…and this is a 
Madness? This is America!
Category: Creationism • Politics
Posted on: May 15, 2008 8:41 AM, by PZ Myers
Today is this semester's last final exam, and this is the last big push of the semester, so I'm going to be mired in work for most of the day…but once I level the administrative mountain, I've got some new squid science to share. Until then, you'll just have to chew over some of the usual American lunacy for a while.
Obama is gearing up to drape himself with Christian trappings. This will not make me happy. I'm planning to vote for him, but if he turns into yet another Christianist airhead, I will not be campaigning for him.
The reason Obama can't lose my vote but can lose my enthusiasm is that the Republicans are just plain evil. Rumsfeld was saying the country needed another terrorist attack to keep the Democrats out of office? What a monster.
David Brooks thinks "science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other", and that the future belongs to a fusion of science and Buddhism. David Brooks knows nothing of science. How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?
UC Berkeley is going to court this week over their Understanding Evolution web site (that's an excellent resource, by the way, especially if you're just trying to get up to speed on the science). At issue is the fact that the site dares to point out that some religions contradict the evidence, and other religions try to avoid conflict with science; that is interpreted to be a sectarian endorsement of certain religions over others. This is where separation of church and state becomes insane: when you are not allowed to point out obvious idiocies because they are protected religious beliefs. Here's the offending section: I think it's pretty namby-pamby and bends over backwards to give deference to superstitious nonsense, but some people are apparently irate over a simple, accurate truth statement: "some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science". They do, but a university isn't allowed to say so?
Now I unplug myself from the intertubes for a few hours and focus, focus, focus on a pile of stuff most of you will never see.
Comments
I read the piece by David Brooks yesterday, and while I disagree with his take, I think there is some very interesting things in the intersection of Buddhism and Science.
I'm currently reading this book on the subject, and I highly recommend it. It gets rid of all the superstitious bullshit in Buddhism, and focuses on what real science has to say about it all. If you're interested in the subject at all, this is definitely the book to get.
The great thing about buddhism is that you can get rid of all the bullshit, and still have something that's pretty great. When you have no Karma, no Reincarnations, no chants to the green tara, no mystical word / sound sequences, you still have the great meditation and introspective traditions that are highly valuable.
Although, my study of Buddhism is certainly akin to when other people knit ;)
Posted by: Josh Charles | May 15, 2008 9:00 AM
Bad news. Obama's voting record is so close to Hillary's as makes no difference. But he does have a better PR team. So there ya go...
Posted by: AlanSmithee | May 15, 2008 9:01 AM
"some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science"
I would be surprised/outraged if this simple statement of truth is considered a breach of the Establishment Clause. There's just no case for it. What part of the 1st Amendment (or the Constitution proper) suggests that the government prefer religions that are more easily reconciled with science over those that are not?
I mean, some of us would probably like it if the government did take such a position, but nevertheless the government can do no such thing. So the fact that someone is pointing out that some religions are more reconcilable with science than others violates no law whatsoever.
Irreducible Absurdity in action.
Posted by: DSKS | May 15, 2008 9:01 AM
"some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science". They do, but a university isn't allowed to say so?
I agree. WTF??
Posted by: danley | May 15, 2008 9:02 AM
This election's biggest deciding issue is going to be whether Obama can convince enough idiots that he's a Christian and so eligible for presidency.
It's all so depressing. As Bill Maher says, in response to the somewhat rhetorical question
"Aren't American's smarter than that?"
"No, they're not."
Posted by: Christianjb | May 15, 2008 9:02 AM
Yeah, Obama is definitely looking more and more like a smaller beetle* and the Republicans are just getting more and more explicitly evil.
But for those in the market for a little encouragement, here is Keith Olbermann's finest comment yet, and that's saying something.
*lesser of two weevils; I wish it was original.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 15, 2008 9:05 AM
"David Brooks knows nothing of science."
This may shock you, but David Brooks also knows nothing of Buddhism. Once again he's writing about crap he knows nothing of. Shocker.
If he had a clue about what he's speaking I might actually agree- Buddhism isn't so much mysticism- or at least not in large, there are certainly those who take it to be despite what it teaches. For the most part it's a "no magic" thing, no bringing people back from the dead, no god handing out beatings/favors, etc, etc. Also pleased to get new information and change old ways if it needs be done.
