…and this is a 
Some like red meat, some like pablum
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: November 16, 2006 12:26 PM, by PZ Myers
Zeno sent me this link to an article by Jon Carroll—Carroll is one of those "eh, so what" members of the godless community, who probably rolls his eyes at those uppity atheists who get so obnoxious about the role of religion in our culture, while at the same time recognizing that there are some problems that need to be fought…one of those annoyingly tepid unbelievers, anyway. And that's OK. I actually agree with a big chunk of what he writes. This point, in particular, is one that's important:
But there's one idea that comes up in these discussions that I want to talk about; it's the notion that "religion is responsible for most of the war and suffering in the world," or however it's phrased. You know, the Crusades, the Inquisition, colonialism cloaked in Christianity, bigotry against women cloaked in Islam or Hinduism -- the list is pretty long.
I don't believe that it's religion's fault. I believe that human nature is responsible for war and torture and intolerance. I believe that we are beasts, and that every institution we set up reflects our bestial nature. If we drag God into it, it's because we feel shame for our actions. "Sure, seems bad to kill babies, but God told me to do it, so it must be OK."
I agree. I don't blame religion for all evil, and I think that if religion vanished overnight, there would be no overall change in the levels of atrocity, crime, poverty, starvation, pollution, etc. We would just find new excuses to rationalize away our actions. Some would stop—suicide bombing becomes a particularly stupid act when one believes in one life and no reward in a paradise—but those are just spectacularly notable actions among a great sea of day-to-day horrors that go on.
However, what would go away is a barrier that hinders us from working to prevent the actual problems. Poof away the religious element, and the Middle East suddenly becomes a conflict between people trying to find autonomy and respect and security, and the unresolvable problems of superstitious, irrational demands are no longer in operation. It doesn't mean the conflict goes away, of course…just that now there is one less silly obstacle in the way of fixing it. Poverty and famine and disease don't disappear, either, but being able to work on those problems without the religious clutter of goofy beliefs about reproduction would go a long way towards allowing us to address root causes.
It also removes the complacency barrier. Religion is an excuse that many unbelievers, including Jon Carroll, seem to accept without question. Why should we? When someone defends special treatment because of their religion ("my child should not have to learn about evolution, because it offends my faith") why should we accept it? Why not insist on an actual, reasonable, rational excuse?
I'm also not at all impressed with this line of argument.
Religion also provides rituals, and humans find solace in ritual. Maybe it's all a lie, blah blah blah, but how can solace be bad? How can comfort be evil? Man, shut up and listen to the music; be still and smell the flowers. There's room here for all of us; atheists, of all people, should understand that point.
No one, as far as I know, is suggesting that all human ritual be abolished; it's fine with me if you go to church every Sunday and snort incense and recite the same old lines of antique poetry each time, and I can even understand how some people might find that pleasant (not for me, though, but I doubt anyone goes to church to make me content.)
The question about how comforting lies can be bad, though…come on. Isn't that obvious? If you want your soma, you might feel good, but you also get heedlessness and neglect. How many good Christians sit back and let the status quo stand, or even engage in petty oppression, because their pastor lies to them and tells them that God wills it? Insh'allah is a recipe for defeatism and resignation.
Worst of all, it's lazy. When critical thinking and skepticism are among your most important values, religion, as the abnegation of those values, is not going to regarded highly. If Mr Carroll wants to just admit that he's not interested in thinking deeply and prefers pretty lies, that's fine—he should just admit that up front, though, rather than indirectly, by telling us religion doesn't bother him in the slightest.
Comments
Hear hear, and very well said.
I like the clarity of this; I've said similar before... that while there are lots of reasons to criticize religion and religions, these don't overlap entirely with the reasons one shouldn't believe in the superstitions from which they're assembled. Nor should we assume that religion on its own inspires atrocities--it may be at most a confounding factor.
I've tended also to say the most compelling reason I do not follow any religion is simply that they have utterly failed to make any case why I should (and, generally, they've embarrassed themselves and their followers with the tactics by which they try)--the fact that they have also been involved in some of the larger trainwrecks in history is a somewhat ambiguous fact, at best, as you point out...
I'd also say that religion seems kinda... icky, to me, on a personal level. Being required to defend something manifestly silly and deeply incoherent, apart from being difficult, potentially embarrassing and rather a waste of time, it might also be just generally bad for you. And if you're expected by the cultural traditions of your faith to so pervert reason, day in, day out, in such defenses, it could easily erode your very respect for reason (and grasp of what it is)... all potentially bad.
But all that's a digression. Again, well said.
Posted by: AJ Milne | November 16, 2006 12:42 PM
It's not but it's only a small piece of the pie along with guilt, shame, fear, and such that are a larger piece of said pie.
