…and this is a 
It's "Sod off, God!" week
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: December 1, 2006 9:28 AM, by PZ Myers
My favorite ferocious feminist has declared this to be "Sod off, God! Week" at I Blame The Patriarchy. There's no respite from the patriarchy blaming, but she is taking a sledge to a few sacred cows as a sideline. Like this:
Take ritual, for instance. My suspicion is that ritual is no deep human need. As a concept it gives off quite the lip-wrinkling whiff of eau du primitif. And what about that trio of stinky undertones — conformity, obeisance, and orthodoxy — that comes with it? Add the collateral conditions of exclusivity and tradition, and you got yourself all the field marks of one of those bogus assumptions that status-quoticians are always trumpeting as “natural” or “instinctive” but which are really just tools of the patriarchy or opiates of the people or what have you. You know. “Big tits are sexy.” “Women’s minds are naturally less inclined toward mathematics.” “Van Morrison is a genius.” Etc.
I've heard that so often: that people need ritual, that there's something beautiful and comforting about the predictable and stately. Why? I get along fine without it, and find it a nuisance when I'm subjected to it, so it's clearly not a universal human need, like food or love. If you're brought up with it, if it's dunned into your head that you must attend Sunday services or you will go to hell, I can understand how the relief from an artificial anxiety might feel good…but why not cut the problem off at the roots and raise kids who aren't instilled with those foolish fears?
Ritual is a head game. It's the droning repetition of nonsense that the church has used for millennia to kill the muses of creativity and individuality—and once they've punched that god-shaped hole in your head, they've got you hooked on the weekly or daily pap sessions needed to fill the gap with the sacred version of gelfoam.*
*That reference may be a little obscure. In my neurosurgical days, we used to chop bits of brains out of experimental animals, and you don't just leave a hole—you pack it with light space-filling foam. They only need it because we've cut out something more essential.
Comments
Oh, I used gelfoam a lot, so I got your reference instantly.
Posted by: coturnix | December 1, 2006 9:33 AM
Wait...how is "big tits are sexy" a patriarchal tool? They are! I think it's "small tits are not" that could be portrayed as a negative concept.
Posted by: M | December 1, 2006 9:51 AM
"You know. "Big tits are sexy." "Women's minds are naturally less inclined toward mathematics." "Van Morrison is a genius." Etc."
There is absolutely NO reason to diss Van Morrison.
Posted by: Paul T. | December 1, 2006 9:51 AM
I don't know if all ritual is bad. Where I worship, it goes something like this:
"Hey bartender, got any more of that Belhaven?"
"Yeah, I think we've got a brand new keg."
Then follows reverent anticipation on my part while placement of the coaster is accomplished. The drawing and placement of the holy beverage is done next. Then I tithe the tip jar and commence worshiping.
Posted by: marlonrh | December 1, 2006 9:57 AM
I think your analogy is unfair to gelfoam. After all, gelfoam is wonderful stuff.
re: Van Morrison is overrated. Great line.
Posted by: sdh | December 1, 2006 9:59 AM
That's lovely rhetoric, but human beings have an unfortunate tendency to flee in horror from freedom and seek comfort in order-imposed-from-above.
I blame our evolutionary history - pack animals simply don't make very good sentients.
Posted by: Caledonian | December 1, 2006 10:03 AM
Nice coinage. Props to IBTP for that one.
This was not always the case. Without the church, there would have been no Pérotin, no Dante Alighieri, no Johannes Ockeghem, no Thomás Luís de Victoria, no Heironymous Bosch, no Johann Sebastian Bach. Of course, they all flowered in a relatively brief, increasingly enlightened period between the 13th and the 18th centuries, and it's not as if there weren't any woos around at the same time.
Before and after that, though, it was all oppression and fear all the time.
Posted by: Dan | December 1, 2006 10:15 AM
Posted by: Caledonian | December 1, 2006 10:16 AM
You are conflating ritual with religion here. Anthropologists consider them to be different things, ritual often includes very little if any religious element. For example having coffee and reading the NYT magazine on Sunday morning is a ritual that I enjoy deeply. The Fourth of July ritual of blowing things up is about remembering the American Revolution and (at least nominal) break from theocracy. Plenty of atheists enjoy these rituals.
Also, while individuals may be able to do without religion or many types of ritual, you would be hard pressed to point to any society that doesn't practice some form of either. That doesn't necessarily make it a human universal, but it does make it a social universal. As an atheist social scientist I frankly find this rather liberating. When I was a young person in a very religious family I first started questioning my faith after I realized that not everybody worshipped people with funny hats living in Rome. It looked to me like cultures all over the world had religious beliefs but most of them didn't jive with each other. Then religious ritual seemed more like something that people tend to do for themselves rather than some universal truth. I can't say I've taken any religious 'truth' very seriously since then.
