…and this is a 
Facebook is a Mecca for sin
Category: Religion
Posted on: March 31, 2008 3:12 PM, by PZ Myers
What an awful story: a young woman is murdered by her own father for online chatting.
A woman was beaten up and shot dead by her father for talking online with a man she met on the website Facebook. The case was reported on a Saudi Arabian news site as an example of the "strife" the social networking site is causing in the Islamic nation.
I don't think it's a web page causing the strife: I think it's a hateful cockamamie belief system. Don't blame our openness for your derangement, or our tolerance for your daughter-slaughtering monsters.
A leading Saudi preacher told Al-Arabiya.net that Facebook was a "door to lust" for women and called for it to be blocked to prevent social "strife".
Everyone is rushing to sign up for a facebook account right now, aren't you? Go ahead, I'll be your friend. Just don't look at my photo section if you're afraid of that "door to lust".
Comments
I'll be your friend as long as you don't spam me with invites to all the drink-sharing apps I know you use, PZ.
Posted by: Jer | March 31, 2008 3:16 PM
ironically i signed myself up for a "face" "book" only yesterday. i didn't realise it was such a den of iniquity...
Posted by: alex | March 31, 2008 3:19 PM
Be careful what you wish for, PZ. I've just sent you a friend request.
Posted by: Matt | March 31, 2008 3:20 PM
I'm sick of these countries and their retarded sexist laws inspired by religion deviancies!! Why should it be forbidden for a woman to speak with a FUCKING GUY? We're all humans! We all have the same rights, and that includes being able to speak with each other!
Bastards. Absolute bastards. I can't believe they think the dad was right and the daughter was sinful. They think that CHATTING with someone of a different sex is worse than MURDER?!
Posted by: Michelle | March 31, 2008 3:22 PM
OK, the Minneapolis/St Paul network? You're in Morriss! Celebrate it!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 31, 2008 3:22 PM
Why is it any "system" religious or digital. Why isn't just another chick hating dude? Why do we as a community continually use language that absolves men of their behavior?
Posted by: Unspeakably Violent Jane | March 31, 2008 3:24 PM
I feel a certain temptation to sign up for facebook and friend request PZ Myers just so I can brag about "my friend PZ", but should probably resist, given the number of requests he's going to get after this.
Yuck. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst in terms of oppression. They make Iraq under Saddam Hussein look enlightened and liberal. Oh, but they're are best friends, so there's no need to get all upset about it.
Posted by: Dianne | March 31, 2008 3:26 PM
That's nothing,she's lucky to have such a god fearing, pious moral father, it could have been a lot worse, he could have been one of those evil, amoral godless atheists, just think how worse off she would be...er sorry would have been.
Posted by: Tony J | March 31, 2008 3:28 PM
If anything, the Saudi fathers will link to your photo section, sending their daughters screaming in horror and effectively shutting that pesky "door of lust" forever.
Posted by: forsen | March 31, 2008 3:29 PM
OT sort of
Here's another fun religious story about a kid that died because his parent's decided to pray instead of seek medical help.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 31, 2008 3:32 PM
#6,
I understand your outrage, but I think there's room to individually target this particular man as a misogynistic murderer AND to place it within the context of a belief system that encourages misogynistic murderousness. No one is trying to absolve him of anything. Explanation and absolution are very different things.
Posted by: Mike P | March 31, 2008 3:33 PM
Unspeakably Violent Jane (I just had to retype that unspeakably brilliant name) asks, "Why do we as a community continually use language that absolves men of their behavior?" And I have to admit it's a point I've never thought of before. On the one hand it makes sense to try and contextualize such sick behavior, to try and find a reason for it. On the other hand, what good does it do to say "that's just what they believe" or even "that's just the way they are"? Whatever this guy's belief system is it doesn't change the fact that he chose to murder his own daughter.
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | March 31, 2008 3:35 PM
Actually, let me clarify. No one here is trying to absolve him.