Posted by: Uber | November 16, 2006 12:44 PM
"...along with guilt, shame, fear..."
Don't forget hate.
I agree that in the beginning, religion may have been used to excuse various atrocities, and the rules of religion written to reflect the corrupt thinking of the day. But I think it also reinforces those atrocities now, and not only provides an excuse, but incentive as well. It's a vicius circle.
Posted by: Jenn | November 16, 2006 12:50 PM
I believe that human nature is responsible for war and torture and intolerance. I believe that we are beasts, and that every institution we set up reflects our bestial nature. If we drag God into it, it's because we feel shame for our actions. "Sure, seems bad to kill babies, but God told me to do it, so it must be OK."
funny, I was recently re-reading some of WD Hamilton's commentary on his late 60's early 70's symposia presentations on the implications of his work on kin selection and the prisoner's dilemma model for human behavior.
The part of Jon Carroll's piece italicized above would fit perfectly into Hamiton's assessment of human behavior, as represented in his review essay titled:
"America: Selection of Selfish and Altruistic Behavior in Some Extreme Models."
apropos to his essay, he picked this particular quote from Stevenson to preface it:
"It was the curse of mankind that these incongruous fagots were thus bound together - that in the agonised womb of consciousness, these polar twins should continually be struggling."
-The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 12:59 PM
I agree with Jon Carroll here, PZ. I have a 100% materialistic view of the universe and don't believe in anything religious. Recently a friend of my wife's had a baby just a few days after her grandfather died. The question came up of whether she was sad that he had missed seeing his great granddaughter, and my wife's friend said with calm happiness: "Oh, he sees her". After my wife and I left we talked for a long while about what you'd have to believe, and what aspects of the way we know the world to work you'd have to *disbelieve*, in order to think that it was possible that someone who had died could "see" what was going on here. But do you think we should have explained to my wife's friend that she'd be better off seeing her belief for the nonsense it undoubtedly is? Of course not--I don't even think it's true that she'd be better off, if she's not the kind of person who has come to the realisation already by the time she's adult. I mean you could try explaining to her that it's not really that sad, and through her character the influence of her grandfather will be felt in the life of her baby and so forth... but in the end, it *is* a little sad. If I was that grandfather, and my favourite granddaughter was about to give birth to my first great grandchild, I think I'd like to see it once, and I think I wouldn't like to feel myself dying just before the baby was due. So in this case her belief is comforting, and I guess most people would rather feel that comfort than have the knowledge that they understand the world a little better than the people around them--a cold comfort at best.
Posted by: UncleMonty | November 16, 2006 12:59 PM
"...but how can solace be bad? How can comfort be evil?..."
Drugs and alcohol cause lots of damage and their primary purpose is to provide solace/comfort.
Posted by: George | November 16, 2006 12:59 PM
Pakistan moves to alter its hard-line rape laws
Posted by: quork | November 16, 2006 1:08 PM
"Religion also provides rituals, and humans find solace in ritual."
Assuming these premises are true, are there non-superstitous means to gain this solace?
Posted by: dogscratcher | November 16, 2006 1:14 PM
This is on a tangent, but there seems to be loads of linguistic respect for gods. Removing it can be pretty eye-opening as well.
I am referring to the widespread habit of writing "God" with the capital G and without an indefinite article. It is of course proper to try to use the same terms with everyone else. But interesting things happen with only small modifications.
You could, for example, use "Gods" or "gods". My current statement of atheism is "I don't believe in gods", not "I don't believe in God". I am not "an atheist of Christianity". For me the modified statement is less loaded and more accurate.
Another option is to use the singular form: "a god". Take a text that speaks about believing in God, use the old search-and-replace -magic wand and presto! The feel of the text changes. For example, this text is from this very post:
"A god wills it". That sounds more like Tolkien and a lot less like Moses.
Removing the obstacles of language are the first step in removing the obstacles of supernaturalism.
(Yes. This was inspired by the heavy use of "gods" in Battlestar Galactica.)
Posted by: Antti Rasinen | November 16, 2006 1:17 PM
Assuming these premises are true, are there non-superstitous means to gain this solace?
of course. many use regular visits to the gym, parties, hobbies, volunteer work, etc., etc.
all these things can, and do, perform similar roles, and are entirely "secular" in nature.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 1:19 PM
Deer assault case presents unusual issues Somehow they neglected to get a quote from Sen. Rick Santorum to fill out the article.
Posted by: quork | November 16, 2006 1:38 PM
I know I am going to really piss everyone off, but here goes...
Approximately 2 weeks before Indira Ghandi was assinated, she posited, in a speech about the overpopulation of India, that males should me neutered.
When you talk about all the horrors of the world, you fail to mention, that they are male-generated.
