Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Newsweek has a longish, uneven piece on atheism. It primarily focuses on Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins.
Some interesting tidbits. On Sam Harris' book The End of Faith:
"The End of Faith" struggled to find a publisher, and even after Norton agreed to bring it out in 2004, Harris says there were editors who refused to come to meetings with him.
Because, you know, there is a war on christians in America (please turn irony meters on before reading that comment)...
I did like this part though:
They ask: where do people get their idea of God? From the Bible or the Qur'an. "Tell a devout Christian ... that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible," Harris writes, "and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."
And of course there is this:
But Dawkins, brilliant as he is, overlooks something any storefront Baptist preacher might have told him. "If there is no God, why be good?" he asks rhetorically, and responds: "Do you really mean the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward? That's not morality, that's just sucking up." That's clever. But millions of Christians and Muslims believe that it was precisely God who turned them away from a life of immorality. Dawkins, of course, thinks they are deluding themselves. He is correct that the social utility of religion doesn't prove anything about the existence of God. But for all his erudition, he seems not to have spent much time among ordinary Christians, who could have told him what God has meant to them.
Is it me or is the bolded part dodging the question? If I believe little green men or talking wombats steered me away from a life of immorality would that mean little green men or talking wombats exist? Really, all the author is doing is restating the social utility arguement and ignores the fact that there are other systems of morality grounded in reality, rather than fictitious entities, that work just as well. Socially constructed fictions are not what I would want to base morality on...and the fact that "God" means something to "ordinary christians" doesn't mean he exists. People can derive meaning from symbols even if the object represented by the symbol doesn't exist (say, dragons or unicorns or Klingons).
The piece ends with a warning - apparently to atheists:
If Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are right, the five-century-long competition between science and religion is sharpening. People are choosing sides. And when that happens, people get hurt.
Which I interpret as a polite way of telling atheists to shut up and quit rocking the boat...
Added Later: In case you haven't seen it, PZ has a more indepth critique.
Comments
Is it just me or does the bolded part basically boil down to "Yes, that is what I mean"?
Posted by: Corkscrew | September 3, 2006 2:01 PM
The competition between *reason* and religion is much older than five centuries, and science is a recent entrant to the lists.
You're right that it reads like a thinly veiled threat, though. "Nice system of rational inquiry you got here. It would be a shame if anything was to *happen* to it, eh, Guido?"
Posted by: Chris | September 3, 2006 2:23 PM
I interpreted the bolded part as the author trying to have it both ways. He is saying that the "Social Utility" argument proves nothing about the existence of God, but bunches of ordinary christians still find meaning in God so he must exist...
Elsewhere he says:
and if you ask me comforting believers is what the piece was about...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | September 3, 2006 2:26 PM
The author denies the argument from consequences with one hand, and substitutes an argument from popularity with the other. "Dawkins thinks they are deluding themselves - what a silly, silly man. That many people *must* be right - there's so many of them!"
I'd like to say that he must have flunked Logic 101, but sadly it's far more likely he never even took such a course.
When and why were logic and rhetoric ever dropped from the curriculum? They're at least as important in our day as they were in the Romans'.
Posted by: Chris | September 3, 2006 3:00 PM
Between their weekly "BeliefNet" column and their annual religious coverage around Easter and/or Christmas, Newsweek knows that religion v. science, believers v. atheists makes good headlines. I'm willing to give Newsweek some credit for discussing the books of Harris, Dennett and Dawkins; as the saying goes there's no such thing as bad press. Afterall, if these books can sell several hundreds of thousands of copies then mainstream publishers will be more willing to take on authors with similar perspectives.
As for the last line in the article, people are always going to find something to fight about. For the last two thousand years plus its mostly been that "my god can beat up your god." At least I've got a dog in the science v. religion fight. I'm doing that sarcastic winking thing now...maybe.
Posted by: ChemJerk | September 3, 2006 3:09 PM
I took two semesters of logic in college. I would have loved to have taken more but that was all I could find, so I 100% agree with you on the importance of logic in modern society...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | September 3, 2006 3:18 PM
The sketch of Dawkins and Harris makes them look creepy, the eyes are drawn in darker lines than the rest of the face. It makes them look like representatives of the undead.
Is there a fund somewhere set up for the purpose of educating storefront Baptist preachers in philosophy? If I could help a few more of them study Plato's Euthyphro dialogue, I could feel that I helped make the world a better place. They placed Harris' response about morality in a separate paragraph, in hopes that no one would realize the obvious fact that the morality offered by the Bible is very bad:
Posted by: somnilista, FCD | September 3, 2006 3:52 PM
I wonder how newsweek would have covered spong, retired episcopalian bishop, who believes in a radical reformation, that would "destroy those idols of creed, scripture and church" Would they be aghast, or would they see him as a man strong in faith? Would they call him a atheist, for he has abandoned so much the traditional teachings, or would they portray him as innovator?
Posted by: Jianying | September 3, 2006 6:10 PM
One thing I find annoying about "atheists vs. believers" articles like these -- whatever the apparent slant -- is that they inherently tend to reinforce the mistaken idea that atheism is itself a movement or a faith system. Atheists aren't interested in toppling religion per se; As Harris has said elsewhere, atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in response to bad ideas. Were American Christians, for example, not driven by nonexistent yet powerful forces to poison science, education, and legislative goings-on with their bullshit beliefs and befriggered moralizing, people like Harris would simply view religion as one more goofy, logicaly unsupported and emotion-driven aspect of human culture founded on wishful thinking (e.g., palm-reading, penis-growth pills) and would have no quarrel with it. But fundamentalist religions by definition are not self-containing, and people of reason have to actively fight back just to stay in place.
Posted by: kemibe | September 3, 2006 8:06 PM
Hah. The article mentions Collins' book, too. It's quite stupid to state that Dawkins, who probably heard every rebuttal from baptist preachers and others, "overlooked" anything; you could say "ignored" or "denied." He probably spent enought time among ordinary christians. The author is simply trying to find excuses as to how Dawkins could be wrong without actually arguing that he is.
Choosing sides won't get us hurt as long as we're civilized. But, perhaps we're not.
Posted by: Koray | September 3, 2006 8:42 PM
I think it is fair to say that atheist know more about christians and christianity than christians know about atheists. It has been my experience that christians seem to think that atheists believe in the exact opposite of whatever christians believe in...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | September 3, 2006 9:55 PM
In fact, a better journalist would have known about Dawkins' BBC program where he interviewed several preachers. The author here just cannot help but show his colors where he assumes that Dawkins had not encountered his line of logic.
The problem with misperception of atheism is a tricky one. We humans have limited amount of curiosity, so we don't go out and read random philosophy books, especially about those ideas that we know we oppose. If you're a believer, reading about atheism is as charming as watching kids getting tortured.
Posted by: Koray | September 3, 2006 11:21 PM
Granted, there are some stupid atheists out there. I should have been more clear. Most of the atheists I know started out as christians, or like me, were dragged to church by parents - until old enough to decide not to go - so are quite familiar with the tenets of christianity. On the other hand most of the christians I know couldn't say much, if anything, about what atheism is all about...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | September 3, 2006 11:34 PM
Even if you weren't dragged to church, it's impossible to grow up in a society like the U.S. without being immersed in religion. Whether someone holds your head under or not, you can't help noticing it's there. When your (public!) school teaches a unit on "The Bible As Literature" (I am not making this up) you can't avoid at least some familiarity with Christianity.
Posted by: Chris | September 4, 2006 11:02 AM
Posted by: quork | September 4, 2006 11:14 AM