus. Indeed, the holocaust could not have happened without Xian anti-semitism. The Crusades had little to do with freeing the Holy Land and more to do with lining pockets. The biggest problem is that because religious people look to obey a higher power, turning their backs on their fellow humans. The moral and ethical codes presented in the Bible are out of date, as I've demonstrated in an earlier blog. It was meant for an earlier society, where technology meant a new way growing whatever it is they grew out there.
In fact, religion is not the source of morality and ethics; it codified these principles which exist whether religion does or not. Xians would have us all believe that morality was given to us by god. But if you witness an act that you find morally reprehensible, did you have to consult scripture to come up with a moral value judgement first? I doubt it. You made a mental calculation using moral grammatical rules that bypassed your conscious mind. Morality is inherent within each of us, not obtained from some old book. An evolutionary origin to morality explains a great deal about the diversity of morality and ethics which religion does not. If you would like to see where we really get our morals from I strongly recommend Marc Hauser's Moral Minds for further study.
Friday, December 22, 2006
A modern moral dilemma
I was making that hellaceous drive in to work one morning listening to CBC radio (sometimes they have very interesting topics) instead of the iPod. A man with the Huntington's disease gene was being interviewed. Not about his disease, which in all likelihood he will suffer from later in life, but on the use of genetic screening to choose children without that gene. The couple chose to do this using in vitro fertilization rather than natural conception to avoid the potential ethical quagmire that would result if the fetus was shown to have the gene. The result was a set of twins that will never have to look forward to nervous degeneration later in life.
Enter an ethicist (why do they always weigh in to screw things up?). Her position is that since we would not think it ethical to eliminate people with undesirable characteristics, that no matter how positive (as is evident in this case), the outcome the ends do not justify the means. As Michael Shermer would say: Nonsense on stilts. This is nothing more than another case of absolute ethics throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Is genetic screening a form of eugenics? Probably (it has a rather broad definition according to the Wikipedia), but there is a vast difference between this case and the Nazi program that this word brings to mind. In the Nazi case, this was an attempt to create 'perfect' (whatever that means) humans and won't work. Selecting for certain traits can have unpredictable and deleterious results in other areas. This was seen in the famous Russian experiment with silver foxes. What happened when these animals were selectively bred for their tameness had unexpected consequences: floppy ears, coat color changes and curly tails (very much what happened in the domestication of the dog).
I would hardly place screening for Huntington's disease in the same class as Nazi eugenics programs when the end result is the certainty that your children will not become afflicted with a debilitating disease. Few of us can imaging their relief as parents for having undertaking this expensive procedure to ensure their children's health in later life, at least insofar as passing the disorder on to them. This was something I don't think the interviewed ethicist even considered when assessing her position.
While it was immediately apparent to me that the ethicist's position was ridiculous, I had to ask myself, "Why?" The question she asked was whether people suffering from Huntington's or other genetic conditions that may be construed by society as being undesirable, such as dwarfism, would want to be discriminated against or eliminated because of their condition. The answer is obvious. Life is preferable (almost) no matter the circumstances. But was this the correct question to ask? I don't think so.
One of Michael Shermer's main moral tenets is that if you are unsure as to the morality of an action (especially when it impacts on others), ask first. Well, we cannot ask a blastocyst and expect a response (which is one of the reasons that I think calling an unthinking, unfeeling collection of cells a human being is ridiculous), but we can ask people suffering from these disorders whether they would rather live with their condition given the chance to have a life without it. I think that that is the real question, and I think that the ethicist interviewed completely missed the mark.
The current legal position regarding genetic screening in Canada is dangerous, however. There is in fact no position at all. This leaves open the possibility of truly unethical uses of this technology, such as selection of sex (some cultures are notorious for their desire to have only male offspring). Fortunately, as is the case for a representative of an IVF clinic, screening for sex is done only in conjunction with testing for sex-determined disorders. With proper regulation and oversight, genetic screening can be another effective (and in the case of genetic disorders, currently the only) tool in the fight against disease. It was not all that long ago that IVF itself presented moral and ethical issues, but its presence in today's society is all but assured. Why not this?