Posted by: Mike P | March 31, 2008 3:36 PM
@BigDumbChimp #10: Oh no, not christian scientists again... These are truly a plague of murderers. I pity the children stuck in their fanatic cult.
Posted by: Michelle | March 31, 2008 3:36 PM
It's stories like this that make me want to hold an International Fuck-In Against Religious Bullshit.
Posted by: Rebecca Watson | March 31, 2008 3:38 PM
*raises hand
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 31, 2008 3:39 PM
I called him a "daughter-slaughtering monster"! I don't think that absolves him in any way, does it?
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 31, 2008 3:39 PM
You'd could simplify it to that level if you'd like, but that would be ignoring a large portion of the motive behind it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 31, 2008 3:45 PM
It's stories like this that make me want to hold an International Fuck-In Against Religious Bullshit.
As the anonymous authors of the pamphlet Queers Read This wrote:
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 31, 2008 3:45 PM
Is this guy going to get the death penalty, then?
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | March 31, 2008 3:54 PM
Translation: religion is evil, and won't survive in the light of day much longer.
hooray.
The internet will save us from religion.
Hurry up, internet.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | March 31, 2008 3:58 PM
meanwhile, things ain't much better here. one of the morning shows this weekend aired yet another story about the death of a diabetic teenage girl whose parents would only treat her condition with prayer.
Posted by: dr.filbert | March 31, 2008 3:58 PM
This is what happens when the birth canals of women are signed off to power-hungry men controlling the consciences and intellects of human beings.
Oddly enough a straight-between-the-eyes quote from Governor Ventura was visible alongside this story snippet. Religioin is a "sham and a crutch" indeed. Unfortunately it's also a weapon.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 31, 2008 4:02 PM
While I find it absurd of Saudi Arabia to blame Facebook for the murder I find it even more absurd to blame "their" religion. This kind of crap happens all the time in the U.S. The number one killer of women in the united states is a close male relative or lover/spouse ex-lover/spouse. Islam certainly blaes things that we, on this blog, doesn't, but the U.S. does the same crap every time some nutjob guy takes a gun and shoots up a school. The media and politicians blame it on videogames or violent movies or whatever. Never on the misogyny in our society.
I mean, if it were really facebook at fault then wouldn't we see women killing men just as often? Even if it were Islam or Christianity, there are as many female muslims as male muslims, so why don't we see them offing women who break boundaries? Because it's the misogyny, not the religion.
Posted by: coathangrrr | March 31, 2008 4:03 PM
Is this guy going to get the death penalty, then?
I bet he gets off scot free. It's not like he named a teddy bear "mohammed" or drew a cartoon or anything - it was just a girl.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 31, 2008 4:04 PM
The problem is with the Wahabbi sect of Islam that dominates and controls Saudi Arabia. Even though the Quranic instruction on the veil only applied to Mohammed's wives, Saudi Muslims (and other Muslims, too) have applied it to all Muslim women. Segregation of the sexes doesn't have any Quranic basis either, as during the life of Mohammed men and women mixed freely and worshipped together.
According to the Quran, any murder of any person for any reason is considered to be like murdering the entire human race. Those who carry out the murder of their daughters, wives or mothers cannot hide behind Islam.
(Full disclosure: I am not a Muslim, but I have engaged in a long-term study of Islam ever since 9/11. Much of what is done "in the name of Islam" is actually contrary to what the Quran teaches. Terrorism and "honor killings" are in fact prohibited by Allah in the Quran.)
Posted by: Jonathon | March 31, 2008 4:07 PM
This kind of crap happens all the time in the U.S. The number one killer of women in the united states is a close male relative or lover/spouse ex-lover/spouse.
That's a ridiculous comparison. The difference is that in the U.S., these things are *condemned* by law, and the father would be punished. There are still all kinds of ways that women are marginalized in the U.S., but this is not one of them.
I can't even tell you how sick this whole thing makes me... and the worst part is that there's no accountability, because the Saudis are our best buddies.
