A parade of fools
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: August 14, 2006 11:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Oy, the company atheists keep…
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search this blog
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)Imagine the Creator as a low comedian, and at once the world becomes explicable.
[H.L. Mencken]
Recent Posts
- Priorities
- Evolution happens
- Snake segmentation
- We don't?
- World Youth Day had some effect
- Looking for a journalist willing to do a story
- Who the heck is Greg Moore and why does he keep threatening me?
- Epigenetics
- Not again...
- Godless brunch on Sunday
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)Generating right-left asymmetries
The Cambrian as an evolutionary exemplar
Digit numbering and limb development
Ancient rules for Bilaterian development
Recent Comments
- Bob Russell on It's got almost everything!
- NC Paul on Priorities
- PZ is a fag on Priorities
- CR Stamey on Priorities
- Mark on Priorities
- Cheezits on Priorities
- SDG on Priorities
- craig on Priorities
- Dutch Delight on Evolution happens
- Nick Gotts on Priorities
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)Other Information
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Breeders, thank God for science! | Main | Morphological embryology of a sea spider »
TrackBacks
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Dawkins was voted #1 intellectual in Britain? By who? Why don't we have those kinds of elections here? I can see it now, in the next issue or People.
Posted by: Theron | August 14, 2006 11:17 AM
Mostly a parade of faces rather than substantial arguments.
There are a few questionable factoids in there. Edward O. Wilson, for example, has recently called himself a provisional deist.
Dennett is listed as an evolutionary biologist. Is that correct, or would he be more accurately considered a philosopher of science?
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 11:27 AM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 11:28 AM
Ouch.
Posted by: Theron | August 14, 2006 11:29 AM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 11:30 AM
I like it. There were some relavent stats, like the prison one. I wonder if that was influnced by jail clerks who will not accept atheist as a choice.
Posted by: KevinC | August 14, 2006 11:39 AM
KevinC--Or possibly by the bennies available for those who claim a mainstream religion (lenience for the "saved" by Christian parole board members, a chance to spend Sunday mornings in a nice air-conditioned chapel, special kosher/halal meals, etc).
Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 14, 2006 11:51 AM
I dunno. Who's it made for? Who's it supposed to convince?
All the doers of good, apart from one or two folks*, were actors. I understand Angelina Jolie does a massive amount of charity work and Brando's done some work in Native American rights, but still. It's not gonna win over the folks who think the only thing one has to do to be a moral person is, in fact, go to church every time the doors open. Same thing with the vast majority of "wise men" as scientists or critics of religion. First off, you don't get to dis the game and remain part of the game. For the vast majority of believers, it seems any sort of deviation from rock-solid belief automatically eliminates any and all debaters, which is why I don't discus religion with my family. The phrase that comes up is "educated fool", and you just can't go nowhere with that, frankly.
Secondly, you'd be amazed at the number of people who are completely under whelmed with success at the higher education game. Seriously, we're like a nation of thirteen-year-old boys who sneer at science because we "hate nerds and geeks". This includes believers, who enjoy the added bonus of having a giant, unassailable bullshit story to back them up. Furthermore, I've met, observed and read of a number of folks, many of whom are believers, who are outright hostile to the idea of learning more than you absolutely have to and can't avoid having to learn if there's no money involved. For a distressing number of people, that's a good indication of how badly you need to be shunned, that goldurn book larnin'.
So, yeah...it's nice, but it sorta comes off as if it was made by a kid in high school who's telling everyone who won't tell his parents that he's an atheist. But, hey, perhaps I'm being unnecessarily negative. Baby steps, and all.
* I had no idea Charles Shultz was an atheist or, as he apparently described himself, a "secular humanist".** Sort of puts a lot of them old "Peanuts" strips in a new light, as I always thought those simple little morality tales were the best of all worlds when it came to modern American reinterpretations of Christ's messages (which is generally expressed as "kill the fags" in today's frame of mind). That's kind of cool.
** I've found that this particular description has been played with a bit too loosely as of late, but it seems to come across as the non-believer's version of "yes, I believe in God but I don't want to talk about it, like, ever" subset of Christianity that makes up most of the American population.