Posted by: dcwp | December 1, 2006 10:20 AM
@marlonrh:
Belhaven is made about 1 mile down the road from me and today the wind is in the right direction so the whole town smells of brewery...
I don't think ritual is a bad thing. It gives us something to look forward to - evening meal with family; lazy Sunday mornings in bed; favourite podcast released every fortnight; checking online comics before starting work. These are all rituals which make my time a little brighter than it would be.
The problem is performing rituals when we don't want to - rituals performed through obligation or duty rather than desire. If you'd rather read the mountain of sunday papers while eating a lazy brunch then why not? Sod god...
Posted by: Ithika | December 1, 2006 10:26 AM
Ritual is a head game. It's the droning repetition of nonsense
Lk wrtng Phryngl dy n nd dy t.
r prhps bttr stll, th nd t CSs t rd Phryngl dy n nd dy t. Knd f lk rdng th nwsppr vry dy vr cff, nly lss nfrmtv.
Posted by: hoody | December 1, 2006 10:26 AM
Agreed.
Stop pampering the nutcases.
At bottom, this is all about defeating ignorance.
People in positions of power who perpetuate religion should be criticized relentlessly. They willfully, intentionally keep people in darkness. That's wrong.
Sod off God and all his idiot enablers.
Posted by: George | December 1, 2006 10:29 AM
How do you know? Maybe when musical genius flowers it takes advantage of whatever manure it happens to be growing in.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 1, 2006 10:31 AM
...
...
Yeah. And then again, maybe there would have been ten thousand OTHER Bachs and Dantes - not to mention Jeffersons and Franklins and Einsteins and Edisons - if only artistic and intellectual and philosophical pursuits hadn't been viciously suppressed by the church.
Imagine the world we might be living in if the likes of Newton and Curie and Darwin had come along a thousand years sooner.
Sure there were bright sparks that escaped from under the wet blanket of religion. But the FIRE that we might have had ... Damn.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 1, 2006 10:31 AM
...
...
I have some Muslim neighbors. Nice people, but I was watching one of their visitors one day, sitting in his van across the street and reading aloud from a tiny little book (the Koran, I assumed), and rocking forward and back in his seat.
It was one of those aha! moments for me: this guy was so averse to the thoughts his own mind might produce that he was WORKING HARD at drowning out those thoughts, killing them, by replacing them with the thoughts of someone else.
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 1, 2006 10:33 AM
Given the prevalence of ritual in human history, I think its inarguable that people LIKE rituals of all sorts, whether its celebrating Mass, tailgating before the football game, or having a moment of quiet reflection before flushing the dead goldfish.
For myself, having a ceremony associated with my getting married, or having a memorial service for my dad serves my emotional needs to certify certain occasions as extra important. I should point out that neither of these occasions were marked with any religious flavor-ritual doesn't not equate with Xtian.
That's just how my wiring is-I like ritual, for the most part. I certainly don't consider myself any MORE married than someone who went to the JOP, or LESS married than someone who got married by their local bishop, or whatever.
Oh, and big tits are sexy, as are small and medium sized ones.
Posted by: Chris Thorpe | December 1, 2006 10:37 AM
Hey. Big tits ARE sexy. That's all there is to it.
Posted by: Chris Gruber | December 1, 2006 10:45 AM
PZ, I doubt whether you get along without ritual. At the risk of being accused of sounding like Pinker, just look around you and notice all of the daily rituals that you see.
Do you get up every morning and make your first cup of coffee or cocoa exactly the same way each time? Do you stop in Starbucks for your $5 coffee? How many people do you know that have standing lunch dates with a particular group of friends?
I go to the farmers market every Saturday at the same time and take strawberries to my mother. I know several families who have "pizza Friday's".
Have you ever spent time with someone who is in the Autism spectrum? They've got all kinds of rituals that the have to perform or else they get really upset. If Autism is caused by a developmental disorder, as seems likely, it could be that Autistic behavior is present in everyone but normal people have a developmental pathway that supresses the Autistic symptoms.
I know that anecdotes are not evidence, but it seems entirely reasonable to me that comfort in ritual could be an evolutionary adaptation. Pinker talks about rite of passage rituals and food taboos and how they could have evolutionary advantages.
So, I wouldn't reject out of hand that people need/appreciate ritual.
Posted by: JScarry | December 1, 2006 10:53 AM
Actually it's FIRM ,/b> tits that are sexy ......