But instead he throws wild assertions, puts words in all our mouths, and in general hits it significantly wrong.
Posted by: Spiv | May 15, 2008 9:08 AM
#1: "The great thing about buddhism is that you can get rid of all the bullshit, and still have something that's pretty great. When you have no Karma, no Reincarnations, no chants to the green tara, no mystical word / sound sequences, you still have the great meditation and introspective traditions that are highly valuable."
Bingo; and there are many flavors of Buddhism that do just that.
Posted by: Spiv | May 15, 2008 9:12 AM
Spiv,
While Buddhism may be 'better' in some sense than other religions, it still contains quite a bit of pseudo-scientific bullshit, depending on who's talking about it. I have a real soft spot for Buddhism, but still cringe when I hear a lama talking about how Buddhism has recognized things like subatomic particles and multiple universes long before 'western science' did. There are also whole branches of Buddhism that believe with meditative practice you can develop psychic powers.
As I'm sure you're aware though, this helps highlight a strength of Buddhism, in that belief in these things is not required at all. If you don't believe in Karma, for example, no problem! But it is still a real shame that some of this other stuff gets so much exposure.
Posted by: Josh Charles | May 15, 2008 9:15 AM
Yep, I've already come to the same conclusion about Obama. I will vote for him, but will neither campaign for him or give him money. Period.
Posted by: Aa | May 15, 2008 9:15 AM
I hate the way Republicans like Rumsfeld talk.
On the one hand, he says that the Republican tactics are working! We haven't been attacked! Go team us!
On the other hand, he thinks we need an attack to prove we need more of the same. Is it just me, or if we're attacked again doesn't that just prove that the tactics arn't working?
Posted by: Brendan S | May 15, 2008 9:15 AM
"David Brooks knows nothing of science. How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?"
you shouldn't put the answer before the question.
it might confuse people.
Posted by: kid bitzer | May 15, 2008 9:16 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 15, 2008 9:17 AM
I'm not sure I understand this logic -- if you believe Obama is significantly better than McCain, and you want him to win, and plan on voting for him yourself, why would you intentionally withhold efforts that would get other people to vote for him? That just undermines your desired outcome (an Obama win) and seems irrational to me.
Posted by: Tulse | May 15, 2008 9:22 AM
Well which is the more appealing option?
i) Obama really is a happy clappy Christian, in the grand tradition of Bush 42,
or
ii) The electorate is so dense/racist that this election will be won or lost on the perception that Obama is actually a sleeper agent Muslim?
It would almost be a relief to find out that the first is true. Again, it's really quite depressing to think that the US electorate really is so stupid that they need to see the phrase 'I am a Christian' repeated every 10 seconds in order to vote for a black man with a last name which sort of sounds like some foreign guy who we dimly remember had something to do with 9-11.
Actually, wait a second, I'm pretty sure it was Saddam who flew those planes into the World Trade Center- so remind me again, who was that Osama guy?
Oh I remember, Osama was Hitler- but then- who was Hitler?
Politics. It's so confusing.
Posted by: Christianjb | May 15, 2008 9:27 AM
As an atheist, it doesn't make much sense to me to make non-belief a political criterion. What I want in a politician with regard to religion is, first, that they strongly support separation of church and state, and second, that their religious views do not get in the way of their listening to the science on matters.
Posted by: Russell | May 15, 2008 9:32 AM
Good discussion of the David Brooks piece here:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=293
Posted by: SC | May 15, 2008 9:33 AM
Don't get stuck on side issues like whether Obama tries to shore up his Christian credentials. What matters is simple- that the Democrats control the White House and thus appointments all through the Executive Branch, regulatory bodies, and the courts.
Go ahead and fail to support Obama out of pique. You'll get the thousands of Republican appointees that you deserve for your short-sightedness.
It's the appointments, stupid!
Posted by: Virginia | May 15, 2008 9:38 AM
Some of the West Virginia voters reasons for voting for Hillary:
"He has Hussein in his name. I've had enough of Hussein"
"He's a Muslim"
"He's the other race, we've had a lot of trouble with the other race around here"
I weep.