The most 'civilized' societies amoung the non-humans, would be those species that have taken care of most of the males; i.e. ants, bees etc.
If we can successfully get rid of religion, then maybe that should be our next objective.
Ok....now...let me have it! (I haven't been here long, but I seem to garner quite alot of vitriolic responses...no matter...I have survived MUCH worse that what you can throw at me....so....fire away!)
Posted by: bibi | November 16, 2006 1:54 PM
Being comfortable is not a good position to be in.
Posted by: Bob ryuu | November 16, 2006 2:07 PM
PZ writes, "Suicide bombing becomes a particularly stupid act when one believes in one life and no reward in a paradise."
Didn't the Tamil Tigers pioneer the practice of suicide bombing? I don't know their views of the afterlife. They aren't Muslim. The Japanese kamikaze pilots were Shinto, and performed their suicide attacks with no particular promise of a blessed afterlife. While the promise of immediate transport to paradise might be one way to motivate suicidal acts for a larger cause, it doesn't seem prerequisite.
Posted by: Russell | November 16, 2006 2:09 PM
"You know, the Crusades, the Inquisition, colonialism cloaked in Christianity, bigotry against women cloaked in Islam or Hinduism -- the list is pretty long. I don't believe that it's religion's fault."
Probably not. But the list gives pretty compelling evidence against the claim that god A is the solution to problems {B,C,D}.
Posted by: Billy | November 16, 2006 2:13 PM
Japanese kamikaze pilots were Shinto, and performed their suicide attacks with no particular promise of a blessed afterlife.
ridiculous to posit it had no religious ties, however, as I'm sure you are familiar with the historical divinity of the emporer?
perhaps you should post the exact wording used by commanders to "sell" suicide attacks to pilots during the earliest parts of the kamikaze efforts?
PZ's point is not wrong as it stands, especially in context, as it DOES remove a motivating factor.
You are also right that it doesn't not remove ALL potential factors.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 2:14 PM
er, make that:
You are also right that it doesn't remove ALL potential factors.
must...drink..coffee.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 2:15 PM
I agree with you bibi. I'm not sure castration is the answer though. But I've discussed and pondered the role of testosterone in the self-inflicted hardships of humanity, and have come to a similar conclusion. Yes I am male, and hetero. Not that sexual orientation should matter; I just wanted to deflect any bigoted vitriol.
As far as religion goes:
Religion fosters complacency
Religion creates unconquerable Fear
Religion creates unconquerable Hatred
Religion warps psyches
Worst of all in my opinion, religion legitimizes any evil through its interpretation, and holds blind faith in the highest regard and shuns skeptical inquiry. There is enough evil in Nature without the assistance of man's contrivances, and Nature constantly shows us that in order for us to survive, indeed flourish, we must understand her. There is only one way to do that, and belief is not the way.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 2:18 PM
"You know, the Crusades, the Inquisition, colonialism cloaked in Christianity, bigotry against women cloaked in Islam or Hinduism -- the list is pretty long. I don't believe that it's religion's fault."
no more than alcoholism is alcohol's fault, however it IS enabling behaviors that are quite irrational.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 2:18 PM
As a heterosexual male, I wouldn't mind living in a world with a 10 to 1 female to male ratio. Heh, heh.
"Ladies, ladies, there's enough of me to go around...."
Posted by: dAVE | November 16, 2006 2:23 PM
Religion didn't cause all those problems. Correct, it was humans irrational belief systems that justified those atrocities.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.
Demosthenes, Third Olynthiac, sct. 19 (349 BCE)
My question is, what survival skill could religion have served in evolutionary terms. Or is it too recent a development to have been a survival skill?
Posted by: dale | November 16, 2006 2:24 PM
The most 'civilized' societies amoung the non-humans, would be those species that have taken care of most of the males; i.e. ants, bees etc.
1. Please define what you mean by 'civilized.'
2. Also, what do you mean when you say "taken care of most of the males?" Do you mean as a percentage of the population? Do you mean expected longevity? I'm not sure I understand.
My understanding is that (in honey bee colonies) drones are essentially freeloaders that are given royal treatment. The workers take care of them, feed them and protect them; in return the drones do absolutely nothing until it's time to mate. I also believe that the standard route to death for a drone who sucessfully mates is similar to that of a worker who stings--he bleeds to death because part of his abdomen breaks off with his penis.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 16, 2006 2:28 PM
Dale,
Maybe it was religion's ability to bring comfort and solace that kept us from constantly staring into the abyss, wringing our hands, instead of enjoying the tid-bits of joy that would come along every so often.
Now it's just a crutch; a way to subjugate and manipulate, ironically, by using our fear of the abyss. Bastards.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 2:29 PM
Religion serves as an aid in group cohesiveness beyond the extended family. If a few family groups who all believe in 'vengeful spirit A' help each other instead of fighting each other to the death, those family groups eat better and fend off dangers easier, and could mitigate the deleterious effects of inbreeding as well.