Posted by: G. Tingey | December 1, 2006 11:02 AM
"Actually it's FIRM , tits that are sexy"
Twisty is rolling in her grave (a.k.a. comfy Austin apartment).
Can people of the male persuasion stop turning this thread into "objectificationz R Us?"
Merci.
Also, ditto whoever said that ritual encompasses much more than religion. I rather like ritual, for instance. No religious impulse whatsoever though.
Posted by: Mandolin | December 1, 2006 11:19 AM
I could get into going to church... if it was all in Latin or some other language I didn't understand, and nobody asked me for money or expected me to hate on gays.
I just dig the smell of incense and the sound of pipe organ music echoing off the ceiling. But not enough to get up at seven on a Sunday morning to get dressed up and go experience it.
Posted by: RedMolly | December 1, 2006 11:24 AM
I think we are in danger of confusing routine and ritual. I have a morning routine (a particular mug of my favourite coffee) to last me until my neurons are up to daytime speed, whereas according to Wikipedia:
A ritual is a formalised, predetermined set of symbolic actions generally performed in a particular environment at a regular, recurring interval. The set of actions that comprise a ritual often include, but are not limited to, such things as recitation, singing, group processions, repetitive dance, manipulation of sacred objects, etc. ..
And yes ritual is used to identify ingroup and outgroup, but are we a pack animal, a herd beast, a troop, or a clan? Or lots of individuals trying to get along.
Posted by: Bunjo | December 1, 2006 11:26 AM
It might help if we were all "measuring using the same units." OCD is not habit is not ritual is not religion is not special occasion is not tradition. I masochistically watch the Minnesota Vikings most Sundays during the football season. If I have a chance to do something better (dentist appointment, Van Morrison concert), I do that instead. Do I feel an elevated sense of anxiety because I didn't "perform the ritual" of watching the Vikings? Not at all. I can't think of a single habit that I have that I feel I MUST have to alleviate some unnatural anxiety. I think that might be the difference with religious ritual. Often, it's not merely something people look forward to and enjoy taking part in. It's something they feel driven to by obligation, guilt, and angst. The things that we look forward to voluntarily--including traditionally religious holidays like Christmas--can help enrich our lives. We don't need them, but they can aid flourishing, tap our creativity, connect us with people we love and identify with. Ritual seems to coral flourishing and reduce human feeling to rote action. But certain habits, occasions, and traditions can have the opposite effect and call forth our best selves. I think we can rightly abhor religion without depriving ourselves of one of its useful discoveries--people enjoy meeting together for a purpose, often a meaningless purpose, just to be together. It's no accident that the word "entertainment" has roots that mean something like "tying together." I guess what I'm trying to say is, you'll have to pry Friday happy hour from my cold, dead hands.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | December 1, 2006 11:40 AM
Can people of the male persuasion stop turning this thread into "objectificationz R Us?"
Pah. We're all objects. Some are sexier than others.
Or so I hear.
Posted by: Chris Gruber | December 1, 2006 11:49 AM
Graduation, then - there's a ritual complete with silly clothes and pointless tradition, and Latin if you're lucky. What do people reckon to graduation ceremonies?
I don't think ritual's a human need, but I do think it can be harnessed to achieve the sense of occasion and continuity that people do want at times.
Anyway, Twisty is fantastically thought-provoking and deserves many a delicious taco.
Posted by: MissPrism | December 1, 2006 11:49 AM
That certain kinds of ritual appear to give their practitioners reassurance or confidence is a well-established argument. But you need to call on some entirely different explanatory mechanism for people engaging in rituals that even they think are long, boring, and often personally meaningless -- and frankly, that's what an awful lot of religious rituals are like.
Posted by: Clare | December 1, 2006 11:50 AM
I like my morning cup of coffee, it is true. If it were delivered by an old man in a fancy hat, swinging a censer and chanting and with a team of choirboys singing, though...that would get old fast.
The objectivation is also getting old. What's sexy is the person behind the lumps of chest fat, and if you're judging sexiness by weighing how many pounds of swollen glandular tissue they have, you're falling into a rather superficial trap.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 1, 2006 11:52 AM
No reason to condemn all rituals. I'd like to have a ritual, say on every Wednesday at 3pm, where everyone stopped talking, reading, and writing for 10 minutes; all computer monitors, TV's and radios were turned off; and people just sat or walked in silence. It would be a time were everyone could just experience being alive without excess input. 10 minutes too scary? Okay, just give me 5.
Posted by: AndyS | December 1, 2006 11:55 AM
As others have mentioned routine, habit, and disorders are not ritual. But the ritualists always try to convince us that their ritual is the same as our habit or routine. It is not. It is the only way they have of masquerading their rituals and claiming that we all are ritualizing living. But that is only one of the many things that keeps them locked into their fantasies.
