Zeno sent me this link to an article by Jon Carroll—Carroll is one of those "eh, so what" members of the godless community, who probably rolls his eyes at those uppity atheists who get so obnoxious about the role of religion in our culture, while at the same time recognizing that there are some problems that need to be fought…one of those annoyingly tepid unbelievers, anyway. And that's OK. I actually agree with a big chunk of what he writes. This point, in particular, is one that's important:
But there's one idea that comes up in these discussions that I want to talk about; it's the notion that "religion is responsible for most of the war and suffering in the world," or however it's phrased. You know, the Crusades, the Inquisition, colonialism cloaked in Christianity, bigotry against women cloaked in Islam or Hinduism -- the list is pretty long.
I don't believe that it's religion's fault. I believe that human nature is responsible for war and torture and intolerance. I believe that we are beasts, and that every institution we set up reflects our bestial nature. If we drag God into it, it's because we feel shame for our actions. "Sure, seems bad to kill babies, but God told me to do it, so it must be OK."
I agree. I don't blame religion for all evil, and I think that if religion vanished overnight, there would be no overall change in the levels of atrocity, crime, poverty, starvation, pollution, etc. We would just find new excuses to rationalize away our actions. Some would stop—suicide bombing becomes a particularly stupid act when one believes in one life and no reward in a paradise—but those are just spectacularly notable actions among a great sea of day-to-day horrors that go on.
However, what would go away is a barrier that hinders us from working to prevent the actual problems. Poof away the religious element, and the Middle East suddenly becomes a conflict between people trying to find autonomy and respect and security, and the unresolvable problems of superstitious, irrational demands are no longer in operation. It doesn't mean the conflict goes away, of course…just that now there is one less silly obstacle in the way of fixing it. Poverty and famine and disease don't disappear, either, but being able to work on those problems without the religious clutter of goofy beliefs about reproduction would go a long way towards allowing us to address root causes.
It also removes the complacency barrier. Religion is an excuse that many unbelievers, including Jon Carroll, seem to accept without question. Why should we? When someone defends special treatment because of their religion ("my child should not have to learn about evolution, because it offends my faith") why should we accept it? Why not insist on an actual, reasonable, rational excuse?
I'm also not at all impressed with this line of argument.
Religion also provides rituals, and humans find solace in ritual. Maybe it's all a lie, blah blah blah, but how can solace be bad? How can comfort be evil? Man, shut up and listen to the music; be still and smell the flowers. There's room here for all of us; atheists, of all people, should understand that point.
No one, as far as I know, is suggesting that all human ritual be abolished; it's fine with me if you go to church every Sunday and snort incense and recite the same old lines of antique poetry each time, and I can even understand how some people might find that pleasant (not for me, though, but I doubt anyone goes to church to make me content.)
The question about how comforting lies can be bad, though…come on. Isn't that obvious? If you want your soma, you might feel good, but you also get heedlessness and neglect. How many good Christians sit back and let the status quo stand, or even engage in petty oppression, because their pastor lies to them and tells them that God wills it? Insh'allah is a recipe for defeatism and resignation.
Worst of all, it's lazy. When critical thinking and skepticism are among your most important values, religion, as the abnegation of those values, is not going to regarded highly. If Mr Carroll wants to just admit that he's not interested in thinking deeply and prefers pretty lies, that's fine—he should just admit that up front, though, rather than indirectly, by telling us religion doesn't bother him in the slightest.
- Log in to post comments
Hear hear, and very well said.
I like the clarity of this; I've said similar before... that while there are lots of reasons to criticize religion and religions, these don't overlap entirely with the reasons one shouldn't believe in the superstitions from which they're assembled. Nor should we assume that religion on its own inspires atrocities--it may be at most a confounding factor.
I've tended also to say the most compelling reason I do not follow any religion is simply that they have utterly failed to make any case why I should (and, generally, they've embarrassed themselves and their followers with the tactics by which they try)--the fact that they have also been involved in some of the larger trainwrecks in history is a somewhat ambiguous fact, at best, as you point out...
I'd also say that religion seems kinda... icky, to me, on a personal level. Being required to defend something manifestly silly and deeply incoherent, apart from being difficult, potentially embarrassing and rather a waste of time, it might also be just generally bad for you. And if you're expected by the cultural traditions of your faith to so pervert reason, day in, day out, in such defenses, it could easily erode your very respect for reason (and grasp of what it is)... all potentially bad.
But all that's a digression. Again, well said.
It's not but it's only a small piece of the pie along with guilt, shame, fear, and such that are a larger piece of said pie.
"...along with guilt, shame, fear..."
Don't forget hate.
I agree that in the beginning, religion may have been used to excuse various atrocities, and the rules of religion written to reflect the corrupt thinking of the day. But I think it also reinforces those atrocities now, and not only provides an excuse, but incentive as well. It's a vicius circle.
I believe that human nature is responsible for war and torture and intolerance. I believe that we are beasts, and that every institution we set up reflects our bestial nature. If we drag God into it, it's because we feel shame for our actions. "Sure, seems bad to kill babies, but God told me to do it, so it must be OK."
funny, I was recently re-reading some of WD Hamilton's commentary on his late 60's early 70's symposia presentations on the implications of his work on kin selection and the prisoner's dilemma model for human behavior.