Does religious dogma have anything to offer in the form of moral guidance in this context? Long answer: No. (Anyone who reads my blogs will have seen this coming...) Moral codes based on a society 2000 years ago simply cannot even relate to ethical and moral dilemmas presented by today's technology, a word itself only 150 years old in its current usage.
The problem with all absolute moral systems is there inability to adapt to new situations. For instance, how does religious dogma handle the disposal of unused blastocysts when abortion is considered immoral? The couple in the example here donated them for scientific research purposes, for which I applaud them. If use of stem cells from aborted fetuses is wrong, then is the use of blastocysts which will never be used (and hence have no potential for becoming human beings) for research also wrong? I put it to you that 2000 year old Abrahamic religious dogma is completely incapable of dealing with these situations and a new, more flexible set of ethical principles is needed.
More on that in a later blog. I have to get work done some time today....
Enter an ethicist (why do they always weigh in to screw things up?). Her position is that since we would not think it ethical to eliminate people with undesirable characteristics, that no matter how positive (as is evident in this case), the outcome the ends do not justify the means. As Michael Shermer would say: Nonsense on stilts. This is nothing more than another case of absolute ethics throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Is genetic screening a form of eugenics? Probably (it has a rather broad definition according to the Wikipedia), but there is a vast difference between this case and the Nazi program that this word brings to mind. In the Nazi case, this was an attempt to create 'perfect' (whatever that means) humans and won't work. Selecting for certain traits can have unpredictable and deleterious results in other areas. This was seen in the famous Russian experiment with silver foxes. What happened when these animals were selectively bred for their tameness had unexpected consequences: floppy ears, coat color changes and curly tails (very much what happened in the domestication of the dog).
I would hardly place screening for Huntington's disease in the same class as Nazi eugenics programs when the end result is the certainty that your children will not become afflicted with a debilitating disease. Few of us can imaging their relief as parents for having undertaking this expensive procedure to ensure their children's health in later life, at least insofar as passing the disorder on to them. This was something I don't think the interviewed ethicist even considered when assessing her position.
While it was immediately apparent to me that the ethicist's position was ridiculous, I had to ask myself, "Why?" The question she asked was whether people suffering from Huntington's or other genetic conditions that may be construed by society as being undesirable, such as dwarfism, would want to be discriminated against or eliminated because of their condition. The answer is obvious. Life is preferable (almost) no matter the circumstances. But was this the correct question to ask? I don't think so.
One of Michael Shermer's main moral tenets is that if you are unsure as to the morality of an action (especially when it impacts on others), ask first. Well, we cannot ask a blastocyst and expect a response (which is one of the reasons that I think calling an unthinking, unfeeling collection of cells a human being is ridiculous), but we can ask people suffering from these disorders whether they would rather live with their condition given the chance to have a life without it. I think that that is the real question, and I think that the ethicist interviewed completely missed the mark.
The current legal position regarding genetic screening in Canada is dangerous, however. There is in fact no position at all. This leaves open the possibility of truly unethical uses of this technology, such as selection of sex (some cultures are notorious for their desire to have only male offspring). Fortunately, as is the case for a representative of an IVF clinic, screening for sex is done only in conjunction with testing for sex-determined disorders. With proper regulation and oversight, genetic screening can be another effective (and in the case of genetic disorders, currently the only) tool in the fight against disease. It was not all that long ago that IVF itself presented moral and ethical issues, but its presence in today's society is all but assured. Why not this?
Does religious dogma have anything to offer in the form of moral guidance in this context? Long answer: No. (Anyone who reads my blogs will have seen this coming...) Moral codes based on a society 2000 years ago simply cannot even relate to ethical and moral dilemmas presented by today's technology, a word itself only 150 years old in its current usage.
The problem with all absolute moral systems is there inability to adapt to new situations. For instance, how does religious dogma handle the disposal of unused blastocysts when abortion is considered immoral? The couple in the example here donated them for scientific research purposes, for which I applaud them. If use of stem cells from aborted fetuses is wrong, then is the use of blastocysts which will never be used (and hence have no potential for becoming human beings) for research also wrong? I put it to you that 2000 year old Abrahamic religious dogma is completely incapable of dealing with these situations and a new, more flexible set of ethical principles is needed.
More on that in a later blog. I have to get work done some time today....
