A few days ago I had a blurb on Pete Stark, a California congressman who has publicly declared his atheism. Apparently, his constituents are A-OK with it, so reports the Napa Valley Register. (granted, it's San Francisco, not exactly a hotbed of conservatism and intolerance, but hey, it's a start). From the comments, this one drives it home and gives hope:"Bravo Pete Stark, I am sure that Pete Stark is not alone as an atheistic member of congress. He is just alone in his courage. I hope that the courage is contageous. Shalom, Infidel"
click here for the new...
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
More on Pete Stark (Atheist-CA)
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Stop the presses!!! Real live nontheist in U.S. Congress!!!!
From the Secular Coalition of America:
Yeah, I'm shocked, too. And elated. It makes me wonder how many more might be hiding out. Perhaps Mr. Stark's revelation will prompt others to consider doing so. If you feel so inclined, you can contact Congressman Stark here to show your support.Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America. Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.
Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition's research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.
Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition for America, attributes these attitudes to the demonization of people who don't believe in God. "The truth is," says Silverman, "the vast majority of us follow the Golden Rule and are as likely to be good citizens, just like Rep. Stark with over 30 years of exemplary public service. The only way to counter the prejudice against nontheists is for more people to publicly identify as nontheists. Rep. Stark shows remarkable courage in being the first member of Congress to do so."
Monday, February 26, 2007
The path to finding Jesus....
...may actually have been found, in an archaeological site in the Holy Land.
Although the evidence contained in the film and book is hardly definitive, it is compelling. Inscribed in Hebrew, Latin or Greek, six boxes — taken from a 2,000-year-old cave discovered in March, 1980, during excavation for a housing project in Talpiyot, south of Jerusalem — bear the names: Yeshua (Jesus) bar Yosef (son of Joseph); Maria (the Latin version of Miriam, which is the English Mary); Matia (the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, a name common in the lineage of both Mary and Joseph); Yose; (the Gospel of Mark refers to Yose as a brother of Jesus); Yehuda bar Yeshua, or Judah, son of Jesus; and in Greek, Mariamne e mara — meaning 'Mariamne, known as the master.' According to Harvard professor Francois Bovon, interviewed in the film, Mariamne was Mary Magdalene's real name.I have mixed feelings about this. Most importantly, one cannot rule out fraud, as the issue of the James ossuary illustrates. But if it turns out to be true, what will be the implications? This is basically saying that Jesus got married and had a child, didn't rise from the dead, and wasn't born of a virgin. And I realize many of you reading this are probably thinking, 'Yeah, it's not like we believed those things anyway, what's the big deal?'
Nothing in the film or book challenges traditional Christian dogma regarding the resurrection. But it could pose a problem for those that believe Jesus' ascension, 40 days after the resurrection, was both physical and spiritual. And, if further DNA testing were to link Jesus and Yose with Mary, it would call into question the entire doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. There's pretty good odds that this could be for real, as Newsweek reports:
To calculate the odds, Mr. Jacobovici took the data to University of Toronto mathematician Dr. Andrey Feuerverger. Factoring in the commonality of these names in first-Century Israel, Dr. Feuerverger puts the odds of this tomb not belonging to Jesus and his family at one in 600.
Another estimate, commissioned by Dr. James Tabor, chair of the department of religion studies at the University of North Carolina, puts the odds at one in 42 million. "If you took the entire population of Jerusalem at the time," says Dr. Taber, "and put it in a stadium, and asked everyone named Jesus to stand up, you'd have about 2,700 men. Then you'd ask only those with a father named Joseph and a mother named Mary to remain standing. And then those with a brother named Yose and a brother named James. Statistically, you end up with one person."
But one can tell, even in the reporting, how much of a bombshell this could potentially be:
Good sense, and the Bible, still the best existing historical record of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, argue against Jacobovici's claims. All four Gospels say that Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Sabbath; all four say that the tomb was empty when the disciples woke on Sunday morning. "The New Testament is very clear on this," says Alan Segal, religion professor at Barnard College. "Jesus was put in a tomb that didn't belong to him and then he rose and there was nothing left."
"Good sense and the Bible?" Is Newsweek implying that doubting the historical accuracy of the Bible is somehow 'bad sense'? Are they implying that the resurrection is actually 'part of the historical record', as in 'actually happened?" So, if this story gets legs (as I'm sure it might be tough, considering how many reporters and news orgs won't want to touch this), be aware of the subtle spin that implies that the Bible is somehow accurate in all of this.