The part of Jon Carroll's piece italicized above would fit perfectly into Hamiton's assessment of human behavior, as represented in his review essay titled:
"America: Selection of Selfish and Altruistic Behavior in Some Extreme Models."
apropos to his essay, he picked this particular quote from Stevenson to preface it:
"It was the curse of mankind that these incongruous fagots were thus bound together - that in the agonised womb of consciousness, these polar twins should continually be struggling."
-The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
I agree with Jon Carroll here, PZ. I have a 100% materialistic view of the universe and don't believe in anything religious. Recently a friend of my wife's had a baby just a few days after her grandfather died. The question came up of whether she was sad that he had missed seeing his great granddaughter, and my wife's friend said with calm happiness: "Oh, he sees her". After my wife and I left we talked for a long while about what you'd have to believe, and what aspects of the way we know the world to work you'd have to *disbelieve*, in order to think that it was possible that someone who had died could "see" what was going on here. But do you think we should have explained to my wife's friend that she'd be better off seeing her belief for the nonsense it undoubtedly is? Of course not--I don't even think it's true that she'd be better off, if she's not the kind of person who has come to the realisation already by the time she's adult. I mean you could try explaining to her that it's not really that sad, and through her character the influence of her grandfather will be felt in the life of her baby and so forth... but in the end, it *is* a little sad. If I was that grandfather, and my favourite granddaughter was about to give birth to my first great grandchild, I think I'd like to see it once, and I think I wouldn't like to feel myself dying just before the baby was due. So in this case her belief is comforting, and I guess most people would rather feel that comfort than have the knowledge that they understand the world a little better than the people around them--a cold comfort at best.
"...but how can solace be bad? How can comfort be evil?..."
Drugs and alcohol cause lots of damage and their primary purpose is to provide solace/comfort.
Pakistan moves to alter its hard-line rape laws
"Religion also provides rituals, and humans find solace in ritual."
Assuming these premises are true, are there non-superstitous means to gain this solace?
This is on a tangent, but there seems to be loads of linguistic respect for gods. Removing it can be pretty eye-opening as well.
I am referring to the widespread habit of writing "God" with the capital G and without an indefinite article. It is of course proper to try to use the same terms with everyone else. But interesting things happen with only small modifications.
You could, for example, use "Gods" or "gods". My current statement of atheism is "I don't believe in gods", not "I don't believe in God". I am not "an atheist of Christianity". For me the modified statement is less loaded and more accurate.
Another option is to use the singular form: "a god". Take a text that speaks about believing in God, use the old search-and-replace -magic wand and presto! The feel of the text changes. For example, this text is from this very post:
"A god wills it". That sounds more like Tolkien and a lot less like Moses.
Removing the obstacles of language are the first step in removing the obstacles of supernaturalism.
(Yes. This was inspired by the heavy use of "gods" in Battlestar Galactica.)
Assuming these premises are true, are there non-superstitous means to gain this solace?
of course. many use regular visits to the gym, parties, hobbies, volunteer work, etc., etc.
all these things can, and do, perform similar roles, and are entirely "secular" in nature.
And some like dead meat:
Deer assault case presents unusual issues
Somehow they neglected to get a quote from Sen. Rick Santorum to fill out the article.
I know I am going to really piss everyone off, but here goes...
Approximately 2 weeks before Indira Ghandi was assinated, she posited, in a speech about the overpopulation of India, that males should me neutered.
When you talk about all the horrors of the world, you fail to mention, that they are male-generated.
The most 'civilized' societies amoung the non-humans, would be those species that have taken care of most of the males; i.e. ants, bees etc.
If we can successfully get rid of religion, then maybe that should be our next objective.
Ok....now...let me have it! (I haven't been here long, but I seem to garner quite alot of vitriolic responses...no matter...I have survived MUCH worse that what you can throw at me....so....fire away!)
Being comfortable is not a good position to be in.
PZ writes, "Suicide bombing becomes a particularly stupid act when one believes in one life and no reward in a paradise."
Didn't the Tamil Tigers pioneer the practice of suicide bombing? I don't know their views of the afterlife. They aren't Muslim. The Japanese kamikaze pilots were Shinto, and performed their suicide attacks with no particular promise of a blessed afterlife. While the promise of immediate transport to paradise might be one way to motivate suicidal acts for a larger cause, it doesn't seem prerequisite.
"You know, the Crusades, the Inquisition, colonialism cloaked in Christianity, bigotry against women cloaked in Islam or Hinduism -- the list is pretty long. I don't believe that it's religion's fault."
Probably not. But the list gives pretty compelling evidence against the claim that god A is the solution to problems {B,C,D}.
Japanese kamikaze pilots were Shinto, and performed their suicide attacks with no particular promise of a blessed afterlife.
ridiculous to posit it had no religious ties, however, as I'm sure you are familiar with the historical divinity of the emporer?
perhaps you should post the exact wording used by commanders to "sell" suicide attacks to pilots during the earliest parts of the kamikaze efforts?
PZ's point is not wrong as it stands, especially in context, as it DOES remove a motivating factor.
You are also right that it doesn't not remove ALL potential factors.
er, make that:
You are also right that it doesn't remove ALL potential factors.
must...drink..coffee.
I agree with you bibi. I'm not sure castration is the answer though. But I've discussed and pondered the role of testosterone in the self-inflicted hardships of humanity, and have come to a similar conclusion. Yes I am male, and hetero. Not that sexual orientation should matter; I just wanted to deflect any bigoted vitriol.