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Deepak Chopra: One of those 'crystal wearing freaks in need of a smack'
I don't know that Chopra is into crystals, but I couldn't resist using that great line from MC Hawking's "What We Need More of is Science." I'd heard of Deepak Chopra, but never gave him much thought till I came across a blog at one of my favorite Science blogs, Pharyngula. I followed the link to see more and was appalled by the lack of understanding, misinformation and just downright inanity I read. Let's get started with the punting, shall we?
"There's a sense of crisis in the air over the notion that reason itself is in jeopardy. The attack on reason is coming primarily from religious extremists, but the whole ethos of fundamentalism is seen as irrational. So the alarm goes out to defend science and push back unreason. This urgent call is supposed to salvage future progress for humanity and defeat the wave of barbarity that travels under the name of terrorism. But how can anyone seriously defend science as a panacea when it gave us the atomic bomb?" Interesting. Just who is it that espouses Science as such a thing? Science is a way of viewing the world to find out how it works. A toolbox, if you will. Nothing more. If you are looking for moral and ethical guidance, Science offers none. Look elsewhere. (May I suggest "secular humanism"?)
"Rationality is creating new methods of mechanized death every year. The future being planned by so-called rationalists includes robot armies and neutron bombs that can kill every enemy combatant--or civilian population--while leaving their buildings standing." I reiterate: Science is amoral. Rationality has never caused anyone to strap on a bomb with the intent to kill and maim. It is ideology, whether religious or political, which does this. And someone should take Deepak's collection of fifties sci-fi movies away from him.
" Reason isn't the savior of the future. That role belongs to wisdom." Huh? Someone wanna tell me how you can separate wisdom and reason? Or how wisdom can be applied without reason? Sounds to me if his personal philosophy is a little underdone and should go back into the oven.
" For at least two thousand years, our evolution has shifted to the following:
--We assimilate new information and evolve mentally.
--We don't evolve physically (except to grow healthier and live longer) but instead use technology to extend our physical limitations and gain more power over Nature.
--We gain a higher vision of ourselves and evolve spiritually." Arrgh! Another Science education-deficient idiot savant! Spiritual growth is not evolution! And yes, we are continuing to evolve physically! The difference now is that we are creating some of the natural selection pressures ourselves. He clearly has NO IDEA of what he's talking about here.
"Arch materialists like Richard Dawkins, despite an expertise in evolutionary biology, miss the whole point of human evolution, which is that it long ago broke out of the prison of physicality. True, modern athletes are stronger, bigger, faster, and more accomplished than those of the past, but this doesn't affect anyone's survival the way becoming a bigger, stronger, faster gazelle would." Again, Chopra shows his embarrassing lack of understanding of what evolution is. This was written by someone who thinks he knows what Evolution is, but has failed to grasp the concept entirely. And no, Richard Dawkins does not miss the point about human evolution. You do, Chopra. In fact, you miss the whole point of what evolution is: there is no point. There is no end purpose, no guiding mentality. Modern athletes are bigger, stronger and faster mainly because they train. True, their genes give them an edge over the likes of (presumably) you and me, but it doesn't happen through an individual's lifetime, as he seems to think. Stupid and ridiculous. Someone give Deepak a copy of 'Evolution for Dummies' for Xmas please.
"Taking all factors together, humans evolve through the metabolism of experience. That is, we absorb everything going on in our environment, and in some rather mysterious ways, the next generation knows more and can do more than we can. I am not being mystical here. When Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, Bertrand Russell famously said that he was one of three people in the world who understood it. Now a bright high school student can grasp Einstein's principles, if not his mathematics." "Metabolism of experience"? Just what the hell is that? Why do spiritualists like to use fancy terminology in their attempts to express ideas, yet fail miserably because the terms are so nebulous as to completely obscure all meaning? Could you spiritualist folk please talk plainly without the mumbo-jumbo? We in Science use jargon, it's true, but each term has a very well-defined meaning, not something that sounds like it was pulled from the posterior. If we didn't, journal articles would be books and even more boring to read than they are now.
As I continue to read this I am getting more and more irate. He's not being mystical? He is suggesting that the Gaia hypothesis is responsible for a high schooler's understanding of Relativity in all but name! I think a simpler explanation might be that after a small number of people study and understand the implications of new and revolutionary ideas like Relativity, the concepts can distilled into simpler, more intuitive forms that others can grasp. This is dissemination of information, NOT evolution.
