Pharyngula

Posted by: Zeroeye | September 18, 2008 2:30 PM

Amen!

Posted by: bunbuns | September 18, 2008 2:47 PM

Polls to crash here:

http://news.aol.com/article/most-say-angels-have-protected-them/179608

Posted by: BobC | September 18, 2008 2:48 PM

(As Chairman Mao said, religion poisons everything.)

There's a bunch of people I could quote who have said pretty much the same thing, but I don't think I would want to quote somebody who is famous for genocide.

Posted by: amk | September 18, 2008 2:56 PM

@#3: and they need crashing. > 80% have been protected by a spirit, apparently.

Can vodka protect people?

Posted by: tsg | September 18, 2008 3:02 PM

America is the biggest insane asylum in the world.

To the point where I'm ready to move to the beach and change my name to Wonko the Sane.

Posted by: JStein | September 18, 2008 3:06 PM

That's great.

I wish that we were fortunate enough to live in a time of science and reason, but this is the closest we have come thus far in our history, and I am proud to be a part of this generation.

I just look at these great thinkers, and I realize how lucky I am to live in a generation informed by such brilliant people. We have our fair share of idiots, but this video restored my optimism.

I'm feeling a seriously romanticized view of humanity today, and mildly philosophical. Still, thanks for this, PZ. Much appreciated.

Posted by: windy | September 18, 2008 3:14 PM

That's the Paul Kurtz who emphasizes shared values with the moderately religious and won't have anything to do with the New Atheists, right? ;)

Posted by: Horwood Beer-Master | September 18, 2008 3:17 PM

That was brilliant!
Matt Nisbet is going to hate it.

In fact don't those above two sentences nearly always go together?

Posted by: tsg | September 18, 2008 3:25 PM

"If the naturalistic outlook is to supplant the ancient mythological narratives of the past, it needs a new institution devoted to its articulation and dramatization to the public. The Center for Inquiry is that institution."

Matt Nisbett is really not going to like this. I can't wait.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 18, 2008 3:30 PM

Horwood Beer-Master (#15):

That was brilliant! Matt Nisbet is going to hate it.

In fact don't those above two sentences nearly always go together?

I don't know, but your simple observation has made my day (previously made sucky in the way that only the Registry of Motor Vehicles can) instantly better.

Enter the Marquis de Coiffure, stage left. . . .

Posted by: george | September 18, 2008 3:30 PM

#16 But methinks Simon Rattle might be.

Posted by: TSC | September 18, 2008 3:33 PM

Where you and Hitchens at?

Posted by: Roger the Shrubber | September 18, 2008 3:38 PM

I wonder if adherence to religion, superstition, the past that never was, magical ideas about purity and toxins, and so on are due to a reluctance to outgrow childish ideation.

When you were still in diapers and were made to wash your hands, you had poorly informed thinking about what cleansing was (and certainly nothing of the chemistry, physics, biology, or botany of it). If, thirty years later, you cleanse yourself by ritually bathing in the open sewer that is the Ganges, adult reason has failed to replace childish ideation.

When you were still in diapers and your parents got angry, you got scared and you tried desperately to appease them. If, thirty years later, you try to appease an invisible angry father and plead with an invisible-but-imaginable loving mother to intercede on your behalf, you are still the child.

When you were still in diapers and were exposed to strangers, surprises, and novel foods, you got shy and scared. If, thirty years later, you cling to your own kind, keep their ways, and shun all others, rejecting their ways, you are still the child.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 18, 2008 3:41 PM

To everything, there is a season
Except--so far, perhaps--for reason.
The CFI are on a mission
To leave behind all superstition
If they succeed (I wish them luck)
Perhaps... next stop: the crocoduck.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 18, 2008 3:59 PM

It appears that you can vote multiple times in those AOL polls if you clear your browser cookies.

Posted by: Will E. | September 18, 2008 4:09 PM

Didn't see Michael Shermer... Great all the way through. I'm just not, however, down with that New-Agey music. Too woo for me!

Posted by: Jim | September 18, 2008 4:14 PM

@ #2
Richard: The Bronze age superstition thing is frequently mentioned by folks. Does not that seem a bit late for the beginning of the god(s) delusion. Seems to me sometime early in H. sapin development god(s) was invented to explain the world as it was understood at the time; so
god(s) is the result of speculation backed by limited data.
(of course i have no data to back my speculations but gut feelings seem to be the way to go these days..........)
Wonder if sapins actually inherited the concept from habilis.

Posted by: Freidenker | September 18, 2008 4:41 PM

Woohoo! Jeez, look at all those friggin' giants! This was, without any sarcasm, truly inspiring!