At least that's my idea as a non-scientist.
Posted by: stogoe | November 16, 2006 2:35 PM
"If Mr Carroll wants to just admit that he's not interested in thinking deeply and prefers pretty lies, that's fine--he should just admit that up front, though, rather than indirectly, by telling us religion doesn't bother him in the slightest."
Maybe religion just doesn't bother him, and he thinks there are other ways to think deeply.
If we agree that the important thing is to, for instance, bring peace to the Middle East, why should we spend time fighting about Islam/Judaism/Christianity first? Why not address the territorial and political issues, and leave people to work out their religious issues on their own?
Religion may or may not be the major meta-issue in that conflict (I happen to think it's a distraction from the real issue), but we all seem to agree that it isn't the only issue, or even the most readily solved.
I still don't see why I should care about theism. I care about poverty, authoritarianism, equality, and fairness, and see enough places were those issues define a conflict that I don't see the value in taking on more issues.
Posted by: Josh | November 16, 2006 2:40 PM
Dale wrote:
As Daniel Dennett argues in Breaking the Spell, it is possible that neurological features which lead us to religious belief evolved for other reasons; that is, religion could be a side effect. I wrote a little about this over here.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 16, 2006 2:40 PM
Timely....I've just begun reading a book entitled "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris tackling just this topic, and was visiting your blog today to send you an email and recommend it to you, PZ. Harris's premise is that faith of any kind is destructive, antithetical to progress, and at the root of a great deal of the large-scale atrocities in the world. I've just begun reading it, and I don't know yet if I totally agree, but the early chapters are striking chords with me for sure.
Posted by: Stacey | November 16, 2006 2:45 PM
Dale, religion did have a survival value, at least, in the mythopoeic societies of the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, several thousand years ago. I believe the Y chrosome found amongst most modern men of European descent is derived from about seven ancestral Middle Eastern farmers who migrated into Europe.
The social structure of these ancient societies was based upon the cosmos as being an extension of society, and ordered on much the same lines as prevailing social organization. The gods were central to this.
For the Mesopotamians, man was created to be the slave of the gods. He was their servant. Those folks who devoutly believed what the priest told them, experienced the 'good life' as the 'devout life'. A diligent & obedient servant could expect to be rewarded & promoted, (by the priests, who administer things for the gods). A slothful, disobedient servant, on the other hand, could hope for none of these things.
I think it is obvious how this would affect fertility & survival rates.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | November 16, 2006 2:54 PM
Keep reading, Stacey, and tell us what you think of the book after you've finished its final chapters.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 16, 2006 3:02 PM
PZ #1: "However, what would go away is a barrier that hinders us from working to prevent the actual problems. Poof away the religious element, and the Middle East suddenly becomes a conflict between people trying to find autonomy and respect and security, and the unresolvable problems of superstitious, irrational demands are no longer in operation. It doesn't mean the conflict goes away, of course...just that now there is one less silly obstacle in the way of fixing it. Poverty and famine and disease don't disappear, either, but being able to work on those problems without the religious clutter of goofy beliefs about reproduction would go a long way towards allowing us to address root causes."
Why is there any reason to think that attachment to religious belief is more amenable to change than tendencies to do nasty stuff? I don't see a realistic possibility that the situation you describe (religion goes away but the problems don't) will ever occur.
PZ #2: "When someone defends special treatment because of their religion ('my child should not have to learn about evolution, because it offends my faith') why should we accept it? Why not insist on an actual, reasonable, rational excuse?"
Because "I know better what's good for you than you do" has historically led to decidedly mixed results. It must inevitably take as its premise "I'm smarter than you." The people I admire most for their intelligence are the most humble: the most ready to learn from others, the most ready to think they could have been wrong (and who thus double- and triple-check themselves). Who in your experience, PZ, does the best work in your field? Those who are readiest to tell others "You're wrong! I know better than all you fools!"? Or those who take pains to check everything they do and to consult others before publishing results?
Posted by: Jud | November 16, 2006 3:03 PM
{I previewed my last comment before posting...several times...yet missed a typo. Should read - BE neutered...not me neutered. Yikes!)
To the Science Pundit, civilized means what the dictionary says it means.
And, I don't think I could have made my point any clearer...but, for you, I will.
As Alex stated, TESTOSTERONE is the problem. Most males should be neutered. Castrated. Have their balls cut off. Just go ask any farmer/rancher how they keep the peace...and that is how they do it. They fix (neuter) most, if not all, of the males.
Posted by: bibi | November 16, 2006 3:09 PM
Bibi perhaps ought not to be neutered, but disemvowelling doesn't strike me as an awful idea....