Posted by: SteveM | May 15, 2008 9:38 AM
AlanSmithee writes:
Because of the transgressions of Bush's "unitary executive," Constitutional and process issues are on the front burner this election cycle. Differences there typically aren't reflected in the kind of policy comparison various organizations make by comparing votes on major bills. Obama has promised that one of his first acts as president will be to institute a review of all of Bush's executive orders, to find and rescind the ones that exceed constitutional limits. He is open to his justice department investigating the crimes the previous administration committed, with regard to torture. In short, he has promised to take positive steps to roll back the "unitary executive." His history in pushing for procedural reforms gives some hope that this really is his intent, and not just electioneering.
In contrast, the only thing I can imagine Hillary as president doing with the "unitary executive" is silently thanking Bush for having created the powers she then will hold.
Posted by: Russell | May 15, 2008 9:45 AM
Anyone notice they've been attacking Obama by claiming his wife is a (gasp) atheist?
And I don't care if Obama Holier than Huckabee, he isn't that frothing, opportunistic loon McCain.
Posted by: Bob : | May 15, 2008 9:47 AM
About Obama/religion;
While I think it's deplorable that he needs to appeal to the evangelicals/religious by portraying himself in this manner, I don't mind too much so long as his decisions in office represent separation of church and state. While it's sad that politicians must go on about religion (and I do hope that changes), the simple fact is that to get elected at the moment one must do it, and we want to see someone in the white house who will appoint the right people to the supreme court.
If you haven't watched Eddie Tabash's speech "The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms", it's worth watching. It doesn't truly matter what a politician says (though hopefully with changing attitudes in society the need to appeal to religion to get elected will slowly fade), what matters is really the moves they make to determine future laws - who they put on the supreme court when there are vacancies. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u1S3C5yWjc)
Posted by: Epinephrine | May 15, 2008 9:47 AM
For instance, Ken Ham states "No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
So only creationist are allowed to point this out?
Posted by: Suspect Device | May 15, 2008 9:47 AM
I'm pretty sure it's just a North Texas thing, but we have a local car dealership around these parts--Central Kia--that are doing these car commercials using a black actor with big ears, speaking from a podium in front of an audience with lots of red, white, and blue, and with the pitch phrase "Yes YOU can" (buy a new Kia). The allusions are obvious and it borders on the surreal.
I voted for the dude in the Texas Primary...or at least thought I did (I voted absentee, but thus wasn't able to vote in that caucus thingy)...I still haven't made up my mind if I'd vote for him in the general election if he is the Democratic candidate, though I will NOT vote for John McCain under any circumstances. If Hillary wins the nod by surprise upset, I'm boycotting the election altogether or voting for Nader or McKinney or myself as a write-in candidate.
The Daily Show last night had a hilarious take on the WV primary results, with actual (scary) interviews with real life WV voters... teh st00Pid runneth over...
Posted by: JJR | May 15, 2008 9:48 AM
RE: SC #17 - I agree. The piece by Steven Novella is a good analysis of Brooks' piece. I strongly suspect Brooks may be a Ken Wilber fan. They certainly think alike.
Posted by: MaryL | May 15, 2008 9:48 AM
#18 -
Exactly!
We don't need to vote based on religion/non-belief, we need to vote based on what appointments they'll make.
Posted by: Epinephrine | May 15, 2008 9:52 AM
How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?
The product sold is not news, it's us. Media sell "views" or "eyeballs" or "customers" to advertisers. The quality of the "news" matters not at all. If someone, however ill-informed and full of it, can attract eyeballs, that is the gold standard. Since the population is mostly ignorant and badly educated, a "twit" can write whatever crap he likes so long as lots of people read it. A "Journalist" can be wrong about everything he's ever written and still hold down a 6 figure salary. News has never been the product.
Posted by: sad | May 15, 2008 9:53 AM
The Democratic victory in a special election in Mississippi to fill a vacant congressional seat is the latest example of the GOP losing a district that had long been a stalwart Republican stronghold. It demonstrated that the GOP campaign book of smearing the Democratic candidate as an "Obama clone" isn't stirring up the hoped-for antipathy among conservative voters. I haven't been a big Obama booster (that's right, I voted for Sen. Clinton), but I will cheerfully vote for him over McCain. I'm old enough to remember the last time the GOP lost a string of special elections while a hugely unpopular Republican president was hunkered down in the White House. It was 1974 and the president was Nixon.