Posted by: Lise | March 31, 2008 4:10 PM
#24,
The difference is that this asshole did it under the guise of religion. The reason that you don't see too many females participating in these honor killings is that the duty, traditionally, falls to the father or brothers. You're absolutely right in calling this a case of misogyny, but it's misogyny bred in large part by religious edicts.
Posted by: Mike P | March 31, 2008 4:12 PM
I mean, if it were really facebook at fault then wouldn't we see women killing men just as often? Even if it were Islam or Christianity, there are as many female muslims as male muslims, so why don't we see them offing women who break boundaries? Because it's the misogyny, not the religion.
Hi coathangrrr, you may be interested in reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel, in which she makes it incredibly clear how religion (in her case, Islam) is used to justify male dominance and keep women frightened and oppressed.
I think I'm missing your point in regards to there being as many female muslims as male. We DO see them offing women who break boundaries, like in the case reported above.
Posted by: Rebecca Watson | March 31, 2008 4:13 PM
coathan #24 said,
Compare the number of people in the world who get away with what they do when their justification is 'misogyny' with those who get away with what they do when their justification is 'religion'.
After you do that, come back if you're still confused about why people focus on the excuse from religion...
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | March 31, 2008 4:13 PM
A Christian was once trying to persuade me that God must exist because otherwise we could not explain our consciences. There is a 'voice' or impulse which tells us that we should not do what we want to do, or should do what we don't want to do. Since it goes against what we want, it can't be our will. It must be God's (very CS Lewis).
I said, okay. So a young man in Iran finds out his sister has been secretly talking to one of the other boys at school. He is weak -- he loves his sister, and wants to ignore it. But his conscience won't let him. That would be wrong. His sister has violated her honor, and that of her family, and therefore deserves to die. It is not what he wants -- but the voice of conscience is telling him that this is what he must do. It is what he knows from his family, his community, his religion, and -- above all -- his God. So he goes against HIS wishes, and does what is right, instead. He kills her.
Does his conscience point to the existence of a God inspiring us towards a Good above selfish desires?
As I recall, he shifted the subject. Whenever they want to talk about the Moral Voice Within us which infallibly points to God, they don't use this kind of example.
Posted by: Sastra | March 31, 2008 4:14 PM
Cann't this 8th century camelf**** simply install a parent-lock or a firewall or something ? Oh, wait. I see.
And this is not some hate mongering extremist. Just your average Allah-loving/fearing Mo. So, who can say: "My Islam is not like that." ?
Honour killings happen in the Muslim communities in Western Europe too.
Maybe I should watch Fitna after all. (Nah, I want to remain civilized, but what can one do ?)
Posted by: Vadjong | March 31, 2008 4:16 PM
Coathangrr,
"Because it's the misogyny, not the religion."
Is misoginy natural ? Or is the product of education ? Does Islam encourage it or combats it ? Do some religions, or at least the way they are taught make it "morally acceptable", or even "morally required" ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | March 31, 2008 4:16 PM
#32
You're not helping.
Posted by: Mike P | March 31, 2008 4:18 PM
"It's stories like this that make me want to hold an International Fuck-In Against Religious Bullshit."
I obey without question.
Posted by: vlad | March 31, 2008 4:27 PM
Those poor women folk just can't resist the raw sex appeal of facebook users. Their uncontrollable lust leads them to such perversions as online chatting with a member of the opposite sex. The internet would be completely free of lust and sex if we could just get rid of facebook.
Posted by: Jim RL | March 31, 2008 4:30 PM
#24,
a comment and a question:The comment: I think others here have amply demonstrated that it is BOTH misogyny and the religion because that particular religion is misogynistic.
The question: do you have data to back up the claim that the number 1 killer of women in the US is men? I don't know the answer but I'm curious if this was an off-the-cuff remark or a substantive claim. I would have thought the number one cause would have been heart disease, breast cancer, or car accidents rather than homicide, given the rarity of homicides.
Posted by: c-serpent | March 31, 2008 4:30 PM
"Because it's the misogyny, not the religion." Religion is a construct of humans so if the religion is misogynistic the founders or current rulers are misogynistic. Can it be argued that Islam was hijacked by misogynistic extremists and twisted out of character with it's origins. Absolute and unquestioning obedience of your leaders makes this misdirection not only easy but almost a certainty.