Posted by: Jud | November 16, 2006 3:11 PM
As Alex stated, TESTOSTERONE is the problem. Most males should be neutered. Castrated. Have their balls cut off. Just go ask any farmer/rancher how they keep the peace...and that is how they do it. They fix (neuter) most, if not all, of the males.
uh, somehow i think that threatening to remove testicles won't "keep the peace" for very long.
moreover, if you succeeded, i would expect the repercussions to become violent as well.
bulls don't carry guns, after all.
better ban all the guns first.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 3:17 PM
Indeed, if you could manage to ban the possession and sale of all guns, one might argue you would have effectively neutred the human male already.
good luck with that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 3:20 PM
somehow i think that threatening to remove testicles won't "keep the peace" for very long.
See, now, I HAVE thought alot about this, and all you guys are safe.
The only way to successfully begin this project, is for doctors to perform the castration at birth, or soon thereafter. Instead of the circumcision, let's say.
Snip, snip.
Pass it on....
Posted by: bibi | November 16, 2006 3:26 PM
bibi,
I don't have my dictionary in front of me right now, so I still don't know what you mean by 'civilized.'
I also don't think it's wise to use observed animal behaviors in order to draw moral conclusions about humanity. I could do the same thing in reverse and demonstrate how "female dominated" social insect species practice warfare, kidnapping, slavery, suicide attacks, eugenics and sexual discrimination.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 16, 2006 3:28 PM
This site drives atheists to pray:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html
Posted by: Karl Priest | November 16, 2006 3:30 PM
Jud said:
"Bibi perhaps ought not to be neutered, but disemvowelling doesn't strike me as an awful idea...."
When you disembowel Bibi, please call me so I can come over. I am studying to become a Haruspex.
Posted by: dale | November 16, 2006 3:32 PM
Faith does its greatest mischief by providing TOO MUCH comfort...by becoming a substitute for compassion, altruism, duty, and action. Protestants are guiltier than Catholics, and Evangelicals are guiltiest of all. Don't worry about noticing need, taking a risk, reaching out to help, any of that. The sum total of your obligation as a human being is to believe a given dogma. Once you've done the "work of faith," you are free to retire into utter indifference, and the empty security of a fake job well done. Is this what is meant by "comfort"? This smug assurance that one's self-delusion at the mercy a crippling mind-hack is what it is to be an authentic person? Faith is just another way of saying "might as well be dead already."
Posted by: Greg Peterson | November 16, 2006 3:37 PM
"I also don't think it's wise to use observed animal behaviors in order to draw moral conclusions about humanity."
Oh, dear...well, that's the difference between us. I don't see humans as anything other than animal (mammal).
I smell a male bias.
When I was in school (a long time ago) we were taught that the males had the XY and females...XX chromosomes...and we were taught that WOMEN HAD AN EXTRA CELL (molecule, whatever, I am not a scientist, but I am sure you understand what I am saying). Like an anomaly. Like something mutant. When the truth is, males are missing a cell.
What does that tell you?
Re: civilized....I give up.
Posted by: bibi | November 16, 2006 3:39 PM
bibi,
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that I said testosterone is the problem. Females have testosterone as well. I feel the issue is a little more sophisticated than you're representing it to be. Clearly what your posts are advocating is akin to eugenics.
That being said, I think it would be hard to argue against the assertion that human males may exhibit aggressive tendencies more than females. Additionally, many (more modern) religions consider females a lesser person, portray god as a man, etc. - indicating a male-centric view of society. Couple that with the violence and hatred espoused by those religions, shows the association between men and destructive behavior.
But again, as I said, there certainly are other factors involved. I don't feel that being male is the litmus test. But don't ask me, I'm no expert.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 3:51 PM
The only way to successfully begin this project, is for doctors to perform the castration at birth, or soon thereafter. Instead of the circumcision, let's say.
nope. that doesn't affect the initial response by anything other than the infant undergoing the surgery.
opposition to the idea would be just as violent, and the repercussions would be just as forthcoming (repercussions including the infant, as well, as soon as they discovered what has been done to them).
you used cicumcision as an analogy, but have you ever looked at how pissed off some males get about THAT?
I disagree you have thought this through very far.
but, you might want to consider forced clitorectomy; i hear that curtails much evil premarital sex in various cultures.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 3:53 PM
Dale: "When you disembowel Bibi, please call me so I can come over. I am studying to become a Haruspex."
For a disem*v*owelling, it might be more appropriate if you were studying to become an editor.
Posted by: Jud | November 16, 2006 3:55 PM
Everyone has rituals. Molluscophelial humor is one...
Posted by: BJN | November 16, 2006 3:58 PM
"you used cicumcision as an analogy, but have you ever looked at how pissed off some males get about THAT?"