As far as religion goes:
Religion fosters complacency
Religion creates unconquerable Fear
Religion creates unconquerable Hatred
Religion warps psyches
Worst of all in my opinion, religion legitimizes any evil through its interpretation, and holds blind faith in the highest regard and shuns skeptical inquiry. There is enough evil in Nature without the assistance of man's contrivances, and Nature constantly shows us that in order for us to survive, indeed flourish, we must understand her. There is only one way to do that, and belief is not the way.
"You know, the Crusades, the Inquisition, colonialism cloaked in Christianity, bigotry against women cloaked in Islam or Hinduism -- the list is pretty long. I don't believe that it's religion's fault."
no more than alcoholism is alcohol's fault, however it IS enabling behaviors that are quite irrational.
As a heterosexual male, I wouldn't mind living in a world with a 10 to 1 female to male ratio. Heh, heh.
"Ladies, ladies, there's enough of me to go around...."
Religion didn't cause all those problems. Correct, it was humans irrational belief systems that justified those atrocities.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.
Demosthenes, Third Olynthiac, sct. 19 (349 BCE)
My question is, what survival skill could religion have served in evolutionary terms. Or is it too recent a development to have been a survival skill?
The most 'civilized' societies amoung the non-humans, would be those species that have taken care of most of the males; i.e. ants, bees etc.
1. Please define what you mean by 'civilized.'
2. Also, what do you mean when you say "taken care of most of the males?" Do you mean as a percentage of the population? Do you mean expected longevity? I'm not sure I understand.
My understanding is that (in honey bee colonies) drones are essentially freeloaders that are given royal treatment. The workers take care of them, feed them and protect them; in return the drones do absolutely nothing until it's time to mate. I also believe that the standard route to death for a drone who sucessfully mates is similar to that of a worker who stings--he bleeds to death because part of his abdomen breaks off with his penis.
Dale,
Maybe it was religion's ability to bring comfort and solace that kept us from constantly staring into the abyss, wringing our hands, instead of enjoying the tid-bits of joy that would come along every so often.
Now it's just a crutch; a way to subjugate and manipulate, ironically, by using our fear of the abyss. Bastards.
Religion serves as an aid in group cohesiveness beyond the extended family. If a few family groups who all believe in 'vengeful spirit A' help each other instead of fighting each other to the death, those family groups eat better and fend off dangers easier, and could mitigate the deleterious effects of inbreeding as well.
At least that's my idea as a non-scientist.
"If Mr Carroll wants to just admit that he's not interested in thinking deeply and prefers pretty lies, that's fine--he should just admit that up front, though, rather than indirectly, by telling us religion doesn't bother him in the slightest."
Maybe religion just doesn't bother him, and he thinks there are other ways to think deeply.
If we agree that the important thing is to, for instance, bring peace to the Middle East, why should we spend time fighting about Islam/Judaism/Christianity first? Why not address the territorial and political issues, and leave people to work out their religious issues on their own?
Religion may or may not be the major meta-issue in that conflict (I happen to think it's a distraction from the real issue), but we all seem to agree that it isn't the only issue, or even the most readily solved.
I still don't see why I should care about theism. I care about poverty, authoritarianism, equality, and fairness, and see enough places were those issues define a conflict that I don't see the value in taking on more issues.
Dale wrote:
As Daniel Dennett argues in Breaking the Spell, it is possible that neurological features which lead us to religious belief evolved for other reasons; that is, religion could be a side effect. I wrote a little about this over here.
Timely....I've just begun reading a book entitled "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris tackling just this topic, and was visiting your blog today to send you an email and recommend it to you, PZ. Harris's premise is that faith of any kind is destructive, antithetical to progress, and at the root of a great deal of the large-scale atrocities in the world. I've just begun reading it, and I don't know yet if I totally agree, but the early chapters are striking chords with me for sure.
Dale, religion did have a survival value, at least, in the mythopoeic societies of the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, several thousand years ago. I believe the Y chrosome found amongst most modern men of European descent is derived from about seven ancestral Middle Eastern farmers who migrated into Europe.
The social structure of these ancient societies was based upon the cosmos as being an extension of society, and ordered on much the same lines as prevailing social organization. The gods were central to this.
For the Mesopotamians, man was created to be the slave of the gods. He was their servant. Those folks who devoutly believed what the priest told them, experienced the 'good life' as the 'devout life'. A diligent & obedient servant could expect to be rewarded & promoted, (by the priests, who administer things for the gods). A slothful, disobedient servant, on the other hand, could hope for none of these things.
I think it is obvious how this would affect fertility & survival rates.
Keep reading, Stacey, and tell us what you think of the book after you've finished its final chapters.
PZ #1: "However, what would go away is a barrier that hinders us from working to prevent the actual problems. Poof away the religious element, and the Middle East suddenly becomes a conflict between people trying to find autonomy and respect and security, and the unresolvable problems of superstitious, irrational demands are no longer in operation. It doesn't mean the conflict goes away, of course...just that now there is one less silly obstacle in the way of fixing it. Poverty and famine and disease don't disappear, either, but being able to work on those problems without the religious clutter of goofy beliefs about reproduction would go a long way towards allowing us to address root causes."
Why is there any reason to think that attachment to religious belief is more amenable to change than tendencies to do nasty stuff? I don't see a realistic possibility that the situation you describe (religion goes away but the problems don't) will ever occur.
PZ #2: "When someone defends special treatment because of their religion ('my child should not have to learn about evolution, because it offends my faith') why should we accept it? Why not insist on an actual, reasonable, rational excuse?"