Posted by: Zeno | May 15, 2008 9:54 AM
V:
Yeah, it's not like we live in a pluralistic democracy in which we're given the option of voting for a candidate who doesn't continually brag about his adherence to our officially preferred 2000 year old desert cult.
So go ahead America. Go through the motions and perform your civic duty. If you so wish, then vote for the guy who's one millimeter to the political left of the other guy. It's not much of a choice, but you should be happy that you're still allowed to observe the voting ritual at all.
(Is it just me, or am I sounding more and more like a (completely non-violent version of) Theodore Kaczynski? Gee, maybe I should switch my coffee brand. (I can't quite remember, but isn't double nesting of parentheses a sure sign of a diseased mind?))
Posted by: Christianjb | May 15, 2008 9:58 AM
...but some people are apparently irate over a simple, accurate truth statement: "some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science". They do, but a university isn't allowed to say so?
PZ: There's potentially more at stake here than academic freedom in the universities. If the court rules that the UCMP site is protected because of academic freedom, but does not spell out that the complaint has no merit in and of itself, then people like Larry Caldwell will continue to argue that public school teachers like myself are violating the Establishment Clause.
Why will the carnival of suits behind this action attempt to go after teachers like me? Because teachers like me:
1) direct students to the UCMP site or to NCSE, and encourage students to use these sites as resources in writing essays;
2) show the PBS documentary series 'Evolution' to their class;
3) point out that (gasp!) the author of their textbook is an observant Catholic, or that John Paul II remarked that evolution is more than a hypothesis
Remember, these are the same bunch of clowns who declined to interview Ken Miller for the film 'Expelled' because they felt it would CONFUSE people.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | May 15, 2008 10:07 AM
I don't think quantum mechanics is really discussed in Buddhism and the Llama was overstating. However, for me the understanding of Buddhism actually helps me wrapp my head around the concept
to quote Oppenheimer
"If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron's position changes with time, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no.' The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man's self after his death"
I have run into a Buddhist creationist once, that was very weird because the Buddha stresses the importance of hypothesis and experiment (Kalama sutra) before coming to a conclusion, even logic alone doesn't suffice.
Posted by: Draconiz | May 15, 2008 10:07 AM
Translation :
The questions I would like to ask Mr Obama:
1. what does a "beckoning of the spirit" feel like ? Can you please describe this sensation and explain what made you realise that something really special was going on, that it was a clear evidence, for you, of a supernatural spirit, and that this spirit was the one described by the Christian faith ?
2. Please explain what having "accepted Jesus Christ into your life" means, in precise concrete understandable terms.
Has that acceptance changed anything concrete about your life ?
3. Are you still in contact with that said spirit and does this influence your decisions in any way ?
4. Can you think of a way to demonstrate that you are being entirely honest about this and not saying all of this for electoral gains ? If not, wouldn't you agree that it would be advisable to keep this kind of declarations completely out of politics ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 15, 2008 10:08 AM
Re: David Brooks ... one of the definitions of mysticism is "obscure thought or speculation", which essentially sums up his entire column.
Posted by: Tom | May 15, 2008 10:10 AM
But would Obama be consider a
President Apostate?
Posted by: Nephi | May 15, 2008 10:12 AM
The benefit of Obama is that maybe he'll come out of the closet as an atheist (His father was) once he's an ex-prez. That would shock the pants off some Americans, but on the downside they might get hyper-focused on finding out if the next candidate is truly a cultist or not.
The NY Times science writer has nothing better to write about in science than...religion? There's really nothing going on in science right now?
Posted by: Dennis N | May 15, 2008 10:12 AM
JJR:
So, maybe not Obama, definitely not McCain, definitely not Hillary... but Nader, fuck yeah!
"The stupid runneth over," indeed...
Posted by: s1mplex | May 15, 2008 10:15 AM
Christianjb@28:
only if you use them (but not in small doses (AND ESPECIALLY INSTEAD OF OTHER PUCTUATION)) in all of YOUR COMUNICATION with others (and especially with POOR SPELING(but not by intent) and your aim is to make a point(that you then DISMIS IN TEH SAME SENTANCE))
;)
Posted by: tony | May 15, 2008 10:18 AM
Please explain what having "accepted Jesus Christ into your life" means, in precise concrete understandable terms.