Posted by: Matt T. | August 14, 2006 12:23 PM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 12:47 PM
Me neither. Is that really true? While watching old Peanuts specials on DVD with my toddler, I was struck by the character of Linus, particularly in a religious context. Linus is treated sympathetically--usually portrayed as wise beyond his age. He's also the most overtly religious. Note, for instance, his speech in the Christmas special. On the other hand, he has serious foibles: the blanket dependency, belief in the "Great Pumpkin." I think Schulz is to be commended for developing such complex, ambivalent characters in the context of a comic strip, but Linus is really something of an enigma.
In the current polarized religious climate, I wonder if Peanuts would make anybody happy who was really paying attention.
Posted by: PaulC | August 14, 2006 12:48 PM
Fellers,
I've done a bit of research in the past hour, and Schultz did indeed describe himself as a "secular humanist", though raised Lutheran and a former Methodist Sunday school teacher. The impression I get is he had issues not neccessarily with spirituality, but with dogma and organized religion. His use of religious source material, particularly from Linus as noted, was always more along the line of basic common decency, the upshot being Bible verse just sounds prettier to the common man. His holiday themse were generally fairly innocuous pleas for brotherhood and love, rather than any hard religious dogma, and the Christmas special attacked the commercialization of the holiday at the expense of what the whole Jesus thing is supposed to mean.
As for Linus' foibles with the blanket and the Great Pumpkin, hell...he's still a kid, and beyond that, he's still human. I think that was the point of the main cast. We're all complex and contradictory, and life is a series of ups and downs delivered without much rhyme or reason. We're all human. Except Snoopy and Woodstock, of course.
And quork...yes, yes indeed.
Posted by: Matt T. | August 14, 2006 12:57 PM
Seth Green? Wasn't he the guy who played Dr. Evil's bastard son in one of the Austin Powers movies?
Posted by: Max Udargo | August 14, 2006 1:03 PM
I don't see any inconsistency in Linus being religious and believing in 'The Great Pumpkin.'
Posted by: Filby | August 14, 2006 1:40 PM
It's nice to see a face, especially a recognizable face, put on atheism.
Posted by: Avery | August 14, 2006 1:44 PM
Lance is an atheist? really?
Posted by: Lago | August 14, 2006 2:09 PM
I would respond with Matthew 5:22, which states that anyone who calls someone a fool will be in danger of hell fire.
And if I included that in that video, I'd include a screenshot from ST:TOS "The Menagerie" where the Talosians torment Captain Pike with an illusion of hell fire, describing it as "from a fable you once heard in childhood".
Posted by: Loren Petrich | August 14, 2006 2:12 PM
I believe the purpose of showing so many actors was to show people who aren't athiests that many of the people they look up to (because they are in popular media) are athiests. It was putting a recognizable face to the athiests. I'm sure many of the people who think athiests are terrible people wouldn't recognize many of the scientific and intellectual faces, but the actors would stand right out.
Posted by: Robert | August 14, 2006 2:32 PM
I typically avoid video content and I have not viewed this. Is this supposed to be for or against atheists? I honestly cannot tell from the comments. Is the point that atheism is made acceptable by all these people you admire, or that it is part of some insidious "secular humanist" plot and you should stop admiring them?
Posted by: PaulC | August 14, 2006 2:37 PM
THe video is a parade of faces which follow comments from the bible to show that christians don't think athiests are good people. The Parade of faces then shows people most of us would consider good.
The point I think was to put a recognizable face on athiests, so that they aren't the evil faceless threat thats destroying America.
Posted by: Robert | August 14, 2006 2:46 PM
I've seen this before, and while I admire the intent, I can't imagine any Xian fundie being swayed by the fact that folks like Hemingway, Twain, Edison, Asimov, Woody Allen, Brando, etc. are atheists. How many fundie homes do you think have bookshelves groaning under the weight of 20th century American lit, or classic SF, or can quote from "Annie Hall" or "A Streetcar Named Desire"? (altho' heh, I bet they all have lightbulbs). The only ones that might spark a glimmer of thought in their heads would be an athlete like Armstrong, not a member of the H'wood liberal elite like Foster or Julianne Moore (mmmm...). This video is just wrong-headed if it wants to enlighten the masses, much less fundies, about atheism.
Posted by: Will E. | August 14, 2006 2:52 PM
Dennet is not an evolutionary biologist. I also would have liked the "none do any good" section better if it hadn't started out with a litany of movie stars. I mean, I agree, they are good and stuff, but I think Gates and Buffet should probably come first, along with other famous people known especially for being do-gooders, rather than JUST being famous (and doing good also).