Please don't assume. I think curcumcision is an ABONIMATION! An antiquated Hebrew practice that has long outlived it's usefulness.
As for you, Alex, I totally understand why you want to distance yourself from me. (since they are plotting for my dis-embowelment}. It's ok. No worries. I won't attach myself to your comments, anymore.
As I said, I knew this topic would piss people off.
Posted by: bibi | November 16, 2006 4:04 PM
Hey Dale,
I thought that was you. You're the first one who caused me to look up Haruspex.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 4:06 PM
As I said, I knew this topic would piss people off.
one, don't confuse disemvowelment with disembowelment.
two, you mean this isn't a joke?
If not, you need serious help, girl.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 4:09 PM
bibi,
My stance regarding your opinion has remained constant. It hasn't moved. I just think that the problem requires a little more sophistication than the cart-blanch castration you are prescribing.
Dale was using word-play. No one wants you disembowled. I even think that disemvowelment is a little harsh.
As far as people being pissed off, trust me, there's none of that here, so far. It gets rather interesting when that happens. This is all pretty tame.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 4:14 PM
Right there with you, Ichthyic.
Posted by: Leon | November 16, 2006 4:16 PM
PZ, you have your own comforting narratives and illusions that give you comfort, but you won't admit it.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | November 16, 2006 4:25 PM
If you don't know PZ personally, and you can't present written evidence of a specific illusion/narrative that PZ clings to, your argument is invalid. You may believe that it is very likely PZ has such beliefs, and may argue on statistical grounds, but your stated argument is wrong.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 16, 2006 4:27 PM
the death of...who sucessfully mates is similar to that of a worker who stings--he bleeds to death because part of his abdomen breaks off with his penis.
I always knew that's what would happen! Thank God I've been careful.
Also confirms that my wife has been trying to get rid of me all these years.
What an awful way to go! I'm keeping it in my pants.
Posted by: Mooser | November 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Stephen,
I think the part about comfort he will admit to. I'm sure I could even find an example. The part about the illusions, I'm sure he would ask for some examples. But I don't wish to speak for PZ. But if you're alluding to the whole "evolution is a belief" argument, then I've been far too polite.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 4:31 PM
For a more intelligent opponent?
Posted by: MartinM | November 16, 2006 4:37 PM
dogscratcher asked : "Religion also provides rituals, and humans find solace in ritual."
"Assuming these premises are true, are there non-superstitous means to gain this solace?"
Sporting events give people an opportunity to partake in ritual and ceremony.
For example the Olympic games, or a basketball or football match.
Most of these events entail music, dancing, speeches, the national anthem, food and drink, cheering, emotional highs and lows, as well as camaraderie and group cohesion among the supporters of a particular team or nation.
Sounds a lot like a religious service doesn't it?
Antti Rasinen makes a good point about how our widespread habit of writing "God" with the capital G and without an indefinite article lends a false aura of respect to what is essentially a primitive tribal diety just like so many others.
I have recently been in the habit of referring to the Bible's god by his name 'Yahweh', whenever discussing the subject with Christians.
It's amazing how many of them aren't even aware that he has a personal name.
Some Christians get very disconcerted when they hear their god refered to by the name Yahweh, because it sounds so foreign and unfamiliar.
This is largly because the Bible has been dishonestly translated so as to refer to Yahweh as 'The Lord', and the clergy help to perpetuate this deception.
After all 'The Lord' sounds far more regal and imposing than 'Yahweh'.
If we habitually refer to other ancient gods such as Zeus, or Allah, or Shiva, or Brahma, or Ahura Mazda, by their personal names, why not be consistant and refer to this Hebrew tribal diety by his name as well?
Posted by: DingoDave | November 16, 2006 4:38 PM
'But if you're alluding to the whole "evolution is a belief" argument, then I've been far too polite.'
Of course not. I meant that it is part and parcel of the human condition to have a head full of narratives, images, motivs, metaphors, etc, that aren't objectively "true".
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | November 16, 2006 4:42 PM
DingoDave,
The answer is that clearly the Hebrew tribal diety is the REAL God. Geeesh!
I think I'll start referring to that concept by its first name. I like that idea. It's kind of like calling him "Bob". Praise Bob!! Sounds kinda silly. I like it. Nice post.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 4:43 PM
Today in the mail I received an invitation to a local event they've termed a "Wonderful World of Women Expo." I knew what I'd find before I even looked at the lineup: about half of the speakers and activities would be normal and reasonable (yoga, folk-singing, massage, self-esteem pep talks, cooking demonstrations, financial planning, belly dance lessons, Living With Menopause) and the other half would be a disgusting, filthy mess of pseudoscientific garbage and childlike nonsense (Reiki, Reflexology, Aura Drawing, past-life regression, psychic readings, Naturopathy, Discovering Your Angels).