Posted by: vlad | March 31, 2008 4:32 PM
Facebook is dangerous. The game Prolific on Facebook has ruined my life.
Posted by: craig | March 31, 2008 4:36 PM
One anthem of the latter days of the cold war was Sting's 'Russians'
Unfortunately this only works with atheists. If you really believe in afterlife rewards, then killing your children along with everyone else is an expression of love.
God help us, because His believers won't
Anyone...
Anyone...
Anyone...
Posted by: Quidam | March 31, 2008 4:37 PM
I once estimated that about 50% of human misery was caused by humans. Now i have it around 90%. Do you think maybe thats too low though?
Posted by: Richard Eis | March 31, 2008 4:38 PM
A decade ago the state thought 20 kids had died of medical neglect. By now it must be another 10 or 20.
They all need Darwin awards for being stupid.
1. Either god is mad at them and killing their kids right and left and they should go see doctors instead or...
2. Faith healing doesn't work.
Posted by: raven | March 31, 2008 4:38 PM
"Religion is a construct of humans so if the religion is misogynistic the founders or current rulers are misogynistic. Can it be argued that Islam was hijacked by misogynistic extremists and twisted out of character with it's origins."
Religion being hijacked by misogynists is like a tractor trailer being hijacked by a a pot-bellied guy in a stained wife-beater and a greasy yellow "Cat" baseball cap.
Posted by: craig | March 31, 2008 4:38 PM
#38
I think absolutely you can, but then it becomes a self-perpetuating form of misogyny. The religion was indeed hijacked a while ago by a deeply conservative sect, of which misogyny played a strong role. Then as people grow up with this belief system, it's much harder to blame "pure" misogyny or "pure" religious influence. They're culturally blended. There's no way of telling whether someone would have been a misogynist no matter what or if they became misogynistic as a result of the religion.
Posted by: Mike P | March 31, 2008 4:40 PM
Is this guy going to get the death penalty, then?
The closest we'll get is probably issuing an atheist fatwa....which holds the promise of severely rude treatment, outspoken dislike and wall-to-wall frowning if he shows up on our doorstep. Sigh.
I'm reminded of the term "Honor-garbage", coined by the Karate Kid.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | March 31, 2008 4:43 PM
The question: do you have data to back up the claim that the number 1 killer of women in the US is men?
Just to clarify I mean killed by other people, not compared to car wrecks or the like.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/dv4cont.htm
Posted by: coathangrrr | March 31, 2008 4:45 PM
Michelle,
Why should it be forbidden for a woman to speak with a FUCKING GUY?
Because it distracts the guy from his fucking.
---------
PZ, you are going to have a busy day with all the friend requests.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 31, 2008 4:46 PM
My solution to the Moslem medieval woman problem:
Open borders. Right to choose. Let the women who want out, run to the west or east for that matter where they are considered full human beings.
Islam would collapse in a generation due to population replacement failure but a lot of cute boys would get a lot of attention in the meantime.
Fantasy I know. It would work if only we could figure out how to put the bell on the cat.
Posted by: raven | March 31, 2008 4:46 PM
"Religion being hijacked by misogynists is like a tractor trailer being hijacked by a a pot-bellied guy in a stained wife-beater and a greasy yellow "Cat" baseball cap." Any system that requires blind obedience is way too tempting for the power hungry to pass up. The whole concept may (big if) have been noble at the start but the system begs for corruption and power hunger.
#44 I don't think anyone is born a misogynist or any kind of bigot. A society which does not have a misogynistic feel to it will not embrace Islam, not the fundy version of it.
Posted by: vlad | March 31, 2008 4:51 PM
C-serpent:
You make a good point. Of course the number one killer of women is not men. That is, well, silly. Is that kind of silliness allowed on a blog dedicated to "factual" truth? Seems to me it is inconsistent with the spirit of the blog. Wait, I said spirit. Sorry. Not allowed either.