It will be interesting to see how true believers react to this. If they try to use it as proof of Jesus' existence, they're also going to have to accept that the supernatural stuff was a bunch of bunk. But it's not like that particular group tends to be swayed by 'facts'. They don't require evidence to believe what they do in the first place, so they might just ignore it. If it does turn out to be true, it's another argument to use against the literalists. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this one.UPDATE: More here.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Free Speech Alert: Something Smells Funny at the U.N.
I'm generally a supporter of the United Nations, and the concept behind it. I also understand why certain conservatives hate it so much. And I'm well aware it's not a perfect institution, understandable, considering the monumental task its purpose serves. I think if our government took it more seriously, we wouldn't be in this pickle we're in right now,and our standing in the world would be much higher than it currently is. Generally, I find most of what they do to be benign, and I'm certainly not afraid of some world government conspiracy horseshit like some wingers are. So, before you read on, know that I come from this as a liberal (if ornery)secular humanist who holds freedom of speech in the highest regard, not as some 'New World Order/black helicopters outside my window' kinda guy.
However, I came across something by science writer Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars that was quite disturbing. Apparently there has been a U.N Resolution proposed, for 'Combating the Defamation of Religions', voted on two years in a row, now (it's the first resolution on the page):
The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote a resolution on combating defamation of religions (E/CN.4/2004/L.5) by 29 in favour, 16 against, with 7 abstentions, by which it welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism entitled “Situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world”; expressed deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance in some regions of the world; urged States to ensure equal access to education for all in law and in practice; expressed deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; noted with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; and expressed deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by governments.The Commission also urged all States, in conformity with international human rights instruments, to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance, and acts of violence motivated by religious intolerance; urged all States to ensure that all public officials in the course of their official duties respected different religions and did not discriminate on grounds of religion; strongly deplored physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions; called upon the international community to initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance based on respect for religious diversity; called upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in the Dialogue among Civilizations; and requested the Special Rapporteur to examine the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world with special reference to physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centres, businesses and properties in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 and to submit a progress report on his findings to the Commission at its sixty-first session.Now, at first glance it seems like there are some noble aims here, for example, preventing discrimination of religion and such. And it was obviously drafted in part, to concerns from Muslim nations. The Western nations and a few others voted against it. Ironically, many of the nations in support of it have abysmal human rights and tolerance records, as Brayton points out:
All Middle Eastern states except Israel voted for the resolution? Can that be serious? We're going to ask the opinion of Saudi Arabia, where schools routinely teach that Jews and Christians are pigs worthy of death, whether we should pass a law forbidding the defamation of religion? We're going to ask nations full of people who burn down synagogues over cartoons drawn halfway around the world and who believe that someone who converts from Islam to Christianity should be put to death whether religions can be criticized? We're supposed to care what China, a nation that has all but destroyed Tibetan Buddhism and routinely locks up and tortures Christians and Muslims, thinks about our laws on religious freedom?Now, although I don't necessarily agree with Brayton's sweeping over-generalization of Muslims (much like Sam Harris does), but he does have a point. I couldn't find Israel's name under the yeah, nay, or the abstention, so I'm unclear as to where the notion of where Israel stands on this. Last May, Dr . Robert Freeman wrote some crazy stuff in an op/ed the Jewish Times, shortly after the Danish cartoon controversy:
Now, this is a touchy subject, aside from political correctness issues that some may have with it. This is one of those rare issues that many people on the left and the right are in support of, although for different reasons and different perspectives. You can easily see that in one of the links that he links to... it's a rightie whose opposition comes not only from free speech issues but equally rooted in that right-wing distaste for all things U.N. But he does make a good point:In order to rectify the situation, and to prevent a future crisis of this type from erupting, what is needed is a "code of conduct" for the newspapers and other media in both the Western and Muslim worlds. All governments must agree that the negative depiction of religion is "out of bounds," and penalties should be imposed on those who violate the code of conduct.
The problem, of course, is to determine the difference between legitimate criticism of someone who acts in the name of a religion, and the negative depiction of that religion.