Because "I know better what's good for you than you do" has historically led to decidedly mixed results. It must inevitably take as its premise "I'm smarter than you." The people I admire most for their intelligence are the most humble: the most ready to learn from others, the most ready to think they could have been wrong (and who thus double- and triple-check themselves). Who in your experience, PZ, does the best work in your field? Those who are readiest to tell others "You're wrong! I know better than all you fools!"? Or those who take pains to check everything they do and to consult others before publishing results?
{I previewed my last comment before posting...several times...yet missed a typo. Should read - BE neutered...not me neutered. Yikes!)
To the Science Pundit, civilized means what the dictionary says it means.
And, I don't think I could have made my point any clearer...but, for you, I will.
As Alex stated, TESTOSTERONE is the problem. Most males should be neutered. Castrated. Have their balls cut off. Just go ask any farmer/rancher how they keep the peace...and that is how they do it. They fix (neuter) most, if not all, of the males.
Bibi perhaps ought not to be neutered, but disemvowelling doesn't strike me as an awful idea....
As Alex stated, TESTOSTERONE is the problem. Most males should be neutered. Castrated. Have their balls cut off. Just go ask any farmer/rancher how they keep the peace...and that is how they do it. They fix (neuter) most, if not all, of the males.
uh, somehow i think that threatening to remove testicles won't "keep the peace" for very long.
moreover, if you succeeded, i would expect the repercussions to become violent as well.
bulls don't carry guns, after all.
better ban all the guns first.
Indeed, if you could manage to ban the possession and sale of all guns, one might argue you would have effectively neutred the human male already.
good luck with that.
somehow i think that threatening to remove testicles won't "keep the peace" for very long.
See, now, I HAVE thought alot about this, and all you guys are safe.
The only way to successfully begin this project, is for doctors to perform the castration at birth, or soon thereafter. Instead of the circumcision, let's say.
Snip, snip.
Pass it on....
bibi,
I don't have my dictionary in front of me right now, so I still don't know what you mean by 'civilized.'
I also don't think it's wise to use observed animal behaviors in order to draw moral conclusions about humanity. I could do the same thing in reverse and demonstrate how "female dominated" social insect species practice warfare, kidnapping, slavery, suicide attacks, eugenics and sexual discrimination.
This site drives atheists to pray:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html
Jud said:
"Bibi perhaps ought not to be neutered, but disemvowelling doesn't strike me as an awful idea...."
When you disembowel Bibi, please call me so I can come over. I am studying to become a Haruspex.
Faith does its greatest mischief by providing TOO MUCH comfort...by becoming a substitute for compassion, altruism, duty, and action. Protestants are guiltier than Catholics, and Evangelicals are guiltiest of all. Don't worry about noticing need, taking a risk, reaching out to help, any of that. The sum total of your obligation as a human being is to believe a given dogma. Once you've done the "work of faith," you are free to retire into utter indifference, and the empty security of a fake job well done. Is this what is meant by "comfort"? This smug assurance that one's self-delusion at the mercy a crippling mind-hack is what it is to be an authentic person? Faith is just another way of saying "might as well be dead already."
"I also don't think it's wise to use observed animal behaviors in order to draw moral conclusions about humanity."
Oh, dear...well, that's the difference between us. I don't see humans as anything other than animal (mammal).
I smell a male bias.
When I was in school (a long time ago) we were taught that the males had the XY and females...XX chromosomes...and we were taught that WOMEN HAD AN EXTRA CELL (molecule, whatever, I am not a scientist, but I am sure you understand what I am saying). Like an anomaly. Like something mutant. When the truth is, males are missing a cell.
What does that tell you?
Re: civilized....I give up.
bibi,
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that I said testosterone is the problem. Females have testosterone as well. I feel the issue is a little more sophisticated than you're representing it to be. Clearly what your posts are advocating is akin to eugenics.
That being said, I think it would be hard to argue against the assertion that human males may exhibit aggressive tendencies more than females. Additionally, many (more modern) religions consider females a lesser person, portray god as a man, etc. - indicating a male-centric view of society. Couple that with the violence and hatred espoused by those religions, shows the association between men and destructive behavior.
But again, as I said, there certainly are other factors involved. I don't feel that being male is the litmus test. But don't ask me, I'm no expert.
The only way to successfully begin this project, is for doctors to perform the castration at birth, or soon thereafter. Instead of the circumcision, let's say.
nope. that doesn't affect the initial response by anything other than the infant undergoing the surgery.
opposition to the idea would be just as violent, and the repercussions would be just as forthcoming (repercussions including the infant, as well, as soon as they discovered what has been done to them).
you used cicumcision as an analogy, but have you ever looked at how pissed off some males get about THAT?
I disagree you have thought this through very far.
but, you might want to consider forced clitorectomy; i hear that curtails much evil premarital sex in various cultures.
Dale: "When you disembowel Bibi, please call me so I can come over. I am studying to become a Haruspex."
For a disem*v*owelling, it might be more appropriate if you were studying to become an editor.
Everyone has rituals. Molluscophelial humor is one...
"you used cicumcision as an analogy, but have you ever looked at how pissed off some males get about THAT?"
Please don't assume. I think curcumcision is an ABONIMATION! An antiquated Hebrew practice that has long outlived it's usefulness.
As for you, Alex, I totally understand why you want to distance yourself from me. (since they are plotting for my dis-embowelment}. It's ok. No worries. I won't attach myself to your comments, anymore.