All men are morons because I say so. That's the end of it. Period. Ah, dogma. It is everywhere. Like oxygen, just fills up space and makes life worth living. Isn't it wonderful? After all, what would we do without it? Wait, we could invent something called science (truth by verification) and play pretend we have no dogma, thereby making religion the ultimate bogey man and voila, immunity from all attacks on dogma... Perfection. I'm gonna try that. Oh wait, the boys of the enlightenment already did, and it worked. To the future!
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 4:53 PM
Murder is nowhere near the number one cause of death among women, much less murder by males. CDC data from 2004 shows a death rate via homicide in women at 2.5 per 100,000, out of an overall death rate of 815.4 per 100,000. By contrast, suicide is 4.6, unintentional injuries ("accidents") is 26.8, and cardiovascular diseases are 304.9. Murder, while terrible, is just a tiny fraction of female deaths.
Posted by: Tulse | March 31, 2008 4:55 PM
Time to clog up PZ's friend list. For great strife!
Posted by: Randy Edwards | March 31, 2008 4:57 PM
coathangrrr (#46) mused,
Well, if you're going to be that tightly selective...
I have a question, too: If I were to find a study that shows the number 1 killer of men by other humans was men, would you still call the phenomenon misogyny?
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | March 31, 2008 5:00 PM
The question: do you have data to back up the claim that the number 1 killer of women in the US is men?
Just to clarify I mean killed by other people, not compared to car wrecks or the like.
Thing is, I expect that the #1 killer of anybody/group is men. So unless you narrow that classification somewhat, I don't think it means very much.
That is, this is a MUCH more meaningful statistic:
Posted by: SteveM | March 31, 2008 5:01 PM
I find it completely unsurprising that more women are killed by men than by women, since men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of homicide -- more men are killed by men than by women. That women are killed disproportionally by men doesn't say anything about misogyny, but about the generally violent nature of males. (That is not to say that misogyny is not real, merely that these data don't provide any evidence for it.)
Posted by: Tulse | March 31, 2008 5:01 PM
"Wait, we could invent something called science (truth by verification) and play pretend we have no dogma, thereby making religion the ultimate bogey man and voila, immunity from all attacks on dogma... Perfection." As opposed to a faith that is millennium old based on a book that as a minimum was creatively edited by man multiple time, written by god is still very much up for debate. Then add in mandatory unquestioning obedience and fear mongering, but science is the bastard? You can read that coathangrrr's assertions are being questioned and refuted. Doing the same with a priest and the bible is a hell worth trespass and will get you heretic status immediately.
Posted by: vlad | March 31, 2008 5:06 PM
Face Book doesn't believe my last name is Kisser and so won't let me sign up. Den of sin, my ass!
Posted by: Keith | March 31, 2008 5:09 PM
Yikes. That facebook link has been sitting on my sidebar forever, so I didn't think mentioning it in the post would have this effect -- I've added a few hundred new facebook friends today.
Wait until your fathers find out who you've been talking to!
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 31, 2008 5:10 PM
Vlad:
Fair enough, but who told you that the search for God demands unquestioned obedience? You mean like the obedience demanded by the physics teacher in order that his student understands physics...? Because, yes, that is required for any field, anytime. But like a scientist, most searchers for God obey their conscience in the end... that is the very definition of faith after all. Check out Dostoevsky (as I bet you already have). Top notch on freedom, is he. Freedom is the center of his system for understanding the world. Brilliant.
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 5:12 PM
Just a warning if you're not familiar with the Daily Mail: they're a touch xenophobic, so it's unlikely to be an unbiased account that you're getting...
See MailWatch to get some idea of what they get up to.
Posted by: Phil Bull | March 31, 2008 5:17 PM
PZ, I promise that I won't look at your photos because you are so cute that I'm sure I would instantly descend into uncontrollable lust.
Posted by: bigjohn756 | March 31, 2008 5:18 PM
"Fair enough, but who told you that the search for God demands unquestioned obedience?" You said religion not god. Had you have attacked painting the belief in a supreme being I would not have made the comment.