The thing is, it doesn't matter. It's a dog whistle to the evangelists. If he can throw out a few phrases in their lingo, it will appease some of them. He can say whatever he wants to pander right now, as long as he acts properly when in office. Given the alternative of McCain, I'll vote for anything with a pulse that the Democratic party puts up, because McCain would fuck up this country to an extent that we can't imagine even with Bush as an example.
Posted by: Carlie | May 15, 2008 10:20 AM
Politics and religion. Reading about how voter disenfranchisement law is affecting a lot of nuns. Wondering to myself if maybe one of them would consider the Buddhist self-immolation we saw in Vietnam as a protest to wake people up to the totalitarian wankers at the helm.
Young people don't seem to be as enthusiastic in affronting any authority figure above their parents these days, so somebody has to pick up the protest slack.
They could draw lots amongst only the oldest nuns. If such a thing were to happen, I would have to say that I would consider it truly miraculous.....and hopefully trend setting.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | May 15, 2008 10:20 AM
One day, young monk asked master, 'tell me, does quantum theory have the Zen?'
The master thought for a moment and then sharply hit the young pupil across the head with a cane.
"One must be careful" the master said, "for the fish belongs in water"
Later that day, the pupil died of multiple concussions.
-----------------------
Interpretation:
The pupil was wrong. He had failed to take the trace over the density matrix, and so was calculating off-diagonal matrix elements. In the canonical ensemble, all functions of position can be related to trace averages in the position basis of the thermal density matrix.
Posted by: Christianjb | May 15, 2008 10:21 AM
You missed the punchline on the Berkely case. The Pacific Justice Institute, which is busy trumpeting their actions in press releases, dropped the ball on the case. Here is footnote 4 from the decision dismissing the case:
In other words, they screwed the pooch. They waived any argument against the Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, the 9th Circuit will say, very simply, "Go away. You waived. Now it's our turn to wave. Bye bye."
What a hoot. These people are actually trumpeting their own incompetence.
Posted by: dhonig | May 15, 2008 10:30 AM
To any immanent theology science is simply the exploration of God itself. It is the transcendent theologies that separate the spiritual and the material.
Posted by: Sarcastro | May 15, 2008 10:45 AM
This is not a damn separation issue! Truth is the one absolute defense against a charge of defamation, and I think the same principle applies here. This is not a question of the government advocating some particular (religious) value set over another, but rather one of taking a position on an empirical matter. If some religion chooses to make false empirically testable claims, that's on them, and I see no reason why their petulant stupidity should receive any more protection than anyone else's. With respect to values, it's a different matter. The point, I think, of the first amendment's establishment clause is to protect equal liberty of conscience: our right to hold what values we choose to (with of course the caveat that our actions must be consistent with equal freedom for all).
If Berkeley loses this case, I am sorely tempted to just up and quit.
Quit what, exactly, you ask?
Ah hell, I'm so disheartened by this crap that I'm not even sure.
Posted by: Pete M. | May 15, 2008 10:49 AM
Brooks does not exist. He is simply a straw man (I must believe this, as there is no other explanation for his credibility). In this column, a straw man jousting with dust bunnies.
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 15, 2008 11:02 AM
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | May 15, 2008 11:03 AM
Berkeley site:
"...while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world."
Wrong! Time for a rewrite.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 15, 2008 11:03 AM
...plaintiff's opposition fails to address the substance of any argument made by the federal defendants, stating instead in summary fashion that plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint curing all deficiencies.
Failure to address the substance of any arguments? Vague promises that substantive deficiencies will be remedied at some undisclosed future date? Why does this sound so familiar...?
Posted by: SC | May 15, 2008 11:14 AM
Regarding the science-Buddhism connection, I am interested to know what you think of Sharon Begley's work (and also Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz's work) pertaining to neuroplasticity and the brain? Do you feel that David Brooks is not qualified to write about this subject, do you disagree with his views, or do you think that the topic itself has no merit?
Posted by: Jade | May 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Buddhism is not mysticism. It's really quite scientific. Unfortunately, over 2000 years, lots of superfluous, superstitious nonsense has been added to the original concepts. Why do westerners so often associate mysticism with this lifestyle, is it just because it comes from Asia?
"Don't take my word for it."
"Talking about the soul is a waste of time."
"Only personal experience is valuable."
-Buddha
Does this sound like a religion?