As I said, I knew this topic would piss people off.
Hey Dale,
I thought that was you. You're the first one who caused me to look up Haruspex.
As I said, I knew this topic would piss people off.
one, don't confuse disemvowelment with disembowelment.
two, you mean this isn't a joke?
If not, you need serious help, girl.
bibi,
My stance regarding your opinion has remained constant. It hasn't moved. I just think that the problem requires a little more sophistication than the cart-blanch castration you are prescribing.
Dale was using word-play. No one wants you disembowled. I even think that disemvowelment is a little harsh.
As far as people being pissed off, trust me, there's none of that here, so far. It gets rather interesting when that happens. This is all pretty tame.
Right there with you, Ichthyic.
PZ, you have your own comforting narratives and illusions that give you comfort, but you won't admit it.
If you don't know PZ personally, and you can't present written evidence of a specific illusion/narrative that PZ clings to, your argument is invalid. You may believe that it is very likely PZ has such beliefs, and may argue on statistical grounds, but your stated argument is wrong.
the death of...who sucessfully mates is similar to that of a worker who stings--he bleeds to death because part of his abdomen breaks off with his penis.
I always knew that's what would happen! Thank God I've been careful.
Also confirms that my wife has been trying to get rid of me all these years.
What an awful way to go! I'm keeping it in my pants.
Stephen,
I think the part about comfort he will admit to. I'm sure I could even find an example. The part about the illusions, I'm sure he would ask for some examples. But I don't wish to speak for PZ. But if you're alluding to the whole "evolution is a belief" argument, then I've been far too polite.
For a more intelligent opponent?
dogscratcher asked : "Religion also provides rituals, and humans find solace in ritual."
"Assuming these premises are true, are there non-superstitous means to gain this solace?"
Sporting events give people an opportunity to partake in ritual and ceremony.
For example the Olympic games, or a basketball or football match.
Most of these events entail music, dancing, speeches, the national anthem, food and drink, cheering, emotional highs and lows, as well as camaraderie and group cohesion among the supporters of a particular team or nation.
Sounds a lot like a religious service doesn't it?
Antti Rasinen makes a good point about how our widespread habit of writing "God" with the capital G and without an indefinite article lends a false aura of respect to what is essentially a primitive tribal diety just like so many others.
I have recently been in the habit of referring to the Bible's god by his name 'Yahweh', whenever discussing the subject with Christians.
It's amazing how many of them aren't even aware that he has a personal name.
Some Christians get very disconcerted when they hear their god refered to by the name Yahweh, because it sounds so foreign and unfamiliar.
This is largly because the Bible has been dishonestly translated so as to refer to Yahweh as 'The Lord', and the clergy help to perpetuate this deception.
After all 'The Lord' sounds far more regal and imposing than 'Yahweh'.
If we habitually refer to other ancient gods such as Zeus, or Allah, or Shiva, or Brahma, or Ahura Mazda, by their personal names, why not be consistant and refer to this Hebrew tribal diety by his name as well?
'But if you're alluding to the whole "evolution is a belief" argument, then I've been far too polite.'
Of course not. I meant that it is part and parcel of the human condition to have a head full of narratives, images, motivs, metaphors, etc, that aren't objectively "true".
DingoDave,
The answer is that clearly the Hebrew tribal diety is the REAL God. Geeesh!
I think I'll start referring to that concept by its first name. I like that idea. It's kind of like calling him "Bob". Praise Bob!! Sounds kinda silly. I like it. Nice post.
Today in the mail I received an invitation to a local event they've termed a "Wonderful World of Women Expo." I knew what I'd find before I even looked at the lineup: about half of the speakers and activities would be normal and reasonable (yoga, folk-singing, massage, self-esteem pep talks, cooking demonstrations, financial planning, belly dance lessons, Living With Menopause) and the other half would be a disgusting, filthy mess of pseudoscientific garbage and childlike nonsense (Reiki, Reflexology, Aura Drawing, past-life regression, psychic readings, Naturopathy, Discovering Your Angels).
As a woman, I am insulted. The general assumption with these kinds of events always seems to be that being female entails being totally ignorant of science and eagerly gullible for anything that flatters or reassures us.
Well, I'm not going. It would drive me nuts. Sure, I can choose to "skip" the more outlandish seminars, but I know darn well it's an absolute cultural no-no to say anything "judgmental" or negative, and that would frustrate me. No, it's all supposed to be good, as long as it "works" and some woman is comforted and leaves the Expo feeling better about themselves. Science and reason be damned; this is about Personal Growth. Even if one's personal growth seems to stop at about age 6.
The Jon Carroll-ish translation would be "this is fun, who does it hurt, we're learning valuable things and even if we're not we don't care - after all, Everybody Should Be Allowed to Believe What They Want." There's no actual violence here (violence to one's sense of truth and honesty apparently doesn't count.)
So none of us ever complains, lest people think we're Not Very Nice and Not Very Open. Of course, it's culturally acceptable for MEN to snort with skepticism or openly complain -- but women are so much kinder and gentler, so much more *people* oriented and willing to go along. Think about feelings.
And thus feminine critical thinking skills become an oxymoron. It's enough to make me embarrassed for my sex.
Get rid of the men? Dear me. And leave us without practically any grownups at all?
Is it just my troll-o-meter, or do they all jump several points upward when someone is repeatedly asked to define their terms but continues to avoid the question?