Posted by: plunge | August 14, 2006 3:02 PM
quork: More accurate, but not quite perfect. I would put "mind and" before science, since much of Dennett's work is in the philosophy of mind.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | August 14, 2006 3:07 PM
Do fundamentalists care about "philosophy of the mind"?
Posted by: Will E. | August 14, 2006 3:08 PM
This video might work on people on the fence between a sort-of religious belief and atheism, or at least agnosticism--those are the people we need to work on. I recently had a drunken late night conversation with a very bright guy who wasn't religious per se, but couldn't see how atheism meant anything other than "Why not kill me, or kill yourself, right now?" Even non-religious people are afraid of atheists.
Posted by: Will E. | August 14, 2006 3:12 PM
What strikes me is how much Sagan and Dawkins look alike.
Posted by: frank schmidt | August 14, 2006 3:19 PM
Maybe I'm completely off base, but I thought that Francis Crick was not only not a atheist but a creationist.
Posted by: argystokes | August 14, 2006 3:24 PM
But Steven Pinker IS a fool...
Posted by: Clare | August 14, 2006 3:26 PM
Personally, I could've done with more celebrities and historical/political figures and fewer scientists. It seems to me that right now there's a scientist=atheist framing that's being used and abused by both sides in the culture wars.
I don't necessarily think it's all to the benefit of freethought if atheism is painted as a "science thing." I mean, I enjoy reading and learning about science (else why am I here?), but I'm not a scientist, and science has little to do with my atheism.
Also, I thought that Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln were conspicuously absent, and certainly belong in any list of prominent American atheists.
(Speaking of Ben, have you ever heard some god-botherer solemnly intone, "God helps those who help themselves" as though it were some spiritual truth? Good ol' Ben Franklin -- subversive from beyond the grave.)
Posted by: HP | August 14, 2006 3:34 PM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 3:44 PM
Here's a good list of celebrity atheists.
Posted by: Will E. | August 14, 2006 3:45 PM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 3:48 PM
How I Got Inclined Towards Atheism
by Francis Crick
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 3:53 PM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 3:56 PM
Wow, that Crick essay is from the Positive Atheism site--personally, that site was how I got inclined to atheism. Wish it was updated more.
Posted by: Will E. | August 14, 2006 3:57 PM
Like 3% less chance of getting a divorce!!! Oh boy we're GOOD...
C'mon that was pretty silly, technically it was a draw, and moreover I don't care about non-divorcing as any measure of goodness...
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | August 14, 2006 4:00 PM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 4:03 PM
Crick also seemed to be very strongly in favor of evolution.
Posted by: dorkafork | August 14, 2006 4:07 PM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 4:11 PM
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 4:14 PM
Lance Armstrong is okay, but I doubt that he'd get the attention of religious people from the Bible-belt(s) of America.
Are there any Atheist NASCAR drivers?
Posted by: Calladus | August 14, 2006 4:32 PM
I think I knew about all of these people except (like so many others have said) Charles Shultz. And Angelina Jolie - I don't pay much attention to Hollywood but I thought she was a Buddhist (which I consider one of the least destructive religions, but a religion nonetheless. No?)
Posted by: Robin | August 14, 2006 4:35 PM
Re. Franklin: Perhaps we read different sources. Franklin described himself as both a "Deist" and a "freethinker." (See para. 112.) The word atheist was not available to Franklin, and freethinker is generally considered a synonym.
As with agnostic, atheist, and humanist, I think these are distinctions without a difference.
Personally, I'm comfortable with including Deists and Epicureans among the ranks. Is there any functional distinction between a non-existent God and an irrelevant God? I'm a lumper; I'm a big-tent atheist.
Re. prisons: In my limited experience with hardcore criminal types, they tend to believe more strongly in damnation than salvation. There seems to be an attitude of "I'm going to hell anyway, so I might as well go out with a bang."
I mean, if you grow up in an environment where, say, masturbation carries the same threat of eternal torment as serial homicide, what's the motivation for exercising some restraint?
Posted by: HP | August 14, 2006 4:45 PM
"I mean, if you grow up in an environment where, say, masturbation carries the same threat of eternal torment as serial homicide, what's the motivation for exercising some restraint?"
Throw in the promise of eternal forgiveness for all those sins, and you've got yourself a nice little weekend.