As a woman, I am insulted. The general assumption with these kinds of events always seems to be that being female entails being totally ignorant of science and eagerly gullible for anything that flatters or reassures us.
Well, I'm not going. It would drive me nuts. Sure, I can choose to "skip" the more outlandish seminars, but I know darn well it's an absolute cultural no-no to say anything "judgmental" or negative, and that would frustrate me. No, it's all supposed to be good, as long as it "works" and some woman is comforted and leaves the Expo feeling better about themselves. Science and reason be damned; this is about Personal Growth. Even if one's personal growth seems to stop at about age 6.
The Jon Carroll-ish translation would be "this is fun, who does it hurt, we're learning valuable things and even if we're not we don't care - after all, Everybody Should Be Allowed to Believe What They Want." There's no actual violence here (violence to one's sense of truth and honesty apparently doesn't count.)
So none of us ever complains, lest people think we're Not Very Nice and Not Very Open. Of course, it's culturally acceptable for MEN to snort with skepticism or openly complain -- but women are so much kinder and gentler, so much more *people* oriented and willing to go along. Think about feelings.
And thus feminine critical thinking skills become an oxymoron. It's enough to make me embarrassed for my sex.
Get rid of the men? Dear me. And leave us without practically any grownups at all?
Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2006 4:53 PM
Is it just my troll-o-meter, or do they all jump several points upward when someone is repeatedly asked to define their terms but continues to avoid the question?
Anyway: yes, humans are animals, but pretty much by definition, different species are different. This particular species of neotenous great ape and that particular species of insect may both live in large groups, but that's only a coincidence. The problems they face are very different, as are the resources they have for dealing with them, and therefor the pathways by which they have come to live in large groups.
In other words, why should humans adopt ants' systems of forming in large groups of easily-sacrificed laborers ruled by tiny elites that continuously war upon and enslave other such groups, when their own systems for establishing such groups work just fine?
Oh, good, I'm out of troll-treats, so I can stop. Time to pack for Orycon!
Posted by: Space Parasite | November 16, 2006 4:57 PM
I think the discordians already praise Bob. We'll have to stick to calling him Yahweh and wondering what ever happened to his wife.
Posted by: stogoe | November 16, 2006 4:58 PM
Suicide Bombings would not necessarily stop. People who have no future and can rely on their sponsoring organization to look after their family might still willingly kill themselves.
Posted by: archgoon | November 16, 2006 4:59 PM
Wait a minute...
Maybe if you castrate them, then lobotomize them to save them the emotional suffering and psychological turmoil later in life, it just might work!
That was sarcasm. The best way to handle it would be to chemically address the issue at the stage of development when sex is determined. No castration, no lobotomies, clean and simple. I mean, messing around with population ratios couldn't harm anything...right?
That was also sarcasm.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 5:06 PM
Well ok. But if he has a first name, how about a nick name? If Bob is taken, how about Jeff? Or Stewart? Yahweh is just so old-school and stodgy.
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 5:09 PM
DingoDave,
I provide my overwhelmingly Christian students with a translation that preserves the names Yahweh and Elohim, and it is fascinating to see how my students react. Suddenly narratives that were familiar to them become wierd and unfamiliar, even to the extent that some students DO NOT RECOGNIZE that they are reading excerpts from the same "Old Testament" that they have up until that point accepted as scripture.
Students also become bewildered when they read the Epic of Gilgamesh and encounter the story that parallels the flood narrative in Genesis. To them, the story in Gilgamesh is clearly fiction because, well, it features all those 'mythological' deities. But then they have to grapple with the fact that it is undeniably the same story in Genesis--and that it was recorded centuries before the Hebrew version. This makes for some serious cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Elf Eye | November 16, 2006 5:12 PM
I was wondering what the collected commentators (and Prof. Myers, himself, if he reads down this far), would think of something I heard on last week's This American Life.
It was a show about the (in)famous Lancet Study of civilian casualties in Iraq. The Johns Hopkins statistician in charge of the study related an argument he had with his chief Iraqi researcher: the researcher wanted to go into Fallujah and complete the study. The American thought it too dangerous. But the Iraqi said, "It is God's will that I do this work. God wants me to complete this study, so I will go." And he went.
So: here you have a religious man, motivated by his religion to undertake extremely dangerous work... in the name of accomplishing good science. (or, at least, social science, but it's peer reviewed, so let's not quibble.)
What's wrong with that?
Posted by: Yagur | November 16, 2006 5:33 PM
Yagur:
does the ends justify the means?
Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2006 5:45 PM
Yagur,
For me it's scarey what else his religion could motivate him to do.
"Good men do good things, evil men do evil things, but it takes religion for a good man to do evil things."