Anyway: yes, humans are animals, but pretty much by definition, different species are different. This particular species of neotenous great ape and that particular species of insect may both live in large groups, but that's only a coincidence. The problems they face are very different, as are the resources they have for dealing with them, and therefor the pathways by which they have come to live in large groups.
In other words, why should humans adopt ants' systems of forming in large groups of easily-sacrificed laborers ruled by tiny elites that continuously war upon and enslave other such groups, when their own systems for establishing such groups work just fine?
Oh, good, I'm out of troll-treats, so I can stop. Time to pack for Orycon!
I think the discordians already praise Bob. We'll have to stick to calling him Yahweh and wondering what ever happened to his wife.
Suicide Bombings would not necessarily stop. People who have no future and can rely on their sponsoring organization to look after their family might still willingly kill themselves.
Wait a minute...
Maybe if you castrate them, then lobotomize them to save them the emotional suffering and psychological turmoil later in life, it just might work!
That was sarcasm. The best way to handle it would be to chemically address the issue at the stage of development when sex is determined. No castration, no lobotomies, clean and simple. I mean, messing around with population ratios couldn't harm anything...right?
That was also sarcasm.
Well ok. But if he has a first name, how about a nick name? If Bob is taken, how about Jeff? Or Stewart? Yahweh is just so old-school and stodgy.
DingoDave,
I provide my overwhelmingly Christian students with a translation that preserves the names Yahweh and Elohim, and it is fascinating to see how my students react. Suddenly narratives that were familiar to them become wierd and unfamiliar, even to the extent that some students DO NOT RECOGNIZE that they are reading excerpts from the same "Old Testament" that they have up until that point accepted as scripture.
Students also become bewildered when they read the Epic of Gilgamesh and encounter the story that parallels the flood narrative in Genesis. To them, the story in Gilgamesh is clearly fiction because, well, it features all those 'mythological' deities. But then they have to grapple with the fact that it is undeniably the same story in Genesis--and that it was recorded centuries before the Hebrew version. This makes for some serious cognitive dissonance.
I was wondering what the collected commentators (and Prof. Myers, himself, if he reads down this far), would think of something I heard on last week's This American Life.
It was a show about the (in)famous Lancet Study of civilian casualties in Iraq. The Johns Hopkins statistician in charge of the study related an argument he had with his chief Iraqi researcher: the researcher wanted to go into Fallujah and complete the study. The American thought it too dangerous. But the Iraqi said, "It is God's will that I do this work. God wants me to complete this study, so I will go." And he went.
So: here you have a religious man, motivated by his religion to undertake extremely dangerous work... in the name of accomplishing good science. (or, at least, social science, but it's peer reviewed, so let's not quibble.)
What's wrong with that?
Yagur:
does the ends justify the means?
Yagur,
For me it's scarey what else his religion could motivate him to do.
"Good men do good things, evil men do evil things, but it takes religion for a good man to do evil things."
one might, but when i contemplate human history back before the invention of firearms, i am unconvinced.
Carroll contradicts himself, and in consecutive sentences at that!
So we're inhuman because we're beasts, but our invocation of God shows we can feel shame for our beastliness?? Maybe we're not such utter brutes after all!
This sounds almost like a tepid apologia for religion, in fact. We're brutes, but those of us who have faith at least feel shame and remorse.
Did you say you agreed with this crap, PZ?
I think rather than looking at ranchers and bulls, bibi might be better served by the example of certain species of deep-sea anglerfish, where the males simply bite onto the female's flank, and then essentially degenerate to become little more than a parasitic sack of testes.
maybe Bibi was an anglerfish in a previous life and just can't make sense out of the way things work with humans?
"What's wrong with that?"
One man's "God's will" is another man's "the right thing to do."
Someone like PZ might criticize the Iraqi researcher for not taking responsibility for his actions. I think the "God" is simply the metaphor through which the Iraqi mediates his dilemma.
When these sorts of things come up, I am reminded of the following anecdote, and I am not sure exactly how Sartre feels about the man in question:
[quote]While I was imprisoned, I made the acquaintance of a somewhat remarkable man, a Jesuit, who had become a member of that order in the following manner. In his life he had suffered a succession of rather severe setbacks. His father had died when he was a child, leaving him in poverty, and he had been awarded a free scholarship in a religious institution, where he had been made continually to feel that he was accepted for charity's sake, and, in consequence, he had been denied several of those distinctions and honours which gratify children. Later, about the age of eighteen, he came to grief in a sentimental affair; and finally, at twenty-two - this was a trifle in itself, but it was the last drop that overflowed his cup - he failed in his military examination. This young man, then, could regard himself as a total failure: it was a sign - but a sign of what? He might have taken refuge in bitterness or despair. But he took it - very cleverly for him - as a sign that he was not intended for secular success, and that only the attainments of religion, those of sanctity and of faith, were accessible to him. He interpreted his record as a message from God, and became a member of the Order. Who can doubt but that this decision as to the meaning of the sign was his, and his alone? One could have drawn quite different conclusions from such a series of reverses - as, for example, that he had better become a carpenter or a revolutionary. For the decipherment of the sign, however, he bears the entire responsibility. That is what "abandonment" implies, that we ourselves decide our being.[/quote]
PZ, you have your own comforting narratives and illusions that give you comfort, but you won't admit it.