Posted by: Will E. | August 14, 2006 4:49 PM
---
I think freethinker is a more general term than atheist. In my experience, freethinker is the big-tent word you are searching for, that would include deists, etc. Since definitions vary a lot, I'm certainly not going to argue about it.
Posted by: quork | August 14, 2006 5:06 PM
Wow--Lincoln converted to Christianity after his death? Impressive. ;)
I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where Bart is approached by an evangelist who tries to convince him to become a preacher. Bart says he was shooting for the "deathbed confession," and the evangelist tells him that by being a preacher, he's covered in case of accidental death. Bart replies "Hmm, full coverage, eh?"
Posted by: redstripe | August 14, 2006 5:08 PM
Although we can nitpic the details, it's an interesting video that may make someone think twice before demonizing atheists/agnostics.
Posted by: Phobos | August 14, 2006 5:17 PM
I typically avoid video content and I have not viewed this. Is this supposed to be for or against atheists?
For.
This video might work on people on the fence between a sort-of religious belief and atheism, or at least agnosticism--those are the people we need to work on.
It will also be good for moderate Xians, as an innoculation against the "atheist=evil" meme.
Posted by: Graculus | August 14, 2006 5:23 PM
There's always an 'out' for the truly religious that couldn't make Sunday morning worship. They could find a Sunday evening worship, or come to the Wednesday night worship or Thursday night Bible study & fellowship.
I just think it would be neat to see a winning NASCAR car with a FSM or IPU logo. When the winning driver accepts his award, I'd like to hear him dedicate it to Darwin.
Somehow I doubt he'd ever get sponsored again.
Posted by: Calladus | August 14, 2006 5:44 PM
I had to change the channel when they had a minister praying before the race thanking god for the great weather. Uhg.
Do they blame god when the race gets rained out?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 14, 2006 5:59 PM
"How many fundie homes do you think have bookshelves groaning under the weight of 20th century American lit, or classic SF, or can quote from "Annie Hall" or "A Streetcar Named Desire"? (altho' heh, I bet they all have lightbulbs)."
Umm, believing that Edison invented the lightbulb is a matter of faith, not fact. And I don't even have incandescent lightbulbs in my house. Too energy intensive.
Posted by: Pastor Maker | August 14, 2006 6:40 PM
"The fool says in his heart, there is no God. The wise man says it aloud."
-- Thomas M. Disch, Camp Concentration
Posted by: Stephen Frug | August 14, 2006 6:51 PM
To me, the most interesting thing is the university poll that found that atheists were the least trusted group in America. This was conducted by the University of Minnesota! Minnesota is the state that elected Jessie Ventura as governor (1999 - 2003): Ventura is an avowed and outspoken atheist who on more than one occasion commented that religious people are fools. He also refused to retract or mullify these comments when oferred the opportunity. Quote from Wikipedia: "Ventura went on to gain the highest approval rating of any governor in U.S. history, with some polls ranking his public approval in the mid-70th percentile, despite controversial public comments." Perhaps Minnesotans were not included in the UofM survey.
Posted by: justme | August 14, 2006 7:36 PM
Charles Schultz had at some point a rather serious falling-out with Christianity as a concept. The Christian-seeming messages in his early work are actually exactly what they appear to be.
Personally, I think this (Schultz's split with Christianity) happens around the same time that Peanuts looses teh funny.
Posted by: Daniel Martin | August 14, 2006 7:58 PM
I've found that ["secular humanist"] has been played with a bit too loosely as of late, but it seems to come across as the non-believer's version of "yes, I believe in God but I don't want to talk about it, like, ever" subset of Christianity that makes up most of the American population.
That's pretty clueless. Humanism goes beyond the mere negative belief of atheism in taking a positive position toward humanity and human culture. I'm a member of the local humanist group and subscribe to the humanist magazine Free Inquiry, and we're plenty vocal. Here's the Humanist Manifesto: http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm
Also, I find much of the criticism of the video overblown and pointless. It's not like it's an Atheists United superbowl ad intended to reshape America's view of atheists, it's just a rather well done piece on Myspace that illustrates some of the company we atheists keep, as PZ said.
Posted by: truth machine | August 14, 2006 8:12 PM
believing that Edison invented the lightbulb is a matter of faith, not fact
It's not a matter of faith, at most it's a matter of being misinformed; there's a huge difference.