Posted by: Alex | November 16, 2006 5:52 PM
one might, but when i contemplate human history back before the invention of firearms, i am unconvinced.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 16, 2006 5:59 PM
Carroll contradicts himself, and in consecutive sentences at that!
So we're inhuman because we're beasts, but our invocation of God shows we can feel shame for our beastliness?? Maybe we're not such utter brutes after all!
This sounds almost like a tepid apologia for religion, in fact. We're brutes, but those of us who have faith at least feel shame and remorse.
Did you say you agreed with this crap, PZ?
Posted by: Amit Joshi | November 16, 2006 6:01 PM
I think rather than looking at ranchers and bulls, bibi might be better served by the example of certain species of deep-sea anglerfish, where the males simply bite onto the female's flank, and then essentially degenerate to become little more than a parasitic sack of testes.
maybe Bibi was an anglerfish in a previous life and just can't make sense out of the way things work with humans?
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 6:06 PM
"What's wrong with that?"
One man's "God's will" is another man's "the right thing to do."
Someone like PZ might criticize the Iraqi researcher for not taking responsibility for his actions. I think the "God" is simply the metaphor through which the Iraqi mediates his dilemma.
When these sorts of things come up, I am reminded of the following anecdote, and I am not sure exactly how Sartre feels about the man in question:
[quote]While I was imprisoned, I made the acquaintance of a somewhat remarkable man, a Jesuit, who had become a member of that order in the following manner. In his life he had suffered a succession of rather severe setbacks. His father had died when he was a child, leaving him in poverty, and he had been awarded a free scholarship in a religious institution, where he had been made continually to feel that he was accepted for charity's sake, and, in consequence, he had been denied several of those distinctions and honours which gratify children. Later, about the age of eighteen, he came to grief in a sentimental affair; and finally, at twenty-two - this was a trifle in itself, but it was the last drop that overflowed his cup - he failed in his military examination. This young man, then, could regard himself as a total failure: it was a sign - but a sign of what? He might have taken refuge in bitterness or despair. But he took it - very cleverly for him - as a sign that he was not intended for secular success, and that only the attainments of religion, those of sanctity and of faith, were accessible to him. He interpreted his record as a message from God, and became a member of the Order. Who can doubt but that this decision as to the meaning of the sign was his, and his alone? One could have drawn quite different conclusions from such a series of reverses - as, for example, that he had better become a carpenter or a revolutionary. For the decipherment of the sign, however, he bears the entire responsibility. That is what "abandonment" implies, that we ourselves decide our being.[/quote]
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | November 16, 2006 6:09 PM
PZ, you have your own comforting narratives and illusions that give you comfort, but you won't admit it.
I'm not sure it's being used as such in this case, but I've often seen this argument used to defend theism. It's the whole quantum woo thing mixed with misinterpreted Hegel with a dash of taking The Matrix a bit too seriously. As in, "If reality is an illusion, then why isn't the God-illusion as valid as your science-illusion."
As if that's supposed to be a good argument in favor of belief.
Posted by: Matt T. | November 16, 2006 6:26 PM
Strom Thurmond's been in heaven more than three years now. Wonder how he's liking it?
Posted by: ken melvin | November 16, 2006 6:36 PM
I am a Christian, but I have to say I don't want my son shielded from the teachings of subjects such as evolution. He's going to encounter them at some point in his life, whether in school or in college or simply in everyday conversation. I want him to hear all sides from the beginning. I sure wouldn't be serving a very powerful God if I didn't believe he could protect my son's mind no matter what others may expose him to hear.
Posted by: Donny Pauling | November 16, 2006 6:42 PM
And besides: the concepts of God and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Donny Pauling | November 16, 2006 6:44 PM
Elf Eye wrote: "I provide my overwhelmingly Christian students with a translation that preserves the names Yahweh and Elohim, and it is fascinating to see how my students react."
What translation are you referring to? I wasn't aware that one existed.
I would love to see all Bibles translated according to the original intentions of the authors.
This would mean that instead of the word 'God' (Elohim), it would read - 'gods'.
Instead of 'Lord God', it would read 'Yahweh Elohim' - 'Yahweh of the gods'
'Adonai' - 'my Lord' or 'my Lords'. (This is the equivalent of the Caananite title 'Baal' which simply means 'Lord of the temple'.)
El - (the same as the Caananite high god El). In Caananite mythology El was the father of the gods, and it would appear that originally Yahweh was just one of his many sons.
El Elyon - 'Most high god'.
El Shaddai - 'God the destroyer', or 'God of the mountains'.
Yahweh Sabbaoth - 'Yahweh, lord of armies.'
And so the list goes on.
Of course I doubt whether any publisher would actually do this, because after all, they wan