"hereby making religion the ultimate bogey man and voila, immunity from all attacks on dogma" While atheists may look oddly on those who believe in a higher power (even at agnostics) until one demands that they believe as you do (religion) I don't see any hostility. Now when one demand that they bend to the will of your god (your will given credence through religion) the shit hits the fan and rightfully so.
Posted by: vlad | March 31, 2008 5:24 PM
"You mean like the obedience demanded by the physics teacher in order that his student understands physics...?" Are you saying that gravity or any observed occurance can some how be tied into obedience? Now I'm just curious, how so?
Posted by: vlad | March 31, 2008 5:30 PM
In regards to the International Fuck-In Against Religious Bullshit - let's not forget to hand out free condoms to all the participants!
I am totally on that.
Posted by: Seamyst | March 31, 2008 5:31 PM
vlad:
but when an education system demands that certain dogma be taught (evolution or in a catholic school, the immaculate conception) isn't it making you "bend to your will?" (as you say) In fact, isn't that whole point of our pluralistic society, getting the most number of people to see it as you do, thereby bending them to your will? Just because it's not violent isn't it still coercive in a sense? That is politics... and science is hardly free from the practice of making people bend. Yes, "religion" if that's what you want to call it has done some historically violent bending of will, but how is that different from not allowing creationism to be taught in public schools? Doesn't that bend wills?
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 5:32 PM
I have a question, too: If I were to find a study that shows the number 1 killer of men by other humans was men, would you still call the phenomenon misogyny?
Do you know what misogyny means?
Thing is, I expect that the #1 killer of anybody/group is men. So unless you narrow that classification somewhat, I don't think it means very much.
The point is not just that they are killed by men, but that they are killed by men close to them. But I'd say that the near monopoly on violence that men have in our society certainly plays a part in continuing a system that craps on women. My point was mainly that we have this exact same problem, men killing daughters and wives and girlfriends, and we have a different religion. I agree with the above statement about religions being hijacked by fat guys with trucker hats, er, or something like that. Every religion out there, with the possible exception of Wicca, perpetuates the oppression of women in its "real" form.
Posted by: coathangrrr | March 31, 2008 5:32 PM
#34 : Here is someone who isn't helping, either :
http://patcondell.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=323191
Posted by: Vadjong | March 31, 2008 5:34 PM
In regards to the International Fuck-In Against Religious Bullshit - let's not forget to hand out free condoms to all the participants!
Don't forget the lube!!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 31, 2008 5:34 PM
Bill, while you may be correct about the way in which certain physics teachers may teach physics, at the end of the day, if you're willing to bother, you can always go out and do every experiment in physics on your own, there is no need to bend any will. You're going to have some trouble replicating some of the modern experiments but almost all the basic stuff is something anyone can check for themselves.
Another more philosophical point is that at the end of the process of studying physics you are expected to know as much as your teacher. That's rarely expected to be the case for religious leaders, i.e. no expects you to study the bible and be a greater person then jesus christ.
Posted by: Coriolis | March 31, 2008 5:46 PM
i admit to knowing ZIPOLA about "Facebook," "Friendster," "Buttpamphlet" or any other social networking site, but the very existence of a link called "Poke him" is somewhat scandalous!
Posted by: cory | March 31, 2008 5:48 PM
nope. changing someone's opinion with evidence or logic is hardly "bending them"
and here's a great example -- i've just made an observation that counters your point. you are free to decide for yourself whether my observation is accurate. no "bending" required
cheers
Posted by: skyotter | March 31, 2008 5:49 PM
"isn't it making you "bend to your will?" (as you say) In fact, isn't that whole point of our pluralistic society, getting the most number of people to see it as you do, thereby bending them to your will?" That depends. Are you showing me some concrete evidence and then asking me to make an interpretation? Then see if I agree with your interpretation of said findings? Then no. If the ID group was all for teaching all of the various origin concepts from the Greek to Native American. Then pointing out that evolution is the only one that has evidence that can be observed (fossil records that show gradual changes) I could understand that, still not legitimate in my mind.