Posted by: truth machine | August 14, 2006 8:15 PM
It is nice to see something that puts a human face on athiesm. None of those people have claws or fangs or eat babies or *anything*.
Curious to see if anyone saw the recent episode of 30 Days featuring the athiest? It was kind of nice to see the woman they got was a mild-mannered housewife, who didn't eat babies either.
Although someone more assertive would have probably made for better tv.
Posted by: plucky punk | August 14, 2006 8:35 PM
The "brilliant men & women of science" is basically men of science plus Marie Curie.
Also, citing Carl Sagan's inclusion on the Discovery Channel's list of the 100 Greatest Americans is pretty pointless, given that Ronald Reagan was voted #1, and George W. Bush (!!) was the Greatest Living American. His coattails were enough to get his mother and wife on the list, too.
Posted by: Grumpy | August 14, 2006 9:39 PM
Truth Machine,
I've provided evidence to Americans who insisted Edison invented the lightbulb, but it did no good. That belief seems to be hardwired in most americans' brains.
Same thing goes for those deluded people who think Franklin discovered electricity...
Posted by: pastor maker | August 14, 2006 9:53 PM
Pinker a fool? What makes you say that?! I've read several of his books (The Language Instinct, The Blank Slate, and How the Mind works) and find them insightful and fascinating.
Posted by: djlactin | August 14, 2006 10:49 PM
>i>That belief seems to be hardwired in most americans' brains.
That belief, as implausible as it is, seems to be equally hardwired in your brain.
Posted by: truth machine | August 14, 2006 11:31 PM
Seth Green? Wasn't he the guy who played Dr. Evil's bastard son in one of the Austin Powers movies?
Yup, and I played Oz in the "Buffy" series. I got my first credit in 1984 at age 10, and I've done a lot of TV and film work since then. Looking up to Charlize Theron in The Italian Job was a career highlight (of a sort). I'm also the creator of Robot Chicken.
Posted by: Seth Green | August 15, 2006 3:02 AM
Truth Machine,
Does some "think tank" pay you teh big bucks to be deliberately obtuse?
I should ask those guys from www.thechaser.com.au to do one of their infamous "cnnn news" vox pop walkabouts around a US city and ask Americans who discovered electricity.
Then I can shove the subsequent youtube clip up your virtual ass.
Posted by: Pastor Maker | August 15, 2006 3:05 AM
Posted by: quork | August 15, 2006 9:53 AM
Um, the 'discoverer' of electricity is almost certainly some unknown Greek. No one knows who it was.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 15, 2006 10:08 AM
I was wrong in implying Edison invented the light bulb, but my point was, of course, that creationists and other anti-science types pick what scientific results they like--such as light bulbs, or antiobiotics, or computers--and dismiss the ones the results they don't--evolution, global warming, etc.
Posted by: Will E. | August 15, 2006 10:08 AM
I would think this kind of thing is like most television; made to reaffirm existing beliefs rather than change any. Religious folk will look at a bunch of godless actors and not have any surprise whereas atheists will look at popular actors and feel good about being in their company.
Posted by: Cash | August 15, 2006 11:37 AM
Will E: I imagine so, especially as it would presumably be regarded as a way to "wedge in" against "godless, materialist neuroscience" or similar bollocks.
Daniel Martin: What, around 1960? My father tells me that Peanuts was stale when he was a kid in the 1950s ...
Grumpy: Oy. How in hell did Reagan get voted "Greatest American"? Was this shortly after his death?
Posted by: Keith Douglas | August 15, 2006 11:46 AM
Was that really a post from Seth Green? It's trivial to fake, but also plausible that he could read Pharyngula. One time I was walking around Greenwich Village and a friend I was with claimed she spotted him. That would have been some time in late 2001. I saw him in a teen comedy that I won't name out of embarrassment for having gone to see it, but his performance was pretty good. Actually, it wasn't bad for its genre, but didn't do spectacularly well as far as I know.
Posted by: PaulC | August 15, 2006 11:58 AM
Be still my heart...it would be cool if it were (somehow, I seem to have liked everything I've seen him in), but as you say, it's easy to fake. I could easily type "Charles Darwin" into the name field, too.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 15, 2006 12:47 PM
"I saw him in a teen comedy that I won't name out of embarrassment for having gone to see it, but his performance was pretty good"
Can't Hardly Wait. I liked it too. No shame.