"The same holds true for today's five-year-olds who can navigate through a computer better and faster than many adults of an older generation. We assimilate difficulties, solve them, and move on to a new future as more evolved humans. The evolution of the wisest holds that this cannot be a random process." Yes, it is not random, but it isn't due to some mystical bullshit either. Children are exposed to technologies at a young age, so of course they will be able to handle technologies at a younger age. These are their formative years. But the same type of problems that you have with computers, Deepak, will happen to them with some other new gadgetry. What time is it at Deepak's house? "12 o'clock! 12 o'clock! 12 o'clock!...."
"When asked if he found the cathedrals of Europe inspiring, Mark Twain answered to the effect that the architects forgot to build inspiring people to go in them. We risk leaving the same legacy to the future. What will save us is self-awareness, the key to evolution of the wisest." Wait a minute... Evolution of the wisest? What the....? Is Chokra thinking that evolution can be hijacked in any manner that he sees fit? Get a grip, Deepak. Evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution doesn't care about you, your beliefs or (and especially) your views on what path it should take. Cold and indifferent, but that's just the way the universe is. And, by the way, most members of H. sapiens are already self-aware. So what the hell does that mean? He promises to talk about that in a future post. I await with bated breath...
"There's a sense of crisis in the air over the notion that reason itself is in jeopardy. The attack on reason is coming primarily from religious extremists, but the whole ethos of fundamentalism is seen as irrational. So the alarm goes out to defend science and push back unreason. This urgent call is supposed to salvage future progress for humanity and defeat the wave of barbarity that travels under the name of terrorism. But how can anyone seriously defend science as a panacea when it gave us the atomic bomb?" Interesting. Just who is it that espouses Science as such a thing? Science is a way of viewing the world to find out how it works. A toolbox, if you will. Nothing more. If you are looking for moral and ethical guidance, Science offers none. Look elsewhere. (May I suggest "secular humanism"?)
"Rationality is creating new methods of mechanized death every year. The future being planned by so-called rationalists includes robot armies and neutron bombs that can kill every enemy combatant--or civilian population--while leaving their buildings standing." I reiterate: Science is amoral. Rationality has never caused anyone to strap on a bomb with the intent to kill and maim. It is ideology, whether religious or political, which does this. And someone should take Deepak's collection of fifties sci-fi movies away from him.
" Reason isn't the savior of the future. That role belongs to wisdom." Huh? Someone wanna tell me how you can separate wisdom and reason? Or how wisdom can be applied without reason? Sounds to me if his personal philosophy is a little underdone and should go back into the oven.
" For at least two thousand years, our evolution has shifted to the following:
--We assimilate new information and evolve mentally.
--We don't evolve physically (except to grow healthier and live longer) but instead use technology to extend our physical limitations and gain more power over Nature.
--We gain a higher vision of ourselves and evolve spiritually." Arrgh! Another Science education-deficient idiot savant! Spiritual growth is not evolution! And yes, we are continuing to evolve physically! The difference now is that we are creating some of the natural selection pressures ourselves. He clearly has NO IDEA of what he's talking about here.
"Arch materialists like Richard Dawkins, despite an expertise in evolutionary biology, miss the whole point of human evolution, which is that it long ago broke out of the prison of physicality. True, modern athletes are stronger, bigger, faster, and more accomplished than those of the past, but this doesn't affect anyone's survival the way becoming a bigger, stronger, faster gazelle would." Again, Chopra shows his embarrassing lack of understanding of what evolution is. This was written by someone who thinks he knows what Evolution is, but has failed to grasp the concept entirely. And no, Richard Dawkins does not miss the point about human evolution. You do, Chopra. In fact, you miss the whole point of what evolution is: there is no point. There is no end purpose, no guiding mentality. Modern athletes are bigger, stronger and faster mainly because they train. True, their genes give them an edge over the likes of (presumably) you and me, but it doesn't happen through an individual's lifetime, as he seems to think. Stupid and ridiculous. Someone give Deepak a copy of 'Evolution for Dummies' for Xmas please.