Posted by: chuko | September 18, 2008 4:44 PM

I would like to see more things like this (positive point of view, emphasizing freethought and a scientific outlook over atheism per se), but aimed at the general public rather than, well, us.

Posted by: Jessica | September 18, 2008 4:48 PM

I can't decide if I really like that or if I find it creepy. By the end I felt very preached-to, even though I agree with all the sentiments. Hmm.

Posted by: Rey Fox | September 18, 2008 4:51 PM

"I know you are, but what am I?" You dazzle us with your brilliance, Max.

Posted by: Michael Drake | September 18, 2008 4:54 PM

I found it bathetic and embarrassing. But there's no accounting for taste.

Posted by: chuko | September 18, 2008 4:57 PM

Re: #38

Most of us do promote a set of values, but those values include real independent thinking and reason. No one who was interested in leading people for their own purposes would promote that; it's counter productive. It's real freedom.

If your reason leads you to god, so be it. But if it leads to your chaining yourself to some authority (the Bible, the Church, a pastor, a Leader), you might want to consider if the ideas you've absorbed are meant to keep you under someone else's control.

Posted by: tsg | September 18, 2008 5:00 PM

Hi Max. You're wrong.

That's redundant.

Posted by: Richard Harris | September 18, 2008 5:02 PM

Jim @ # 33, Bronze Age superstition is a term of abuse. It is also fairly accurate for the Abrahamic religions, which, I believe, got started during the Bronze Age in the Middle East.

Max Verret @ # 38. You are severely deluded, or prejudiced, or just plain stupid. But I doubt that you would be able to understand this, so why don't you feck off back to your church or other superstition haven? I'm sorry about my abusive tone, but I really don't think anything more nuanced would stand a chance of getting through to you.

Posted by: Patricia | September 18, 2008 5:08 PM

Twirled in under my own steam, thankyou.
Wrong again. *yawn*

Posted by: EastwoodDC | September 18, 2008 5:14 PM

@#45

If your reason leads you to god, so be it. But if it leads to your chaining yourself to some authority (the Bible, the Church, a pastor, a Leader), you might want to consider if the ideas you've absorbed are meant to keep you under someone else's control.

Nicely said, and if I may be so bold - Thank You - on behalf of reasonable believers everywhere.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 18, 2008 5:18 PM

I believe in using reason. I don't believe that believers are reasonable in their beliefs.

Some holy texts caution against using reason. They suggest that belief be approached as an ignorant, trusting little child.

Posted by: Max Verret | September 18, 2008 5:24 PM

Jim at 33

"Wonder if sapins actually inherited the concept from habilis"

Yes, and habilis from the first tetrapods that crawled up on the land in the devonian and tetrapods from the slime mold, etc. Its an inate, predilection that enables us to understand that we live not only in a sensate but also in an ideational world, one other than a sensate, empirical, this worldness, that is, if your neurotransmitters are working right.

Posted by: Patricia | September 18, 2008 5:42 PM

Why thank you Johnnie, you ol' smooth talker. ;o)

Posted by: Badjuggler | September 18, 2008 5:55 PM

Max@33: Wha?

Posted by: Max Verret | September 18, 2008 6:09 PM

Sven @58

Actually, I neglected to note that it was a redacted quote from the Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, in his book The Crisis of Our Age.

Sorry, however, I really don't think Sorokin was a wacko. I did a presentation on his work when I was an undergraduate. He sounded fairly erudite at the time.

Posted by: Bob Vogel | September 18, 2008 6:15 PM

#22 Rey Fox "They need to cut out that first second or so of E.O. Wilson's bit. Bit unfair making the oldest guy in the video look like he missed his cue, huh?"

I didn't pick up on that. Just having Wilson in this vid at all gives it its primary weight and significance, to me. In fact, his presence is a like a common denominator. I didn't notice any screwup in editing.

Posted by: chriss | September 18, 2008 6:43 PM

Well you've sold me...see you in Toronto.

Posted by: Max Verret | September 18, 2008 7:00 PM

jojo66

"being erudite and being wrong are not mutually exclusive"

I'll take you at your word on that. When one disputes a Bright, he does so at his own peril.

Posted by: Daniel | September 18, 2008 7:11 PM

Awesome video. I may have to force my roommate to watch that.

Posted by: Travis | September 18, 2008 7:20 PM

"When one disputes a Bright, he does so at his own peril."

And what, pray tell, does this dollop of passive-aggressive excreta mean?

Peril of being proven wrong? Yes, evidently, in this case,
though I submit that it depends on the nature of the dispute.

Peril of verbal attack? That's a pretty darn sensitive use of 'peril' there Max.