To solve that problem, I propose the creation of an International Religious Court, composed of Christian, Muslim and Jewish clergymen with one clergyman representing each of the three religions. Anyone feeling that his or her religion was insulted could appeal to the International Religious Court for a ruling on the matter, and the court would then determine whether a penalty should be invoked. It would be the responsibility of the government on whose territory the action took place to impose the penalty.
Prohibiting the dissemination of xenophobic ideas aimed at any religion that constitute incitement to hostility — sounds like a pretty broad proposition. It would cover many atheist criticisms of religion generally; many secularist criticisms of fundamentalist Christianity (or Islam or Judaism); condemnation of religious groups that are alleged to be cults or scams; many theological criticisms of a wide range of religions; many pro-gay-rights or pro-women's-rights condemnations of religions that are seen as hostile to gays or women; and much more.And that, regardless of where your ideological chips fall, is not a good place for us to be in. And once again it ties into that whole modern, outspoken atheist thing that Harris, Dawkins, and (rather feebly) I keep trying to get out there: why should religion be exempt from criticism? Let me be very clear: as much as I have a distaste for all things religion, I would never support any violence or discrimination in any way against any one because of their religion, any more than I would based on their race, gender, sexual orientation or other things of that nature.
But as you well know, some religious people believe some pretty crazy things, sometimes harmful, sometimes harmless, but nonetheless irritating, They are not immune from being asked to defend their claims and belief, and yes, uncivil as it may seem, they are not immune to criticism or even ridicule. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution about having the right not to be offended. It's a really slippery slope to slide down if something like this were to be implemented, and this is one of those instances that I think, although there are good intentions behind it, the U.N. is wrong on this one.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
More 'Worship? - Really'...
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Good Take on 'Worship'
I've added 'Two Know It Alls' to the blogroll, by Jonathan and Rebecca from NJ. They partook in my little debate with Charity a few weeks ago and frankly, shot big holes in all of her arguments with more accuracy than Bronson's Harmonica Man in 'Once Upon a Time in the West'. They're libertarians with an (ecchhh) objectivist bent so some of their political stuff is a bit hard to swallow, but they're really intelligent people who are very articulate, especially in matters of atheism. Have a read of 'Worship' - Really? to get a good taste.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Uygur vs. Eskow
After my next piece on Sam Harris later this week, I'm going to shift gears away from the 'atheist thing' for a while. I feel it's time to turn to some more lighthearted fare on here, or at least some Bush-bashing (hardly a challenge nowadays) lest this turn into an 'atheist blog', which was never my intent to begin with. Between last week's debate with Charity and the Sam Harris stuff, I'm getting kind of burnt out on the whole subject.
There's a good little back and forth over at Smirking Chimp between rude atheist (I say that with affection) Cenk Uygur and critic RJ Eskow. Eskow's been taking on what he calls 'fundamentalist atheism' quite often lately. I don't necessarily agree with him on some points, but he's a good writer, nonetheless. It's a good read.
Cenk Uygur - What RJ Eskow Doesn't Get: Religion is Wrong
RJ Eskow - Dear Cenk Uygur: Don't Let Them Use Atheism to Divide Us
The Problem With Sam Harris, pt. 1
Ok, as many of you who frequent this site know, I like to quote Sam Harris; what attracts me about him is his basic premise that religious beliefs should be held up to the same scrutiny as any other human phenomenon. If you think about it for a minute, it's not really that radical of a concept. But, as his message and bestselling book, "The End of Faith" (TEoF), have made their rounds and spread his message, there is much to criticize in some of what Harris has said in his book. The two criticisms I'm hoping to address (in two parts, as to not overwhelm and to make sure I do my homework) are Harris' apparent embrace of Eastern mysticism and psychic abilities, and Harris' Islamophobia, intolerance and support of torture. For a few articles to give you some background on the criticism, go here, and here.