I'm not sure it's being used as such in this case, but I've often seen this argument used to defend theism. It's the whole quantum woo thing mixed with misinterpreted Hegel with a dash of taking The Matrix a bit too seriously. As in, "If reality is an illusion, then why isn't the God-illusion as valid as your science-illusion."
As if that's supposed to be a good argument in favor of belief.
Strom Thurmond's been in heaven more than three years now. Wonder how he's liking it?
I am a Christian, but I have to say I don't want my son shielded from the teachings of subjects such as evolution. He's going to encounter them at some point in his life, whether in school or in college or simply in everyday conversation. I want him to hear all sides from the beginning. I sure wouldn't be serving a very powerful God if I didn't believe he could protect my son's mind no matter what others may expose him to hear.
And besides: the concepts of God and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Elf Eye wrote: "I provide my overwhelmingly Christian students with a translation that preserves the names Yahweh and Elohim, and it is fascinating to see how my students react."
What translation are you referring to? I wasn't aware that one existed.
I would love to see all Bibles translated according to the original intentions of the authors.
This would mean that instead of the word 'God' (Elohim), it would read - 'gods'.
Instead of 'Lord God', it would read 'Yahweh Elohim' - 'Yahweh of the gods'
'Adonai' - 'my Lord' or 'my Lords'. (This is the equivalent of the Caananite title 'Baal' which simply means 'Lord of the temple'.)
El - (the same as the Caananite high god El). In Caananite mythology El was the father of the gods, and it would appear that originally Yahweh was just one of his many sons.
El Elyon - 'Most high god'.
El Shaddai - 'God the destroyer', or 'God of the mountains'.
Yahweh Sabbaoth - 'Yahweh, lord of armies.'
And so the list goes on.
Of course I doubt whether any publisher would actually do this, because after all, they want to sell some Bibles.
yes, always amusing to point out the pagan roots of modern xianity to the fundies.
even their damn co-option of the fish symbol is a theft from the original usage.
Strom Thurmond's been in heaven more than three years now. Wonder how he's liking it?
well, i dunno, but I've promised to have an unending bad sci-fi marathon (ala MST 3000) once we all get to hell, so at least I can promise a good time for MST fans!
...or is that unending torture?
meh, whatever.
Elf eye,
It is rather curious how the name of their god changes in the first few books of their bible.
Maybe El is, in fact his nickname, or something.
Alex,
I knew immediately who you were in the first post i read with your name. Who else?
All,
Since you are all acting so philosophical I have only one question.
If I am in the middle of the woods, and I make a statement, and my wife does not hear it, am I still wrong?
If I am in the middle of the woods, and I make a statement, and my wife does not hear it, am I still wrong?
based on the point of view of the prospective observer (wife), of course you are.
always.
;)
Dingo,
Great post. Even the first commandment shows how disengenuous they were. Thou shalt not have any other gods before me, efectively admitting that there were other valid gods.
Ichth,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I owe you man.
Space Parasite,
Thank you for the defense. Since PZ has limited us to three anti-troll posts (and of course, I'm not counting this as one), your response to **** has left me the space to defend myself for myself should he return.
;-)
PZ has limited us to three anti-troll posts
wait...
I always thought it was "wait for three posts before attacking a troll".
has the rule changed?
Ichth,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I owe you man.
no prob. it's the primary reason I've remained a bachelor for so long.
Re Sastra:
Memoirs of a Skepchick.
If you're already aware of Skepchick, I don't know what else to tell you.
DingoDave,
Actually, I had to create my own text for the class. I had a transliteration of the Hebrew and simply restored Yahweh and Elohim in the English translation wherever those words occurred in the original. It was a strategy meant to prompt the students to respond to both Gilgamesh and the "Old Testament" as literary texts and to apply the same form of analysis to each (as well as to The Odyssey, and etcetera. The course is intended to be a literature course, and even though I tell students from the outset that we will adopt a literary critical approach to each and every assigned reading, that adjuration was regularly ignored the minute we hit the "Old Testament." However, once I began providing a text that featured the proper names of the deity/deities, the problem vanished and the student began to turn in analyses that were discipline-appropriate. Basically, I had to make the familiar unfamiliar so that they could look at the text on their own and not through the presuppositions that they brought with them to the course.
Re bibi:
I am not a scientist either, but it would behoove you to improve your use of terminology. 'XX' and 'XY' refer to chromosome pairs. The Y chromosome is, in effect, a truncated X chromosome. Men are not missing cells, but backup genetic information.
llewelly wrote:
Ah, indeed -- let's hear it for Skepchick! Thanks, llewelly -- not only already aware, but have even been to a Skepchick slumber party! There's nothing quite like being in a room full of pj-clad fems eating chocolate and trash-talking feng shui...
Yeah, I've noticed a lot of this general mindset. A prime example is one of the varieties of Pantene Pro-V shampoo whose cover advertises it as "New! With Amino Proteins[sic]." If "amino proteins" is a meaningful scientific term (let alone one that would justify the connotation they're attempting to attach to it) I will eat my mousepad.
This is more or less bibi's point, isn't it? *eyeroll* And as far as females being on the whole kinder or gentler than males...anyone who seriously thinks that has clearly never been to high school. My experience has been that the "men are more aggressive" meme is valid only if we arbitrarily define punching someone in the face as more "aggressive" than stabbing them in the back.
PZ,
"I don't blame religion for all evil, and I think that if religion vanished overnight, there would be no overall change in the levels of atrocity, crime, poverty, starvation, pollution, etc. We would just find new excuses to rationalize away our actions."