Posted by: Michael A. Phillips | May 15, 2008 11:17 AM
Carlie #38,
ok, but why did he have to do it ? How many votes will he gain from this ? Peanuts ? They'll all vote either for McCain, or won't vote at all.
Meanwhile, by doing this, he shows to many that he's not trustworthy, not the real agent of change they are waiting for. Oh, they'll vote for him, but he loses their conviction, their battling spirit, and that is showing right now. Elections get won by motivating opinion leaders who convince their friends, relatives, colleagues to go and vote. People always forget that participation is the number one factor that gets an election won or lost.
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 15, 2008 11:19 AM
I find it amsuing that in the Obama atricle about his flyers, they mention "how Obama hasn't done as well with Catholics compared to Clinton" and then that "Obama has a story to tell about how Jesus came into his life", implying that this will help him with the Catholic vote.
Having been brought up Catholic, this strikes me as odd, because all of the Catholics I know were Christian from birth and never talk about Jesus being part of their lives. The accepting of Jesus as a big life event always seemed to belong to other flavors of Christianity... and talking about a conversion experience definitely wouldn't win over any of my Catholic friends or family members.
Anyway, I'm confident this is a publicity stunt of sorts. It disgusts me that it has to be done, but I see it as forgivable if he gets to the White House and, by his actions, supports a seperation of chirch and state. He is going to do that, right? Please?
Posted by: sublunary | May 15, 2008 11:25 AM
John Derbyshire, National Review's The Corner (5/13/08), remarks on Brooks' 'Neural Buddhism':
"Brooks' remarks about institutional religion are, I think, sensible. Human beings are spiritual creatures, and that side of our nature must find nourishment. That the big old institutional faiths -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism -- will continue to provide that nourishment is open to reasonable doubt. ... Each of us has his own threshold of credulity, of course, but it's hard to believe the average hasn't been creeping up, and will continue to do so. This saps away at faith in the magical and miraculous, without which the big old religions are holed below the water line.
Probably Brooks is right, or part-right. Reflective people will indeed turn to a sort of "neural Buddhism," some kind of organized system of spirituality that doesn't require us to believe in incredible occurrences in the remote past, or in the individual personality surviving death. For the unreflective, Chesterton's rule will kick in, and people will drift off into Wiccanism, Scientology, or The Secret.
This could be an interesting century for religion; and not necessarily (David Brook's guess, and mine) in ways that would gladden the heart of either Richard Dawkins or Benedict XVI."
Derbyshire is on to something; what we have seen in Europe with the decline of traditional faith institutions is not so much a surge in atheistic rationalism as a rise in New Age thinking and altie medicine.
Educated professionals in the West, including America, who reject their birth religions and are distrustful of crude and faddish cults sometimes seek out new outlets of spirituality, sacralization, transcendence, whatever that combines cognitive science with the esoteric. For example, Sam Harris' musings on the great wisdom of Buddhism, or Hofstadter's (problematic) notion of differential ensoulment. ('Neural esotericism' rather than 'neural Buddism'?)
But a more remarkable example of the emergence of a new faith within self-professed atheistic scientific rationalist circles is transhumanism - human physical and moral perfectibility, the paradisical technotopia, inevitable transcendence of biological limitations. Seems pretty religious.
Posted by: Colugo | May 15, 2008 11:25 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | May 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Actually the Berkley case is a good thing. if The religiobots get to cite separation of church and state because of a benign, neutral, truthful statement that our side made...I mean if the meter is set to that degree of sensitivity, we got 'em by the yarbles.
Posted by: ash | May 15, 2008 11:30 AM
Re: religious sensitivity run amok
I was reading the other day that notable gasbag Bill Donohue managed to get an apology from crazy pastor John Hagee (not a man I normally side with), because Hagee made a statement pointing out that the Catholich Church had a history of anti-semitism. So, we can't comment on established historical facts about religion anymore, either, it would seem.
Posted by: mothworm | May 15, 2008 11:31 AM
For some reason, I rather like wÒÓ†.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 15, 2008 11:31 AM
The brain is living tissue. That it can in some circumstances repair damage or compensate for failures should not be surprising. Jeffrey Schwartz, I recall, has a tendency to embrace the quantum woo, but neuroplasticity is no more evidence for a mysterious influence of consciousness over matter than the scabbed knees of childhood are evidence for "quantum skin".