Chapter 7 of TEoF is called 'Experiments in Consciousness', and is arguably the most open-minded section of the book. Harris basically asserts that there is still much to be learned in defining what we know as 'consciousness', and that in some ways, spirituality is a way of investigating the nature of consciousness:
"The history of human spirituality is the history to explore and modify the deliverances of consciousness through methods like fasting , chanting, sensory deprivation, prayer, meditation, and the use of psychotropic plants. There is no question that experiments of this sort can be conducted in a rational manner. Indeed, they are some of our only means of determining to what extent the human condition can be deliberately transformed. Such an enterprise becomes irrational only when people begin making claims about the world that cannot be supported by empirical evidence." (p 210, TEoF)
Now, in some of the criticism one can find about Harris', a recurring theme is that somehow he is being inconsistent by being open to the possibilities of psychic phenomena such as ESP, and that he believes that the construction of the 'self' is quite possibly an illusion (which is consistent with many Eastern mystic belief systems). Meera Nanda over at the New Humanist:
"Harris describes the mystical experience as tuning, or focusing, the mind through meditation, fasting, chanting, sensory deprivation or psychotropic drugs, that enables it to overcome, or dissolve, the sense of the self that stands separate from the objects of its consciousness. The goal is to “experience the world perfectly shorn of self… to lose the subject/object perception… to continue to experience the world, but without the feeling that there is a knower standing apart form the known. Thoughts may arise, but the feeling that one is a thinker of these thoughts vanishes. Harris is describing the classic all-is-one and one-is-all experience that mystics and spiritualists have reported throughout history."I take issue with Nanda's problem with the 'loss of self'... it is a very conservative perspective that I feel is deeply rooted in the fear of the loss of individuality. Harris:
"As a mental phenomenon, loss of self is not as rare as our scholarly neglect of it suggests. This experience is characterized by a sudden loss of subject/object perception: the continuum of experience remains, but one no longer feels that there is a knower standing apart from the know. Thoughts may arise, but the feeling that one is the thinker of these thoughts have vanished" (TEoF, p.212)Last semester, as I did my research for a paper on the use of entheogenic (psychotropic) plants in native cultures, this theme of 'depersonalization' (brought on by the consumption of plants, in that case) was a common theme. Psychologists found the use of psychedelics a huge breakthrough, in part because of the ability to seemingly break down the ego, and it showed promising therapeutic possibilities, which sadly came to an end after the criminalization of them in the mid-60's. So, I don't think that Harris, in embracing this possibility, is going out on a limb here. He is showing an open mind that, unfortunately is lacking in some of his other arguments in the book.
I don't believe that any of the critics that I've read have read Harris' rebuttal to Tom Flynn's criticisms in Free Inquiry magazine last year:
"The hypothesis is this: if I use my attention in the prescribed way, it may have a specific, reproducible effect. Needless to say, what happens (or fails to happen) along any path of “spiritual” practice has to be interpreted in light of some conceptual scheme, and everything must remain open to rational discussion. How this discussion proceeds will ultimately be decided by contemplative scientists. As I said in my book, if we ever develop a mature science of the mind, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they now are to astronomers.I like to think I have a somewhat perceptive bullshit detector. In reading that chapter in question, I didn't take away from it any sense of Harris 'jumping the fence', so to speak. Harris is simply expressing an openness to some of the unanswered questions out there, whether it be ESP (which is something that, although the 'scientific jury' is not solidified, there are many legitimate scientists that believe in its possibilities, just that we haven't enough info yet), or the insights brought on by meditation. Harris isn't attributing these things to supernatural causes by any means. As I see it, he's just open to some ideas to which we don't have answers to yet.
What words should we use to acknowledge the fact that the happiest person on this earth at this moment might have spent the last twenty years living alone in a cave? Any experienced meditator knows that this is a serious possibility. (Indeed, I consider it not only possible, but likely.) What can we say about the fact that the conventional sources of human happiness—association with family and friends, positive engagement with society, diverse experiences of physical pleasure, etc.—might be neither necessary nor sufficient to produce happiness in its most profound forms? This is not New Age mumbo jumbo. What secularists like Flynn tend not to realize is that there are genuine, introspective insights that can be terribly difficult to acquire. The lack of general accessibility does not render such insights at all suspect...
I also took considerable heat from Flynn for a few remarks I made about the nature of consciousness. Most atheists appear to be certain that consciousness is entirely dependent upon (and reducible to) the workings of the brain. In the last chapter of the book, I briefly argue that this certainty is unwarranted. I say this as one who is deeply immersed in the neuroscientific and philosophical literature on consciousness: the truth is that scientists still do not know what the relationship between consciousness and matter is. I am not in the least suggesting that we make a religion out of this uncertainty, or do anything else with it. Needless to say, the mysteriousness of consciousness does nothing to make conventional religious notions about God and paradise any more plausible."
I didn't have much of an issue with Harris on this subject. However, I DO have some serious reservations about Harris and intolerance, and an overestimation of the negative impacts of religion. I'll have that coming up in part 2, later this week.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Important TV show on atheism this weekend...