Posted by: vlad | March 31, 2008 5:49 PM
Well, I befriended you on facebook before seeing this sad article.
Loving the man-boob action, by the way.
Haaawwwwttt
Posted by: Emily | March 31, 2008 5:53 PM
#15
I'd be happy to lend a hand.
Posted by: Onan the Barbarian | March 31, 2008 5:58 PM
Vlad and Coriolis:
Wait, wait. The way you give way to the idea that "concrete evidence" is solely the purview of science speaks to your predilections. Isn't the monk who teaches a doctrine (let's say the idea that truth is revealed) in such a way that people choose to follow doing something just as valid as a physics teacher who teaches gravity in a way that get people to follow. Why does our education system preclude the teaching of asceticism, let's say, in favor of "concrete evidence"? Because the premise (facts are found through the scientific method) is believed by the plurality. Fine, but no different than the Catholic Church "forcing" catechism on students all across Latin America. Each "church" is protecting what it believes to be True. Science, the church of rationalism, cannot claim to be outside this. It isn't. We protect what we believe in, and that is good. But scientist believe in their method the same way monks believe in theirs. I believe.
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 6:05 PM
coathan (#66) charged,
More to the point, do you?
You are, after all, using statistical facts to argue a conclusion that does not come from those facts (and yes, that does include the statistical fact of spousal distribution of violence).
Your hostility to the questions that people raise about how you drew your conclusions is entirely mis-directed. Personally, I think there is a strong undercurrent of misogynistic attitudes in our society, but I don't think they are corroborated with a statistic of what sex kills women the most.
What I think would be more useful is a statistic of what people report as the motivation to violence, which brings us back to your original (inane) comment.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | March 31, 2008 6:27 PM
Bill, the scientist has evidence, while the monk has faith (which can only exist in the lack of evidence).
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 31, 2008 6:29 PM
Romanian Atheists are anxiously waiting for Fitna 2.0
This piece of news is sure to be included!
Posted by: TLP | March 31, 2008 6:43 PM
No. Science is the search for falsehood by falsification.
Go learn what science is, and then come back.
But how does he do that? By just telling people that's how it is?
No.
By demonstrating it in front of their eyes.
We actually did the experiment in school: we repeated the discovery that the distance a falling object covers increases with the square of the time for which it has fallen. We went to the staircase, dropped stuff, and measured.
Nothing remotely comparable exists in religion. ("Religion" in the widest sense here, including ideologies like communism.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 31, 2008 6:44 PM
bill #75 wrote:
No, the difference between the reliability of conclusions arrived at through the scientific method and conclusions arrived at through 'asceticism' (or meditation or revelation) is not just a matter of which one happens to have the power to force their "truth" on a culture. It has to do with how open the methods are, how level the playing field is, and whether they can be checked and changed given new evidence.
Monks can sit and "discover" all sorts of truths about spiritual realms which conflict with other "truths" discovered the same way. Which monk you believe is going to be arbitrary, a matter of personal taste or perhaps how you have been raised. You need to trust and believe. Trust the monk. Trust yourself. Trust the revelation. It strives after affirming the subjective, and seeking certainties.
Science doesn't want you to trust yourself, or anyone, just as a matter of principle. It starts off with the assumption that the universe doesn't play favorites, and that our biases can lead us astray. The methods strive towards maintaining objectivity, and keeping the possibility of error and change open. Even conclusions arrived at through the scientific method can still be overthrown by good evidence that a monk got it right through an ascetic vision.
Frankly, I don't think this relativistic, postmodern approach will work for Creationism. It is too easy to affirm all truths equally, and none in particular. That, or descend into the sort of fascism you seem to be concerned about.