As far as Van The Man? He is popular because he is good. Just like titties they're popular because their good. Especially those rare perfect exquisite miniatures, but mostly when they come with a Smart Strong Godless woman.
Posted by: JamesR | December 1, 2006 11:57 AM
The two are not as separate as you make out, but rather points on a continuum. As soon as failure to carry out a routine action induces a feeling of disappointment, you are on the way to a ritual. Deprive any large group of people of their morning coffee, and the chances are that you will encounter much stronger emotions than mere disappointment.
The real error is a simple bit of busted logic:
a) People need ritual; (true in most cases)
b) Religious services are a ritual; (true)
c) Therefore people need religious services. (rubbish)
Posted by: Stephen | December 1, 2006 11:59 AM
And yet, you can't bring yourself not to read, can you?
I hate hypocritical trolls.
Posted by: wintermute | December 1, 2006 12:00 PM
And yet, you can't bring yourself not to read, can you?
I hate hypocritical trolls.
Posted by: wintermute | December 1, 2006 12:02 PM
What if that's the origin of ritual?
It's not the only symptom of religion that could be explained as mental disorder. Hearing God talk to you? Schizophrenia.
Posted by: D. Rifkind | December 1, 2006 12:05 PM
"The objectivation is also getting old. What's sexy is the person behind the lumps of chest fat, and if you're judging sexiness by weighing how many pounds of swollen glandular tissue they have, you're falling into a rather superficial trap."
Indeed. Everyone knows that breasts are just surrogates anyway. You should have said "What's sexy is the person's behind." and just left it at that.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | December 1, 2006 12:10 PM
Chris Gruber:
Really? I heard we're all meat. Delicious meat...
Posted by: stogoe | December 1, 2006 12:11 PM
So we're delicious sculptures of meat?
Posted by: Stanton | December 1, 2006 12:25 PM
Turning this into a "but what about the men?" thread is no less obnoxious
Posted by: Frumious B | December 1, 2006 12:27 PM
"I could get into going to church... if it was all in Latin or some other language I didn't understand, and nobody asked me for money or expected me to hate on gays."
Yeah, that is why I like going to ceremonies at the local Theravada temple with my wife. I can't understand anything being said (other than the Three Jewels), but I enjoy the chanting.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | December 1, 2006 12:28 PM
Titties aren't sexy by themselves. It takes talent to wield them correctly.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | December 1, 2006 12:34 PM
Hmm. I don't *need* ritual, granted. But sometimes, for marking important things (like getting married, for example) I *like* ritual. I think if my husband-to-be and I had gotten up one morning, thrown on jeans and sweatshirts and stopped by the Justice of the Peace to sign the marriage license before getting breakfast, I'd feel a little let down. I can just imagine the Justice saying "Well... You're married. ... Um. Congratulations?"
Posted by: Cat Faber | December 1, 2006 12:47 PM
Since it's "Sod off, God" week, might we also say "sod off" to other vacuous terms like "patriarchy". The world of The Patriarchy, where everyone is cast in the role of either victim or victimizer, is nearly as mythical as God's kingdom in the clouds.
Posted by: Quickbeam | December 1, 2006 12:49 PM
...
...
I agree with PZ. Ritual is not routine (habit).
We all have habits, thousands of them. But the habit (routine) of getting up and having coffee every morning has no greater significance, no other meaning, than a conveniently set way of doing something.
I put on my right sock first, every time. This is not some quasi-religious observance, however. It's just habit, and it carries no significance. I slide under the same electric blanket every winter night, and it's always set to "4," but I inject no greater meaning into either practice.
Habit does not equal ritual. A ritual might have a large component of habit in it, but a habit doesn't have to have one tiny scrap of ritual in it.
... Just imagine the outrage if you told someone that attending Midnight Mass - the annual Christian RITUAL held at the stroke of midnight as Christmas Eve ticks into Christmas Day - was only a habit.
(In fact, religious or nationalistic rituals are probably specifically for the purpose of establishing in your target population certain unbreakable habits. Whereas habits need be no more than simple conveniences.)
...
Just FYI, seems to me that it's better to look at each different word as somehow separate in meaning from all the others. The separation might be a very minor nuance, but it's important to notice that nuance IF you want to convey something subtle.
If your approach is always "this word means exactly the same as that word," and you use them interchangeably, you cripple the ability of your language to convey subtle nuances. You cripple your own ability to SEE subtle differences between this idea and that.