Here's one of those very few instances that I wish I had a television.I got this in one of my CSICOP bulletins, I'm just going to reprint it here (although I would hardly call what's going on 'non-religious fervor'... if we could only be so lucky)...
The PBS program Religion and Ethics Newsweekly will be airing a special segment on atheism and unbelief in
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Rude Atheists
One thing that I've always had an issue with in regards to us skeptics, atheists, and such, is that many of us are downright rude. We don't exactly endear many people with our arguments because they are often laced with contempt with our outrage at the both perceived and real stupidity of our opponents. As one look around this blog will attest to, I count myself among the guilty. It is an incredibly frustrating thing to try to communicate with people who are seemingly impervious to reason, when you have people that believe Jesus is returning this year, for example, and they've been wrong over 2000 times, you get a little tired of all the wasted ink and oxygen. And I'm not necessarily defending this rude behavior, but it's hard to bite my tongue when trying to present evidence to people who don't need evidence to believe what they do in the first place (and I'm not counting 'personal revelation' as evidence - there are many holes and viable explanations for that).
Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, two rather outspoken atheists that get a lot of mention on here and in the press, are the rudest of the rude. And I agree with a good majority of what they're saying, but I just can't help but wonder if the tone were a little different, if it would reach more people. But on the flip side of that, religious belief has been given such a free ride, such an absolution of any accountability in the public sphere (as in having people offer some proof as to why God wants a law passed/struck down), that part of me feels that it is appropriate and way past due time to point out the idiocy of some of what these people are saying.
Another angle, though: it is easy often to rudely dismiss a group, when you look at the collective image presented, as in the way the fundies have a pretty nutjob public persona. It's a different experience altogether when going one on one, as my current ongoing discussion with Charity is going (here, here, and soon here). When there is an actual human element involved (when they're all not James Dobsonlike nuts), it changes the tone to a more respectful one. And that is where our problem lies... just as I know that not every fundie is a complete Ted Haggard nutjob, there is still that public image of that for me, which is reinforced just about every time the religious right is in the news because it's never in the news for saying something with an inkling of rationality to it. And as to our side, I think we run the risk of others, especially those who might be open to our reasoning, being alienated or turned off, thinking we're all a bunch of nasty people.
And my 'Rudest Atheist Post of 2006' goes to Cenk Uygur's 'If You're A Christian, Muslim, or Jew, You Are Wrong'. It's so very rude and disrespectful, yet says what many people are feeling yet can never bring themselves to say. It's great and horrible at the same time.
(note: I've just realized Uygur's post is from 2005... but I've still found none ruder)
UPDATE: A poster at DKos speculates on how Jesus will return...
My guess is that He'll show up in His Hummer at religious right retreat, with a Cuban cigar hanging off His lip and the front seat loaded with empty Big Mac® wrappers.
Jesus will step out of His Hummer, give a big hug to Richard Land, Don Wildmon, Pat Robertson and John McCain and declare loudly, "Time to wipe out those ragheads!"
I think that's what the 25% are envisioning.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Some Sam Harris for you, just in time for the holiday.
Sam Harris has a great article in today's L.A. Times: '10 Myths - and 10 Truths About Atheism'. he goes through the most often heard accusations about atheists, and sets them to rest in a frank, honest, and straightforward manner. A good one, in response to 'atheism is dogmatic':
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
'Life is Good Without Christmas'
... So says an article in today's Times-Argus. I was both glad and surprised to see this. They talk to several Vermonters, including an atheist and a Wiccan, who do not celebrate Christmas. Big surprise? They're not the evil, wicked people we're supposed to assume they are, although I'm sure a wingnut or two will write a letter to the paper over the next week whining about the sacrilege in printing an article like that on Xmas eve, and how the people in the article are all going to hell. It was a refreshing read, especially in light of all this 'War on Christmas' stupidity we're hearing lately. I propose we start 2007 off with a 'War on Stupidity'. But that would be as futile as the 'War on Terrah', wouldn't it? You can't destroy all the stupids/terrorists, because five more will replace the one you got rid of.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Apathetic Agnosticism
Ever heard of Apathetic Agnosticism?
The position can be summarized as: "There is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic".This was interesting, especially because I think many full blown atheists such as myself spend a long time in this zone before finally crossing over to the bright side.