"Taking all factors together, humans evolve through the metabolism of experience. That is, we absorb everything going on in our environment, and in some rather mysterious ways, the next generation knows more and can do more than we can. I am not being mystical here. When Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, Bertrand Russell famously said that he was one of three people in the world who understood it. Now a bright high school student can grasp Einstein's principles, if not his mathematics." "Metabolism of experience"? Just what the hell is that? Why do spiritualists like to use fancy terminology in their attempts to express ideas, yet fail miserably because the terms are so nebulous as to completely obscure all meaning? Could you spiritualist folk please talk plainly without the mumbo-jumbo? We in Science use jargon, it's true, but each term has a very well-defined meaning, not something that sounds like it was pulled from the posterior. If we didn't, journal articles would be books and even more boring to read than they are now.
As I continue to read this I am getting more and more irate. He's not being mystical? He is suggesting that the Gaia hypothesis is responsible for a high schooler's understanding of Relativity in all but name! I think a simpler explanation might be that after a small number of people study and understand the implications of new and revolutionary ideas like Relativity, the concepts can distilled into simpler, more intuitive forms that others can grasp. This is dissemination of information, NOT evolution.
"The same holds true for today's five-year-olds who can navigate through a computer better and faster than many adults of an older generation. We assimilate difficulties, solve them, and move on to a new future as more evolved humans. The evolution of the wisest holds that this cannot be a random process." Yes, it is not random, but it isn't due to some mystical bullshit either. Children are exposed to technologies at a young age, so of course they will be able to handle technologies at a younger age. These are their formative years. But the same type of problems that you have with computers, Deepak, will happen to them with some other new gadgetry. What time is it at Deepak's house? "12 o'clock! 12 o'clock! 12 o'clock!...."
"When asked if he found the cathedrals of Europe inspiring, Mark Twain answered to the effect that the architects forgot to build inspiring people to go in them. We risk leaving the same legacy to the future. What will save us is self-awareness, the key to evolution of the wisest." Wait a minute... Evolution of the wisest? What the....? Is Chokra thinking that evolution can be hijacked in any manner that he sees fit? Get a grip, Deepak. Evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution doesn't care about you, your beliefs or (and especially) your views on what path it should take. Cold and indifferent, but that's just the way the universe is. And, by the way, most members of H. sapiens are already self-aware. So what the hell does that mean? He promises to talk about that in a future post. I await with bated breath...
Life is a bed of roses if only you have faith.....
Once again, Pharyngula supplies my blog material. One More Soul has created a eloquent picture of the usual misconceptions and lies about the non-religious and the delusional self-image religious people maintain. Isn't the symbolism lovely? Does it not paint a pretty picture of how religion automatically gives you the 50s sitcom lifestyle? So this is what I've been doing wrong all these years? Wow! Religion solves everything!
Hate to burst your biblical bubble, but....
Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin.... Let's look on the left side first, being a proud member of that group. I've always found dandelions to be happy flowers. I see so many of the unsupported stereotypes of living a life in the absence of a god. So contraception causes single-parent families? Weird. I would have thought that it would help PREVENT such things. Lust is bad? I guess we're supposed to be emotionless and sexually impotent in our relationships. Isn't that so Dick Van Dyke Show-like? Poverty/crime/poor health/poor education increases without religion to keep you on the straight and narrow? Interesting idea, but WRONG! These things actually increase with increasing religiosity of a society, as Michael Shermer has pointed out in the latest issue of Scientific American. Go to any prison and you will find it full of religious people (say hello to Dr. Dino while you're there...), but you'll be hard-pressed to find any atheists. Artificial reproduction technologies are bad? And really, how are the 'anti-life'? So couples incapable of having children aren't allowed to experience the joys of childbirth and parenthood? That's a little harsh, don't you think? The morality of this proscription is dubious. Infanticide/Homicide/Suicide... No, no Xian has EVER done those... (to avoid Poe's Law invocations, this is sarcasm). I am also in favor of assisted suicide under strict guidelines (which is a bit of a Pandora's box to open, but religious dogma won't even allow for debate on the subject). And let's dispel that myth of religion resulting in longer marriages, shall we? Atheists, not Xians, have the lowest divorce rate of any group. By 'Lethal Experimentation', I presume the subject is stem cell research. If I've said it once I've said it a million times: blastocysts are not people!