To give you some idea of how much this matters, this is precisely what happens every time Christianists insist "Evolution is only a theory." They deliberately (I believe) collapse the diverse meanings of "theory" into the single "wild guess somebody came up with," and the result is that they are unable even to think about the obvious technical meaning. And they (and their victims) stupidly continue to misunderstand.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 1, 2006 12:55 PM
I bet IBTP really hated those birthday cakes and presents when she was a kid.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | December 1, 2006 1:08 PM
I thought ritual was primarily a socialization device.
Posted by: LA Confidential Pantload | December 1, 2006 1:16 PM
Each brand of religion is different. I don't remember much ritual about the Quakers except for sitting for an hour a week in silence.
But think of all the ritualization in the catholics - expecially the bit about pennance - saying so many hai mayy's or whatever as you count on your prayer beads. Clearly this religion was designed as a socially acceptable way to channel obsessive compulsives.
Posted by: old hippy | December 1, 2006 1:21 PM
God?
Evolution?
The God Delusion? Part 6
"The fact that Dawkins is serving as point man for a broad sense of outrage among scientists who want religion to stay out of the laboratory is admirable. But that is a social issue. The deeper issue is whether God has anything to offer to science. Dawkins emphatically thinks there is no practical use for God, the soul, transcendence, or any other so-called spiritual concept in his field, which is evolutionary biology."
"This brings us to another main point.
6. The evolution of life can be explained completely without intruding the notion of an intelligent designer."
"Dawkins falls prey, not to the delusion of God, but to the delusion of an all-mighty chance acting mindlessly through matter. He cannot admit the possibility of an ordering force in Nature. Therefore, he has no ability to discover the precursors of the human mind, which is ultimately the greatest triumph of evolutionary biology, not DNA. Until we have a credible explanation for mind, it's pointless to argue about God as if we understand what's at stake. Religion and science are both operating with incomplete concepts."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-god-delusion-part-6_b_35339.html
Also:
Technology and Religion by Deepak Chopra
Rustum Roy writes a letter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/technology-and-religion_b_35345.html
also at :
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/11/rustum_roys_let.html
a comment:
"This slight of Richard Dawkins and others, as contained in Dr. Roy's letter, cannot be a fair fight if Richard is not included in this debate to defend his position.
Perhaps, we should arrange to have a no-hold-bar telivision debate Between Dr. Chopra & Dr. Dawkins to settle this issue, once-for-all. It would certainly make for riveting viewing, don't you think?
Regards." Ron Saywack
A response:
"Dear Ron Saywack,
The interaction that you suggest between Deepak and Richard Dawkins has already been filmed by Channel 4 (UK) in Oxford. The television program has not been aired. After it is broadcast, we will be sure to post it on this site. Deepak has also invited Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic Magazine, to facilitate further interactions with Dr. Dawkins. Michael Shermer is currently working on this. We will keep you and other bloggers informed.
Warm regards,
Carolyn
Office of Deepak Chopra"
Posted by: ChopraFan | December 1, 2006 1:28 PM
I also agree the ritual is not routine, but it need not be motivated by any magic pixie dust either. Rituals are around us all the time and are part of the way we interact with our environment. It helps us move between the various spheres of our lives, to shift gears. For instance, a trip to the doctor's office is steeped in rituals that you do not even notice. Imagine meeting your urologist for a beer down at the pub and then doing the turn-your-head-and-cough routine. I must say that the whole waiting room, nurses, and medical ritual make me comfortable with the fact that a strange guy I just met is squeezing my balls. [Not that there is anything wrong with that. ;-)]
Posted by: Ukko | December 1, 2006 1:29 PM
I like a lot of rituals - just not religious or primarily religious ones. Graduations, weddings, retirement dinners, anniversary parties, Thansgiving dinners, etc. - they all have plenty of ritualistic elements. One thing that I think draws me to them is they call attention to the passage and nature of time - repeating patterns that shift and change over time. The same words and actions repeated at different times by different actors under different circumstances; once I wore that graduation gown and now my daughter does. There is something about that which is beautiful and resonant about that.
But watching a bunch of guys flounce around in lacy robes and pretend to create and then eat a magical guy's "flesh" and "blood"? - yeah, I can do without that.
Posted by: NickM | December 1, 2006 1:35 PM
ChopraFan, a sincere fan of Chopra would allow Chopra's self-humiliation to continue in the corner, without drawing the cruel judgment of people who have actually read Dawkins.
Posted by: llewelly | December 1, 2006 1:36 PM
PZ, you should have clipped the part about breasts from the original post. Then this discussion would have perhaps stayed on track.