Peril of physical attack? Trying to find an excuse to start down yesterday's genocidal ramblings again are we?

If you find posting or reading here 'perilous' I have a simple remedy. Stop.

Posted by: Wdro | September 18, 2008 7:33 PM

Creepy.

Posted by: Kel | September 18, 2008 7:42 PM

Can vodka protect people?

Posted by: Denis Loubet | September 18, 2008 7:48 PM

I agree with Doug that the film is terrible, even though I totally agree with everything in it.

My main dislike is how they use the word science. When people hear the word science, they immediately think of lab coats and horn-rimmed glasses. The film uses it in a way that suggests that everyone should be a scientist. That if you aren't wearing a lab coat, then you're part of the problem.

I think the film would be improved if the word rational was used in place of science, and science relegated to one tool in the rationalist's tool-box. Not everyone wants to be a scientist, but everyone wants to think they're rational. No one wants to be seen as irrational. The message this film should be selling is: If you want to be rational, join us.

Posted by: Sastra | September 18, 2008 7:53 PM

Whateverman #56 wrote:

I haven't read up on this organization, but I plan to. It seems to align almost perfectly with by own values. However, I don't see that it has anything to do with atheism...

The Center for Inquiry is connected to the Council for Secular Humanism, which puts out the magazine Free Inquiry (it's also connected with what used to be called CSICOP, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, and is now, for reasons best known to itself, CSI.)

The values of science, reason, human rights, etc. are humanistic values. They're concerned with and built from a rational perspective on this life and this natural universe -- and are shared with many religious people who also believe in spiritual entities and realms. However, a scientific approach to understanding will lead to naturalism, not supernaturalism. There is no good evidence for spiritual entities and realms, and humanism itself doesn't value either faith or the kind of obfuscation which allows people to slide religious beliefs into some special category.

You can have religious humanism, and humanists who are religious, but these are secular humanists. That's the atheist connection.

Since the commercial includes Dawkins and Dennett, they don't have a problem with the so-called "New Atheists" (the "Brights" aren't officially connected to any particular organization.) I'm a bit surprised Hitchens isn't in the video as well -- he's one of their regular columnists.

(By the way, I doubt if the Marquis de Coiffure will have much problem with either this video or organization. It makes a case for a positive philosophy which rests on atheism. Both DJ Grothe, and CampQuest -- which he uses as proper examples of how atheists should promote themselves -- are with Center for Inquiry.)

Posted by: JoJo | September 18, 2008 8:21 PM

Max Verret #69

I'll take you at your word on that. When one disputes a Bright, he does so at his own peril.

The argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam or ipse dixit) is a logical fallacy.

Posted by: bk | September 18, 2008 8:27 PM

Wow. No Palin bashing either! Well done@!

Posted by: Jason | September 18, 2008 8:53 PM

Great commercial, but it looks like the Christians have already prepared a response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8&feature=bz302

Posted by: Dust | September 18, 2008 9:21 PM

Jason mentioned: Great commercial, but it looks like the Christians have already prepared a response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8&feature=bz302

And with these fabulous lyrics: Jesus is like a Mountie; he always gets his man. He'll zap him any way he can(!)

It almost converted me, but being a girl..............well,
I just don't think the message was for me.

Liked the CSI video much better. :)

Posted by: Rey Fox | September 18, 2008 9:31 PM

"These are not Bronze-Age Myths. They are today's myths."

Well, I'm sure the guardian angel thing is pretty recent. A self-absorbed American twist on the old Heavenly Host.

Posted by: milawe | September 18, 2008 9:58 PM

Hey, I have an off topic request. A while back (but this year) PZ posted a short video on how the first cell might have self replicated. I am having no luck finding this clip and wonder if anyone happened to bookmark it. I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me a link. Thanks.

Posted by: Colby | September 18, 2008 10:08 PM

Bravo. Let's have many many more of these! Get the message out there. Go CFI.

Posted by: Max Verret | September 18, 2008 10:28 PM

Travis 73
"and what pray tell does that dollop of passive-aggressive excreta mean"

It means that when one does not show deference to his betters, there are consequences.

Posted by: Max Verret | September 18, 2008 10:39 PM

jojo 83

"argument from authority is a logical fallacy"

But you come from a linage of authority. PZ is certainly more that a mere authority and remember: Omni agens agit sibi simile.

It's good to see that you keep up with your Latin; not many of the lads and lassies do that today

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 18, 2008 10:44 PM

Max my boyo, do you have any physical evidence for your god we can examine and prove that divinity is there? If not, you sir, are a liar and bullshitter. Put up or shut up.