"From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable." (Mussolini)
Posted by: Sastra | March 31, 2008 6:52 PM
Bill, science is not actually about finding "facts", nor is it about finding Truth with a capital T, although I'll admit that especially we physicists sometimes get carried away hehe. One, among many difference between science and religion is that all scientific "truths", or theories as they are usually called are either expected to be changed or found incomplete eventually. Newton's theories of motion and gravity were found to be just a special case of general relativity which was found by Einstein, people are now looking for something to connect general relativity and quantum mechanics, etc. etc.
Scientists are researchers, while they do have to learn all the previous theories (the "dogma" if you want to call it that), the actual goal is always to improve, change, or completely discredit previous theories, not to reinforce them. The equivalent would be if every priest or imam was interested in writing a better bible or better quran. That's not exactly what they are trying to do are they?
Of course teachers, especially at a high school level may not be getting that point across to their students but that is what science is about. One reason I would be really pissed off at creationism if I was a biologist would be the degree to which any type of tinkering or legitimate questioning of something related to evolution can (and often is) be twisted to "be in support of creationism". Having to mind what you're saying as a scientist or having the annoyance of some idiot completely twisting your words is probably what leads to the (I think fully justified) uncompromising attitude of biologists towards creationist crap.
Posted by: Coriolis | March 31, 2008 6:55 PM
Interesting. But it doesn't really surprise he said that (apparently) about himself.
Wer Jude ist, bestimme ich.
"I'm the one who gets to decide who's a Jew."
-- Hermann Göring.
A good example is what molecular biologists actually call the Central Dogma: "DNA makes RNA makes protein" -- DNA serves as the template for the production of RNA, and RNA serves as the template for the production of protein, so that "information flows" from DNA to RNA to protein but never in the other direction; also, DNA can be replicated (made on a DNA template), but RNA and protein can't be. It's wrong. There is an enzyme called reverse transcriptase that makes DNA from an RNA template -- it's very common, all retroviruses and retrotransposons use it, hence their names --, then there's RNA replication (RNA made on an RNA template) in plants and lots of viruses, and even a self-replicating protein has been discovered. It wasn't a dogma, it was a hypothesis, and the finding that it is (in some cases) wrong led to greater understanding of why it is right in so many cases.
Exactly.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 31, 2008 7:21 PM
David:
Okay, but you've just told me what science is, why do I have to go and come back? There are so many mountains to climb that I wonder if your system is really as accessible as you say it is. I mean in historical terms, it played no part for the most part of, well, forever. But now I guess we moderns have access to the truth, or as you say, falsehoods through falsification. Which begs another question: If all things are just waiting to be falsified, doesn't that mean nothing is true in and of itself? Which is cool with me, but it does tend to be the most new age of all new ageisms around... total relativity. All things equally false... including the very foundations of science (or does the scientific method escape this, miraculously?). Which again, I get. But you just wouldn't know how fragile all of this is by the way people talk on this blog. They seem so sure of themselves, wouldn't you agree? Idiot this, idiot that, stupidity this, stupidity that... weird from so many folks just waiting to declaim the very truths (little t,mind you) on which they so heroically stand. Shouldn't all of these falsifiers be a little, well, less sure of themselves?
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 7:24 PM
Bill:
I can't decide whether you are being obtuse or pedantic.
Posted by: Vitis01 | March 31, 2008 7:28 PM
to 84...
Probably pedantic... sorry. But I do mean what I say. Why so much assurance from a community of folks always, as David says, out to falsify the falsehood? I mean that's a lot of sand on which to build such a loud boisterous house. It makes me think that you guys are, in fact, pretty sure about something... like your METHODS. You believe in your method beyond all else, and that belief is, well, a belief. Not unlike the monks. Unverifiable in and of itself. I mean, you don't believe you can verify the scientific method do you? You can only say it works for you... again like the monk who practices asceticism. Come on, I know you can see this. Again, I say verify the method, not trust it, but VERIFY IT. It would take another method to do this, and that's why so many scientists are out to "test" religious practice.. they know they won't stand up to their tests. And they don't, but that "proves" nothing. But I've got to go. It's been a pleasure. Corialis is intersting, at least to me. DM, not so much. Peace.
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 7:35 PM