Posted by: Ric | December 1, 2006 1:38 PM
"PZ, you should have clipped the part about breasts from the original post. Then this discussion would have perhaps stayed on track."
Yeah, the solution isn't to challenge sexism, but to refuse to include in our argumentation any challenge to relevant pet topics of the American patriarchy. Yay. That'll solve everything.
Posted by: Mandolin | December 1, 2006 1:52 PM
No reason to condemn all rituals. I'd like to have a ritual, say on every Wednesday at 3pm, where everyone stopped talking, reading, and writing for 10 minutes; all computer monitors, TV's and radios were turned off; and people just sat or walked in silence. It would be a time were everyone could just experience being alive without excess input. 10 minutes too scary? Okay, just give me 5.
I must protest! This would make listening to 4'33" superfluous!
Posted by: Belathor | December 1, 2006 1:53 PM
ritual does give a feeling of continuity, of being "part of the club". but the ritual itself needs to be flexible enough to accommodate changing needs (e.g. baby-welcoming ceremonies that don't involve cutting the baby's genitals).
people (most people) really enjoy shared experiences (it does go a long way to help people bond), particularly when those experiences are fun and well catered.
and studies have shown that people who attend a group meeting of some kind once a month survive life-threatening illnesses better. it's about having a feeling of community and having something to look forward to: but it doesn't matter if it's church or bowling (i would argue that the bowling would be better for your soul).
Posted by: Judy L. | December 1, 2006 1:55 PM
Skeptic Magazine, Mchael Shermer, Dawkins and Deepak Chopra
Comment by a skeptic and a response by Deepak Chopra reposted.
The God Delusion? Part 6
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/12/the_god_delusio_5.html
Comment:
"You are so unfair Deepak. Here we have Richard Dawkins, who happens to be the world's foremost evolutionary biologist, and you put the following garbage in his mouth:
Deepak: "Dawkins falls prey, not to the delusion of God, but to the delusion of an all-mighty chance acting mindlessly through matter. He cannot admit the possibility of an ordering force in Nature".
With this statement you show your unbelievable ignorance!" posted by Skeptisch
Response:
"Dear Skeptisch,
It is not important who is in whose camp. We are all expressing our point of view from what little we know. I think there is some validity in all points of view including those of our harshest critics. I have invited Michael Shermer, Editor and Chief of Skeptic Magazine, to engage in debate at Caltech and also Harvard Divinity School. Michael has very graciously accepted this invitation. As we finalize the dates, I will keep everyone posted. In any case, he and I are going to express our points of view in Skeptic Magazine. You should see something in the next two weeks in eskeptic (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/index.html).
Michael Shermer also invited Richard Dawkins to respond to a review of The God Delusion that I did for Skeptic Magazine. Michael replied,
"I still haven't heard back from my Caltech contact about availability of Beckman auditorium, but I just sent a reminder email requesting dates.
Deepak, Dawkins declined to respond to your review. He didn't offer a reason, just said he did not wish to respond.
Michael"
As I have mentioned in previous posts, Dawkins and I did have a very spirited exchange which has been filmed by Channel 4 (UK) and which I thoroughly enjoyed. We will post once it has been aired.
Skeptisch, I do enjoy reading your comments as they are extremely intelligent and do make one think. I am sure you are aware of the difference between skepticism and cynicism. Healthy skepticism and open-mindedness are essential ingredients for creativity. Michael Shermer is a good example of that. Cynicism and particularly closed-minded cynical mistrust is, on the other hand, quite unhealthy. In many studies it has been shown to be high risk factor for premature death from cardio-vascular disease.
Love,
Deepak"
Posted by: ChopraFan | December 1, 2006 1:57 PM
I think that, like Bach, ritual has been subsumed and co-opted by religions; they need not go together. Somebody mentioned Quakers as having a nearly ritual-free religion. I would point to a Grateful Dead concert as an example of a nearly religion-free ritual (an observation shared, I believe, with Joseph Campbell).
(and, by the way, many sizes & shapes of tits are sexy, and Van Morrison was once a genius, but not any more.)
Posted by: CCP | December 1, 2006 2:12 PM
Reading the book and Random Evolution.
A comment and a response reposted from:
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/12/the_god_delusio_5.html
"Once again, Deepak, you really ought to read the book before criticizing it. You make yourself sound foolish when you criticize Dawkins for saying something he doesn't say.
Do you know how many times in "The God Delusion" Dawkins states that the theory of natural selection is the exact opposite of chance? Yet you state that "Dawkins falls prey, not to the delusion of God, but to the delusion of an all-mighty chance acting mindlessly through matter."