Never, EVER Question the Existence of Leprechauns
Unbelievable. An atheist art student expelled for questioning the existence of leprechauns:
In the classroom that day, Averill says one young woman was talking about her belief in energy layers and astral beings."I jokingly asked her if she believed in leprechauns. It turns out, she does. They live on another energy layer," Averill wrote in notes to himself later that day. "In the interest of bringing my own view to the discussion, I began to ask her how she knew these things. Again I know all too well that people can be sensitive about their spiritual beliefs, so I was pretty much walking on glass as I did so."
Averill says he wasn't trying to disprove the other student's religious beliefs, but "to convince her not to insist that they were scientifically proven."
The student, apparently offended, complained to the teacher. Averill was called into a meeting that evening, he says, with the Art Institute's dean of education, associate dean, and the dean of student affairs.
...and was soon expelled for questioning some fruit loop about the existence of leprechauns. Jebus forbid if someone questions your belief system. Political correctness rears its ugly head yet again.
Monday, December 4, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Science Watch: Got 'Shrooms?
For my 'Culture and Personality' anthropology class this semester, I'm writing a paper on 'The Use Of Entheogenic Plants in Primitive Cultures'. It's pretty fascinating running the whole gamut from the peyote rituals of the Native American Church to the Ayahuasca rituals of South America, as well as many others. Interestingly enough, there was a recent study at Johns Hopkins that shed some new light on so-called 'magic mushrooms':
"Using unusually rigorous scientific conditions and measures, Johns Hopkins researchers have shown that the active agent in “sacred mushrooms” can induce mystical/spiritual experiences descriptively identical to spontaneous ones people have reported for centuries.
The resulting experiences apparently prompt positive changes in behavior and attitude that last several months, at least.
The agent, a plant alkaloid called psilocybin, mimics the effect of serotonin on brain receptors-as do some other hallucinogens-but precisely where in the brain and in what manner are unknown."
Now, as usual, with any new scientific development, things must be taken with a grain of salt, but this does sound promising:
"The researchers’ message isn’t just that psilocybin can produce mystical experiences. “I had a healthy skepticism going into this,” says Griffiths, “and that finding alone was a surprise.” But, as important, he says, “is that, under very defined conditions, with careful preparation, you can safely and fairly reliably occasion what’s called a primary mystical experience that may lead to positive changes in a person. It’s an early step in what we hope will be a large body of scientific work that will ultimately help people.”
This conversation also leads us to the discussion that many of us secular humanists have that spirituality and its experiences may be nothing more than biochemical in origin, something that, for obvious reasons, many would find very threatening to their core belief system. David Koepsell, in an op-ed piece at Free Inquiry magazine, is skeptical that this kind of research will continue and expand due to the many taboos it breaks: "
What seems likely at this stage, because of the potential of such studies to undermine traditional mystical theology and our nation's aversion to legitimizing therapeutic uses of drugs that are commonly abused, nothing further will come of this study, despite its interesting promise. In the meantime, we should feel comfortable with some preliminary confirmation of a thesis many of us hold: that mystical experiences do in fact occur, that they are completely naturalistically based, and that there is no basis to view those occurring in convents or seminaries as any more legitimate than those that occurred on the corner of Haight and Ashbury back in its heyday."Personally, I feel this research could yield us great understanding in the study of human behavior, if we can move past some of the sacred cows in this country and see where this takes us, regardless of what beliefs it challenges.
Monday, November 6, 2006
Sam Harris in Newsweek
As I sit here in the home stretch, the night before election day, I seriously wonder if I'll be able to function at all tomorrow, which is important because I have a lot of non-political related things to do. I said to Jenni earlier that I wish I could just go camping tomorrow all day and night and not come back 'till Wednesday night. No such luck.
Anyways, the cover story on the new Newsweek is 'The Politics of Jesus'. The 'Evangelical Identity Crisis' article is pretty interesting, in that it talks about the growing number of Christians, evangelicals in particular, that are increasingly concerned with the lack of social-justice issues in the religious right's political movement. Granted, I still wish religion would stay the hell out of politics completely, but I can't deny that this is at least a step in the right direction. Now if they would just stop obsessing about blatocysts and who's putting what in who's orifice, they'd make some real progress.
Better, though is an article in the same issue from Sam Harris, 'A Dissent: The Case Against Faith':
"Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen—and many who themselves get elected—believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God....This is embarrassing.