Posted by: Will E. | August 15, 2006 1:21 PM
And oh yeah, of course--he played young Woody Allen in Radio Days.
Posted by: Will E. | August 15, 2006 1:23 PM
http://imdb.com/name/nm0001293/
Man this guy has been working FOREVER.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 15, 2006 1:33 PM
It wasn't really Seth. I faked it. Sorry for the confusion, it was not my intention to try to fool anyone or to seriously impersonate Mr. Green. It was a gag, on the level that, as PZ points out, one might easily "impersonate" Ben Franklin or Charles Darwin. (I figured everyone would see that, but I overlooked the very obvious fact that Seth is alive and well and could easily have stumbled over this site. My bad!)
And yes - it would be cool if Seth read this. Yeah, he's "just" an actor, but we're all "just" something. In matters of faith, all opinions are created equal. Atheist or not, he seems bright and interesting, good company for coffee or a couple of beers.
FWIW, the (unconfirmed) atheistic quote on his IMDB page:
"God is, to me, pretty much an idea. God is, to me, pretty much a myth created over time to deny the idea that we're all responsible for our own actions."
I can't help but wonder how he feels about being featured in this "fools" video clip.
Posted by: Definitely Not Seth Green | August 15, 2006 2:09 PM
I lied too. I have never been in the Village in my entire life, and there is no way I would stoop to watching a teen comedy, even in the highly unlikely event that it got a favorable review in the Palo Alto Weekly.
Posted by: PaulC | August 15, 2006 3:37 PM
Pinker a fool? What makes you say that?! I've read several of his books (The Language Instinct, The Blank Slate, and How the Mind works) and find them insightful and fascinating.
Pinker ignores evidence that doesn't fit his pet world view (re language), and then there was the Summers brouhaha.
In the foolishness competition he is not particularly bad, but there's definitely a leaning towards it.
Posted by: Graculus | August 15, 2006 5:57 PM
It's ok, PaulC. We understand. [wink]
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2006 9:46 PM
Pinker IS a bit of fool. Mostly because of his business-in-front-party-in-the-back mulletude, but that serves him well in the Harvard stable of academic show ponies. As far as I'm concerned, Terence Deacon best articulated the demolishing arguments agains the whole language instict / LAD or whatever you want to call it in "The Symbolic Species." That book is a great, non-simplistic, non-intelligence insulting read. The whole theory has had its head cut off, it just hasn't stopped running around the barnyard yet.
I feel like most evolutionary psychologists are probably pretty reasonable people. Brain development evolved in response to the environment and other selective pressures, as did our behavioral traits. However, these traits didn't evolve "for" anything (the most commonly committed science journalism misrepresentation), especially not the particular idiosycratic cultural manifestations they may have here and now.
Many evo-psych people, however, and Pinker often seems to land here, can't seem to resist publicly proclaiming pat adaptationist reasons why such-and-such normative cultural practice is biological. Whether this is grounded in a need for attention, a contractual obligation with Harvard to constantly seek mainstream media attention, or a steady stream of systems neuroscience, developmental genetics, sociology, and evolutionary biology data from the distant future is not clear.
For sheer making-shit-upness, of course, Nicholas Wade's recent book takes the cake, demonstrating what can happen when an amateur runs off with a professional's bad idea.
Posted by: mike | August 16, 2006 4:05 AM
Wait a minute...
Peanuts was funny at one point? *blinks*
Ok, so who did invent/discover those?
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 16, 2006 6:04 AM
Listing Angelina Jolie as a "doer of good" is a little outdated since she's now a blatant, unrepentant homewrecker.
Posted by: Anany Mouse | August 16, 2006 10:59 AM
Anany,
Please. What she did is not always a bad thing. And you don't disparage an entire human being for a single act. She does much good and will continue to do so.
And exactly how does one repent of 'homewrecking'? By wrecking another home? Thats not even logical.
Posted by: GH | August 16, 2006 11:05 AM
It seems that you are all overthinking here. This video isn't likely to convert anyone, nor does it seem that it had any aims to; it merely humanizes atheists. Just relax and enjoy something viscerally for once.
Posted by: Jerry | August 17, 2006 1:41 AM
My fvrt thst s Wdy lln
H shld b yr pstr by.
"thsm md m wht m tdy, nd LV kds!"
Posted by: Goldsteinian | October 8, 2006 8:33 AM