This is the opposite of what Dawkins says. The opposite. Read the book." Mithch_Wilkers
"Dear Mitch_Wilkers,
I have read Dawkins' book. You will see the review in Skeptic Magazine soon. As to your point, natural selection is not random but mutations are, a point that Dawkins makes as well. For now I am going to stop commenting on these threads. I thank you for all your feedback. I intend to do a full post addressing all the points that have been raised on these boards. I will do so, however, after I have finished writing the complete series.
Love,
Deepak"
Posted by: ChopraFan | December 1, 2006 2:27 PM
Wait...how is "big tits are sexy" a patriarchal tool? They are! I think it's "small tits are not" that could be portrayed as a negative concept.
I like 'em pointy.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | December 1, 2006 2:50 PM
Keeping in mind that not all ritual is religious in nature - Do any of you really WANT to live in a society or world without ritual. Seems like a silly thing to rail against.
Posted by: dcwp | December 1, 2006 2:52 PM
people (most people) really enjoy shared experiences (it does go a long way to help people bond), particularly when those experiences are fun and well catered.
I am forever bonded to those souls with whom I shared the experience of using an overflowing port-o-let at Alpine Valley before a Grateful Dead concert.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | December 1, 2006 2:53 PM
Ritual:
"a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual )
"part of an established routine", 1 of 11 def's. ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=ritual )
But it makes more sense to emphasis the symbolic value.
...
Do I like rituals? That depends:
- Rituals that guides social context (handshakes, for example): Comforting, but not strictly necessary.
- Rituals that informs social context (weddings, for example): Informative, but not strictly necessary.
- Rituals that evokes mindless group behaviour (sportive, military or religious rituals): Why the need to be trained on participating in the weaker and more dangerous parts of the human condition?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | December 1, 2006 2:58 PM
No problem. As soon as you stop equating all expressions of physical attraction with "objectification."
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 1, 2006 3:01 PM
Hmm. But I also like to dance, and an active dance floor is also group behavior of sorts. Yikes, what am I doing with my spare time? :-)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | December 1, 2006 3:05 PM
So long as you are doing most of your dancing in rock'n'roll pizza parlors, Torbjorn, all will be forgiven.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | December 1, 2006 3:44 PM
Azkyroth:
As soon as you stop equating all expressions of physical attraction with "objectification."
I haven't seen anyone expression of physical attraction toward any person at all, just titties of various sizes, shapes and textures. I think that could be reasonably described as objectification.
Posted by: MissPrism | December 1, 2006 3:48 PM
Main Entry: 1rit·u·al
Pronunciation: 'ri-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'rich-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ritualis, from ritus rite
1 : of or relating to rites or a ritual : CEREMONIAL
2 : according to religious law
3 : done in accordance with social custom or normal protocol
- rit·u·al·ly adverb
Main Entry: 2ritual
Function: noun
1 : the established form for a ceremony; specifically : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony
2 a : ritual observance; specifically : a system of rites b : a ceremonial act or action c : an act or series of acts regularly repeated in a set precise manner
ain Entry: 1rou·tine
Pronunciation: rü-'tEn
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from route traveled way
1 a : a regular course of procedure b : habitual or mechanical performance of an established procedure
2 : a reiterated speech or formula
3 : a worked-out part (as of an entertainment or sports contest) that may be often repeated ; especially : a theatrical number
4 : a sequence of computer instructions for performing a particular task
Main Entry: 2rou·tine
Pronunciation: rü-'tEn, 'rü-"
Function: adjective
1 : of a commonplace or repetitious character : ORDINARY
2 : of, relating to, or being in accordance with established procedure
- rou·tine·ly adverb
from Merriam-Webster on-line
Always use a dictionary when debating the meaning of words!
Posted by: KevinC | December 1, 2006 3:56 PM
How many atheists celebrate Thanksgiving? I'll bet even militant feminish Matriarchists celebrate Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Caledonian | December 1, 2006 3:58 PM
Caledonian, I'm afraid you lose that bet.
Posted by: MissPrism | December 1, 2006 4:05 PM
On a serious note, mammals don't react at all well to being put in dangerous/painful situations that they can't respond to in some productive way. The responses don't necessarily have to be efficacious as long as they're some way of attempting to deal with the problem.
Intelligent, financially-well-off, educated people with a host of mental coping strategies and available methods to deal with problems probably don't need ritual. Poor, uneducated, ignorant people who have few resources available to them desperately need something to do about problems they can't affect or cope with properly - so they invented religion.
Posted by: Caledonian | December 1, 2006 4:16 PM
I meant my above comments in the same jokey tone as the IBTP poster-but c'mon, its just silly to pretend that physical features DON'T play a role in sexual attraction. Is it the only thing? Not at all. Is it a sufficient basis for a relationship? Of course not.