Religion is the one area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give good evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for. Consequently, we are living in a world in which millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales..."
Now to those of you familiar with Harris, this will sound familiar, nothing he hasn't said before, no big deal. But I think the fact that it's in a major newsweekly is a big deal. I've mentioned in other entries about how atheist books are topping the bestseller lists and such, and the poll that shows an abnormally high number of Americans uncertain about God's existence. What I think we're seeing here is the beginning of a ripple, in that I suspect many, many Americans have doubts about the existence of a divine, all-knowing, judgmental creator. We see evidence every day that doesn't jive with what we're told to believe. And I think that maybe, just maybe, some people are starting to feel more emboldened to express that doubt, instead of giving a polite, vague answer.
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Lazyman's Linkdump
Sorry for the lack of activity here this week.. it's part laziness, part busy-ness. So, in the interest of giving you something to chew on, here's a linkdump...
First up.. what? A closeted gay anti-gay evangelical? And one who talks to Bush on a regular basis? And is the leader of one of America's largest stupidity factories megachurches? And loves methamphetamine? Say it isn't so! Video here... Schadenfreude meter going into the red!
UPDATE: Haggard resigns.
What? No more shrimp scampi? Scientists are saying that if things don't change soon, the world's seafood supply may be depleted by 2048.
The Rude Pundit, in his ever-so-uniquely-eloquent way: Why Vote Against Republicans? Because Fuck Them.
And finally, some good news over at Raw Story. '42% of U.S. Adults Not Certain there is a God' (hat tip to Vermonter over at What's the Point?). Now, this one seems too good to be true, that number does seem optimistically high. But another thing to consider is that maybe, just maybe, the uncertainty has been that high, but people are finally more comfortable speaking about it. It's no conincidence that Sam Harris' and Richard Dawkins' latest books have been on top of the bestseller lists. Maybe the day where one can call themselves an atheist and not get looked at like they have two heads will be closer than we thought. We can pray that it's true (jus' kiddin').
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Atheism finds a market in the U.S.
"A fresh wave of atheistic books has hit the market this autumn, some climbing onto best-seller lists in what proponents see as a backlash against the way religion is entwined in politics."Harris and Dawkins are mentioned, and they even talk to Paul Kurtz. Worth a read.
Also, over at Smirking Chimp, have a look at Ben Tripp's 'I've Got Your God Right Here', where he comments about the relevance of the Reuters article:
"The article is about how atheist books are ascending the best-seller charts, and staying there, and golly, is this a trend?
I'll tell you the answer, although you already know it. I'm just being cute. There are millions and millions of perfectly sane Americans out there, claiming to be believers, or at worst agnostic, so please don't hit me, being held hostage by lunatics that really believe that 2000 years ago one guy, a tribal minority from North Africa, was born by magic through the direct intervention of the tribe's god, frigged around for 30 years, and was executed by the Romans after he took up doing magic. Being capable of magic, he came back to life and then disappeared.
Elsewhere in the world, people are being held hostage by believers in a variety of equally fruity religions, such as the one where a guy announced there was a new version of that earlier tribe's religion, and the previous version no longer applied; he did a bunch of magic too, including a visit to Heaven on a half-mule, half-donkey with wings, where he got to hang out with the previous guy that did magic.
The thing that is so terribly wrong with Faith is that it's predicated, every single time, on a terrible fallacy: that god just 'is'. There's no evidence of god, so god exists. Or everything is evidence of god, so god exists. Or as most Americans avow, it's in the Bible, so it's true. Never mind it's also in the Koran, which they hate and fear, and that every religion has had similar texts, going right back to the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, and on and on into the darkness. Faith is the enemy of Truth, because faith requires you take somebody's word for something, especially something utterly preposterous. Truth requires that you use your senses and your brain to observe what is, while Faith requires you use your senses and brain to observe what isn't."
Now, being part of America's most distrusted minority, I'm not jumping out of my seat here anticipating some big wave of reason and freethought to start sweeping the nation, but it gives me hope that maybe there are more of us than we think. Or maybe some people are starting to feel that it's ok to question their faith, that it's not as radical a notion as once thought.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Interview with Richard Dawkins
Excellent BBC interview with Richard Dawkins about his new 'God Delusion' book. He really knows how to hold his own. Check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