Now the thorny right side. It grieves me that they used a plant that I actually have a passion for. Oh well. I personally do not believe that altruism even exists. At some level the giver receives something back. Some may disagree here, and that's ok. There's lots of other stuff to look at. Most of the items listed have no need of religion at all, like caring for others and strengthening social structures. Indeed, religion hinders the latter since it promotes a within-group mentality, treating those outside the group as exactly that- outsiders. And just what the hell is 'Fertility Appreciation'? I mean that. I have no idea what that means. By 'Natural Family Planning', do they mean, like, Catholic Roulette? How is that ethically different from using contraceptives anyhow? The intended end result is the same. One just happens to be better than the other. This just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Religion leads to 'Security for Women and Families'? Sure, if women like subservience to the pater familias. This is the 21st century, so please join the rest of us there.
I'm sorry, but the Bible does not have much relevance for today's complex ethical issues. The Bible was written in a time where the word 'technology' simply didn't exist. Indeed, the Bible contains many things (slavery, genocide, rape, etc.) which were acceptable in its time that we revile today. (If you want examples, just go to The Skeptics Annotated Bible.) New moral and ethical values must replace the outdated (and at times frankly vile) model presented by religion. For more reading material I suggest Marc Hauser's Moral Minds or Michael Shermer's The Science of Good & Evil.
Besides, I like dandelion wine.
Hate to burst your biblical bubble, but....
Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin.... Let's look on the left side first, being a proud member of that group. I've always found dandelions to be happy flowers. I see so many of the unsupported stereotypes of living a life in the absence of a god. So contraception causes single-parent families? Weird. I would have thought that it would help PREVENT such things. Lust is bad? I guess we're supposed to be emotionless and sexually impotent in our relationships. Isn't that so Dick Van Dyke Show-like? Poverty/crime/poor health/poor education increases without religion to keep you on the straight and narrow? Interesting idea, but WRONG! These things actually increase with increasing religiosity of a society, as Michael Shermer has pointed out in the latest issue of Scientific American. Go to any prison and you will find it full of religious people (say hello to Dr. Dino while you're there...), but you'll be hard-pressed to find any atheists. Artificial reproduction technologies are bad? And really, how are the 'anti-life'? So couples incapable of having children aren't allowed to experience the joys of childbirth and parenthood? That's a little harsh, don't you think? The morality of this proscription is dubious. Infanticide/Homicide/Suicide... No, no Xian has EVER done those... (to avoid Poe's Law invocations, this is sarcasm). I am also in favor of assisted suicide under strict guidelines (which is a bit of a Pandora's box to open, but religious dogma won't even allow for debate on the subject). And let's dispel that myth of religion resulting in longer marriages, shall we? Atheists, not Xians, have the lowest divorce rate of any group. By 'Lethal Experimentation', I presume the subject is stem cell research. If I've said it once I've said it a million times: blastocysts are not people!
Now the thorny right side. It grieves me that they used a plant that I actually have a passion for. Oh well. I personally do not believe that altruism even exists. At some level the giver receives something back. Some may disagree here, and that's ok. There's lots of other stuff to look at. Most of the items listed have no need of religion at all, like caring for others and strengthening social structures. Indeed, religion hinders the latter since it promotes a within-group mentality, treating those outside the group as exactly that- outsiders. And just what the hell is 'Fertility Appreciation'? I mean that. I have no idea what that means. By 'Natural Family Planning', do they mean, like, Catholic Roulette? How is that ethically different from using contraceptives anyhow? The intended end result is the same. One just happens to be better than the other. This just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Religion leads to 'Security for Women and Families'? Sure, if women like subservience to the pater familias. This is the 21st century, so please join the rest of us there.
I'm sorry, but the Bible does not have much relevance for today's complex ethical issues. The Bible was written in a time where the word 'technology' simply didn't exist. Indeed, the Bible contains many things (slavery, genocide, rape, etc.) which were acceptable in its time that we revile today. (If you want examples, just go to The Skeptics Annotated Bible.) New moral and ethical values must replace the outdated (and at times frankly vile) model presented by religion. For more reading material I suggest Marc Hauser's Moral Minds or Michael Shermer's The Science of Good & Evil.
Besides, I like dandelion wine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)