Posted by: Chris Thorpe | December 1, 2006 4:25 PM
"Intelligent, financially-well-off, educated people with a host of mental coping strategies and available methods to deal with problems probably don't need ritual."
You have obviously never been to a Thanksgiving weekend with my (ex) girlfriend's parents.
Posted by: Will E. | December 1, 2006 4:27 PM
It seems like a lot of this ritual discussion is related to which meaning of the word is being discussed. A ritual can be something that is compulsory for religious reasons, or something that one does repeatedly by choice or habit... To me, the key defining factor is that it's something that one does as a practice without thinking about the rationale each time one does it... or that one does repetitively as some sort of reminder of something it symbolizes. I think that in terms of animal behavior, it's often the case that a learned rote behavior that works for an animal is "comfortable" as an evolutionary mechanism which encourages animals to continue behaviors that have allowed them to be successful in their lives, as opposed to trying novel behaviors which might introduce more risk. Humans have expanded this behavior somewhat, but largely follow the same pattern that any animal that has learned, rather than hard-wired, behaviors will do. Of course, this leads to irrational or at least non-optimal behavior some of the time, but it's understandable why it's, on average, a desirable evolutionary trait, although I think it's found a balance with novelty, creativity, and the ability to develop responsive rather than habitual behaviors... it's the trade off between "do what's normal/expected" and "think for yourself," I guess.
Applying evolutionary biology arguments to the "big tits are sexy" discussion is left as a (beginner's level) exercise for the reader.
Posted by: Monty | December 1, 2006 4:41 PM
And then there's the approach whereby the well-off educated elite use ritual to subjugate the poor uneducated masses as one highly-effective "coping strategy"...
Posted by: Steviepinhead | December 1, 2006 4:55 PM
Ever seen dogs sniff each others butts and engage in heirarchical rituals? They're animals. We're people. Right?
Posted by: ompus | December 1, 2006 5:13 PM
Purely as an aside, interesting that IBTP would describe this year's election in the following manner:
"American voters had more or less socked it to the Bush regime doggie-style."
I guess some patriarchal metaphors (a rape fantasy, no less) are too good to pass up.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | December 1, 2006 5:50 PM
I think she meant that American voters repeatedly licked the Bush regime's face then barked a lot and ran back and forth across the kitchen floor like lunatics then barfed on the living room carpet. Metaphorically. Does everything have to be about sex, sex, sex? ;-)
Posted by: Kseniya | December 1, 2006 5:58 PM
"Does everything have to be about sex, sex, sex?"
Touché.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | December 1, 2006 6:11 PM
Since the number of men (or women, for that matter) who would find a disembodied (severed? x.x) pair of breasts arousing or attractive, while they (alarmingly) do seem to exist, is vanishingly small, I felt it reasonable to read this as a statement that "[All other things being equal, women with]big tits are [more] sexy [than those without them; meanwhile, men or squid with big tits are rather disturbing]." Yu object to people to the U.S. executive branch as "the White House," or to the stock market as "Wall Street?" It's not quite the same, I'll admit, but it's basically the same concept of shorthand.
The idea that "feminists" are more interested in arguing semantics than politics is an obnoxious and hateful stereotype (I can't be the only one who's noticed some people think that). It really shouldn't be fed...
It's even sillier that in many circles one can't acknowledge that physical features play a role in sexual attraction without having someone shove "and that's all that matters to me" in one's mouth and then bitch at one for it.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 1, 2006 7:02 PM
"Twisty is rolling in her grave "
If I were actually dead, no doubt I'd at least be twitching.
By the way, I didn't make it clear enough in my post, but when I wrote "ritual" I meant stuff like circumcisions, wakes, bachelor parties, and any other kind of culturally-mandated ceremonial behavior that can reliably be predicted to be practiced on the relevant occasions. Morning coffee, which some have proposed to define as ritual, is just a habit.
Here's how you tell the difference: rituals always include guilt and pressure to conform. Like the psych-out that occurs when you call and tell your mom you're not coming home for Xmas. On the other hand, only the most psychotic mothers throw a guilt fit if you call and say, "sorry Mom, but I'm just not going to use the Krups with the Melitta filters to make my morning coffee anymore. In fact, I'm thinking of switching to midmorning pomegranate smoothies. You and Papa and Tiny Tim will just have to soldier on without me."
Posted by: Twisty | December 1, 2006 7:53 PM
Stevepinhead, I'm usually clubbing since I like to move my body. But if nurse Bettinke shows up I may make an exception!
Post