You can make any branch of science, old or new, sound like any mystical hodgepodge you'd like, given enough effort. Consider Newtonian mechanics: it's often taken as a product of Newton's time, described with words like "clockwork universe" and made to sound compatible with a vaguely deistic revision of the Christian God, who becomes the Great Clockmaker. But we could with equal ease turn around and make Newtonian physics sound like late '60s acidhead wisdom: "All who are touched must touch in return [Newton's Third Law], but one can touch without touching [action at a distance]."
And as for whether Buddhism "really" requires superstition and mysticism. . . .
I've grown accustomed to self-identified Christians declaring that the actions of some other self-identified Christians, say the Westboro Baptist Church, reveal that those others are "not true Christians". On the one hand, I'm more likely to enjoy the company of somebody who thinks Fred Phelps is repulsive, but at the same time, I have to acknowledge that we can't identify any one faction of Christianity as the true form on secular, empirico-rationalist grounds. Never mind asking "What Would Jesus Do," we can't even figure out what Jesus actually did — not from the records we've got, which were written decades after the events they purportedly describe, and survive only in manuscript copies dating decades or centuries after that. (And even then, you're sure to find somebody who self-identifies as Christian but proclaims that one must be "open to the entire history of revelation". On the "fundamentalist" side, you've got the King James Only folks, some of whom believe that God spaketh unto the translators of the KJV, making their English words even more inspired than their Hebrew and Greek sources. Similar attitudes to text and translation could be found among believers who are more socially liberal, too.)
So, as far as Christianity goes, saying that we'll just stick to the words of Jesus is a non-starter.
AFAIK, the life story of Siddhārtha Gautama has also been embroidered with legend and presented differently by various schools. Even his birth and death dates are uncertain. I confess myself ignorant of large swaths of Buddhist history, philosophy and factionalism, so I don't know if looking for the "historical Buddha" is truly a thankless endeavor; however, I suspect that in the final reckoning, we do not know the Buddha, but have only a flux of representations of the ten thousand Buddhas — some of which would be quite cool with that fact.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 15, 2008 11:34 AM
If you simply say that religion and science agree, they complain. If you acknowledge that some religion does conflict with biology, they complain.
I'd be shocked if any court agreed with a complaint about that. You have groups telling the public that religion isn't compatible with religion, and UC counters with the most innocuous truthful statement possible in such a situation.
If they listed the sects which disagree with science they probably would have a case against UC Berkeley. Even this seems obnoxious when the facts are truthful, but probably it is necessary to parse the 1st Amendment satisfactorily.
Here's the most hypocritical BS of all: Expelled and the DI whine that religious apologetics (including unusual criticism of a theory being introduced to the naive) isn't allowed into the science classroom. Meanwhile, their side is trying to expel even an honest characterization of this political conflict, as they continue to demand that their side must have its partisan view presented in the classroom. That is, they won't even allow a discussion of what's at stake, if they win the case.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 15, 2008 11:35 AM
Yeah, I already had my rant about Brooks.
Brooks' science is just shoddy. Science and mysticism aren't embracing, unless you want to claim that science's slow, inexorable chomping down and de-mystifying the way the brain works is an "embrace." His comments on the dynamism of the brain during development are 30 years out of date.
Brooks' discussion of Buddhism is so far off the mark it boggles my mind.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | May 15, 2008 11:37 AM
Derbyshire, quoted by Colugo:
Grrrr. It's not Chesterton's rule.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 15, 2008 11:38 AM
I ask myself this question about almost every Times columnist. Particularly Kristol and Dowd.
Posted by: noncarborundum | May 15, 2008 11:39 AM
Christianjb, #5:
Thank you for this ill-punctuated bit of irony.Posted by: Epistaxis | May 15, 2008 11:40 AM
Epistaxis
That's a cheap shot! I'm a lover, not a grammarian.
Posted by: Christianjb | May 15, 2008 11:43 AM
Elf M. Sternberg (#59):
Your link is broken; this one might work. Oh, and — well said.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 15, 2008 11:43 AM
Hang on now, Rumsfeld didn't say that America needs another terrorist attack, he said (in answer to a question about American's perception of the terrorist threat) that for the average American to percieve the scale of the terrorist threat would require another attack.
Which is something else entirely.