If you think there would be no over all change in the levels of atrocity, why do you say this right after:
"Some would stop--suicide bombing becomes a particularly stupid act [...]"
If some would stop, what makes you think the overall level of atrocity wouldn't be reduced?
If faith-based thinking causes some destructive behavior, which is obvious, what would cause said behavior in the absence of faith-based convictions?
Do you really believe the number of people who are born to seek out destruction of others is significant? Does the way kids are raised have no impact on their character? "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is one of the very pernicious things faith-based "thinking" has brought us.
How many kids were prevented from becoming well adjusted adults because of the beatings not only justified but *mandated* by that evil book?
When the instructions for violence and hate found in trash such as Koran and Bible are added to simple faith-based reasoning, the amount of potential destruction the faith-bot might cause increases even more.
I really don't understand you here PZ. While not advocating extermination of faith-based thinkers, I also don't advocate treating adult sized children who adopt faith as innocent of what the programming they chose to accept made them do!
Do you?
I really don't understand you here PZ. While not advocating extermination of faith-based thinkers, I also don't advocate treating adult sized children who adopt faith as innocent of what the programming they chose to accept made them do!
Do you?
"Some like red meat, some like pablum"
Ichthyic,
You're not insinuating that Stalin's atheism instructed him to slaughter political opponents, are you?
Why should anyone care that a historical frame of mind has pushed shamans to sacrifice innocent people to "gods", or some such atrocity? It is and was destructive to society, even though some people didn't and don't think so.
Just doing my part to feed the troll. They're hungry ya know.
Society without religion is like a psychopath without a loaded .45
You're not insinuating that Stalin's atheism instructed him to slaughter political opponents, are you?
whoa!
not hardly. where on earth did you get that idea??
Theatre (audience members are participants, too) makes a nice ritual, I find, now that it is (mostly) divorced from its religious origins. I mention it for the benefit of any fellow atheists who feel the need of participating in a ritual, but might not care for organized sport.
I once acted in a production of Yeats' Cuchlain plays where we even burnt incense and sage to 'purify' the theatre before the performance, because the director was one of those crystal-waving New Agers (who would probably have adored most of the woo-woo on offer at the Women's Expo that has driven Sastra to such despair). I cannot promise this as a regular part of theatre-going, however. Especially if there is a Fire Marshall present.
How I wish one had been present during the run of this production! The actors in the first of the plays could barely speak because of the smoke. I was fortunate enough to only have to dance in the first piece, and thus escaped with fewer side effects.
Sastra,
We recently had an "Alternative Health Expo" here in San Jose. Deepak Chopra was the keynote speaker! I'm told that the sexes were evenly represented both among attendees and presenters.
Elf Eye wrote on November 16th : "The course is intended to be a literature course, and even though I tell students from the outset that we will adopt a literary critical approach to each and every assigned reading. That adjuration was regularly ignored the minute we hit the Old Testament."
You might be interested in a study done by the Israeli psychologist George Tamarin. I was reading an interesting summary of it at a blog called 'Grounded in reality'
This study was cited in Richard Dawkins' latest book 'The God Delusion'.
"Tamarin [an Israeli psychologist] presented to more than a thousand Israeli schoolchildren, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:
Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction...But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'...Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and assess, with the edge of the sword...And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: 'Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted righty or not?' They had to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 per cent gave total approval and 26 per cent gave total dissaproval, with rather fewer (8 per cent) in the middle with partial aproval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:
"In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim."
"In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways."
"Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth."
Continuing on a little further:
Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by 'a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago'. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it."
Sounds eerily familiar to your experience doesn't it?
Tribes. Remove religion, and people will find other reasons to think of certain people as being in their tribe and others, not. And the tribes will fight just as viciously as they do now.
I think it's hilarious that society has finally come full circle to the point where bibi can restate " make act irrationally" entirely without irony.
Oh, sorry, that should be:
I think it's hilarious that society has finally come full circle to the point where bibi can restate "(sex organs) make (sex) act irrationally" entirely without irony.
"Testicles make men kill, let's castrate them" is the new "the uterus makes women all goofy, let's deny them the vote"
I think it is important to remember that although humans are beastly and monstrous, we are also the opposite. Somehow we have to cultivate that part of our nature ... how we do that better, I am working on ...
quork: Indeed. I hope the slight improvements there do not provoke civil war or anything untoward, though.
dale: It is quite possible that religion makes use of other systems which were adaptations. Or that that it was once an adaptation of sorts (yes, yes, I know, biologists. I agree I'm being sloppy.) and is otiose now. Pascal Boyer has written about this sort of subject, as have others.
"part of his abdomen breaks off with his penis"
Darn, don't you hate it when that happens?
Sastra: I've noticed such things previously. (See also the work in so-called "feminist philosophy", which to my mind is an oxymoron. Philosophy is universal; to the extent that it isn't is a failing. The "good" stuff there is recognition of sexism and that, but what is "feminist" about that?)
DingoDave: Long ago a friend of mine (who was raised Jewish and reads Hebrew) and I were going to produce an "atheist's translation" of the OT, but ... anyway, that's not going to happen. But it was one of our intentions to keep the "names of god" (sic) clear so as to accomplish the goal you are mentioning. I do wish someone would do this. /// \\\ And Tamarin's study sounds fascinating albeit depressing at the same time. Can you or anyone else pull the reference from Dawkins' book?