Posted by: James Laurenson | May 15, 2008 11:44 AM
thanks for the Chesterton's rule correction. Someone could write a book on misattributed and bogus quotes.
"When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun." - derived from a line by a character in a Nazi play, not a statement by a high ranking Nazi (variously, Himmler, Goring, or Goebbels)
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Not Sinclair Lewis; Huey Long made similar statements
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Howard Zinn, not Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Colguo | May 15, 2008 11:53 AM
How embarrassing; I botched the spelling of my own alias. A doofus am I.
Posted by: Colugo | May 15, 2008 11:55 AM
Dear FSM, people, grasp the essentials of politics - a candidate has to speak to his/her audience. Obama's been forced by those rumours that he is a Muslim to emphasise the Christian thing; that's what the electorate wants in a President. We all know that even a mere agnostic would not be electable in this country; the majority of public demands outside affirmation of its own belief system. They can't even trust someone of a minority religion whose tenets contradict theirs - hence, no Jewish president, no Muslim, no Buddhist president. [I remember the controversy over JFK - the man was a Catholic!!, could he be trusted not to sell the US out to the Pope...]
Give the man money, campaign for him, vote for him - because the alternative is John McCain. If McCain gets to appoint a Supreme Court Justice - and the next president will - we'll end up with a Court whose antipathy to science, to stem cell research, to women's reproductive rights, etc. will set this country back into the Dark Ages. [Not to mention the hundreds of other federal judicial appointees...]
Democrats. IMO, throw themselves under the bus all too often. One has to be realistic about the candidates - they will pander, to some extent - and, frankly, Obama's been pandering less than many - because that is how they get elected. Voting for someone with no chance at all - Nader, writing in Hillary/John Edwards/Bugs Bunny - is an affirmative vote for McCain. That's the reality, invisible friends aside. Obama's not the perfect candidate; that person doesn't exist. But he's a damn sight better than McCain, with his buddy Hagee and others of that ilk. Think of campaigning for Obama as campaigning against the GOP. Because we are fucking doomed if the GOP gets into the White House.
Posted by: DominEditrix | May 15, 2008 11:56 AM
As depressing as it is to have to vote defensively, you can see why you have to if you follow the links on the Obama piece to here and read the comments.
Posted by: mgarelick | May 15, 2008 12:00 PM
So I suppose stating that devout Hindus believe in Kali, Shiva and Krishna would be a breach of separation of C/S as well.
All this devout pious handwringing in politics has got me ill! Never in all my years of political awareness have I seen such maudlin displays of bootlicking and asskissing. None of them beleive this shit. why can't they just STFU and get on with the real busyness at hand. Last I checked we were having a WAR, the beginnings of catostrophic weather changes, etc. won't just one of these sorry f@#$s stand up and be brave enough to call off this bullshit session. Why Obama, why???
Posted by: ash | May 15, 2008 12:05 PM
Sublunary,
Well, it really depends what you mean with "to support a separation of church and state". My guess is he'll definitely support it much more than GWB or Ronald Reagan, but exactly to which extent is still very vague.
This is what is currently on his website :
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 15, 2008 12:06 PM
I see nothing historically inaccurate about those extracts (it's a real tragedy that the Southern Baptist Convention, once a clarion voice for separation, was taken over by political operatives.) And I also take no offense from it since it repeatedly includes unbelievers in the fold.
So while Obama's religiosity (which by the way seems to me entirely sincere) very definitely grates on me, it would be politically immature for me to allow that to affect my support for him. Far more important things are at stake.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | May 15, 2008 12:13 PM
Sorry, messed up the format of my last post...
This is what is currently on Obama's website :
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 15, 2008 12:14 PM
"David Brooks knows nothing of science. How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?"
We might also ask how Maureen Dowd got a gig at the NY Times. As bad as Brooks is, Dowd is far worse in the stupidity department.
Posted by: SLC | May 15, 2008 12:17 PM
The only slight problem I see with this sentence is that Obama seems to think it's a good thing, that religious practices have been thriving. He has, it seems, no intention to change this.
As PZ mentionned in an earlier thread, the separation of church and state protected the stupidest practices from scrutiny and created a completely deregulated market where anything goes, lies, unscrupulous advertising, and all of course exonerated of taxes. So, yes indeed they have been thriving !
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 15, 2008 12:36 PM
RE: #65
I happen to think all politicians are evil, but t