Sam Harris on Francis Collins

Sam Harris fillets Collins, Moonie and Kirshenbaum....you gotta read this yourself. Here are a few snippets:

"How something breaks often says a lot about what it was. Collins’s claim to have been an atheist seems especially suspect, given that he does not understand what the position of atheism actually entails. For instance:
If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove his existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason. (Collins, 2006, p.165)
Elsewhere he says that of “all the possible worldviews, atheism is the least rational” (Ibid, p. 231). I suspect that this will not be the last time a member of our species will be obliged to make the following point (but one can always hope): disbelief in the God of Abraham does not require that one search the entire cosmos and find Him absent; it only requires that one consider the evidence put forward by believers to be insufficient. Presumably Francis Collins does not believe in Zeus. I trust he considers this skeptical attitude to be fully justified. Might this be because there are no good reasons to believe in Zeus? And what would he say to a person who claimed that disbelief is Zeus is a form of “blind faith” or that of all possible worldviews it is the “least rational”? "

and....

"Many of our critics also worry that if we oblige people to choose between reason and faith, they will choose faith and cease to support scientific research. If, on the other hand, we ceaselessly reiterate that there is no conflict between religion and science, we can hope to cajole great multitudes into accepting the truth of evolution (as though this were an end in itself). Here is a version of this charge that, I fear, most people would accept:

If the goal is to create an America more friendly toward science and reason, the combativeness of the New Atheists is strongly counterproductive. If anything, they work in ironic combination with their dire enemies, the anti-science conservative Christians who populate the creation science and intelligent design movements, to ensure we’ll continue to be polarized over subjects like the teaching of evolution when we don’t have to be. America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former. The New Atheists err in insisting that such a choice needs to be made. Atheism is not the logically inevitable outcome of scientific reasoning, any more than intelligent design is a necessary corollary of religious faith. A great many scientists believe in God with no sense of internal contradiction, just as many religious believers accept evolution as the correct theory to explain the development, diversity, and inter-relatedness of life on Earth. The New Atheists, like the fundamentalists they so despise, are setting up a false dichotomy that can only damage the cause of scientific literacy for generations to come. It threatens to leave science itself caught in the middle between extremes, unable to find cover in a destructive, seemingly unending, culture war. [Mooney C, Kirshenbaum S (2009) Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future New York: Basic Books. pp. 97-98]

The first thing to notice is that Mooney and Kirshenbaum are confused about the nature of the problem. The goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory. Doubt about evolution is merely a symptom of an underlying problem; the problem is faith itself—conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas occluded by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc. Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to imagine that we can get people to value intellectual honesty by lying to them.

Eulogy

Some speculate this song was written about Bill Hicks, L. Ron Hubbard, but obviously has Christian imagery about it. I listen to this song when exasperated by all the Christian nuttiness around me.

Words of Wisdom from Ray Comfort

There are just some words that need repeating-thoughts so transcendant that it would be a shame if they weren't shared with others. Then there are the musings of Ray Comfort, which function primarily to make smart people laugh when they need a mental break:

"It’s my guess that God gave men nipples for aesthetic purposes. Without them, an obvious "something" would be missing. They give balance to the male body. Men have nipples for the same reason God gave us one nose and not two, and two eyes and not one. That’s unless you think that a one-eyed two-nosed man would be attractive to women."

No, Ray, Jesus just told me why he gave men nipples!!! They free our hands up so that we can carry four beers at a time!!! Praise him!

A Bible-based Marriage

Agnosticism, atheism, or both?

"Darwin's bulldog", Thomas Henry Hunxley, coined the term agnosticism. He states:

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes."

Huxley's term "agnostic" means quite something different from todays version which suggests that someone is a "fence-sitter" in regard to a belief in God. Huxley had no knowledge of God, and this is key to his definition. In fact, he seems to have misunderstood atheism to mean 'a knowledge of the non-existence of god'. Atheism is not defined as knowledge that there is no god...but rather, a lack of belief in a god. For any Christians out there that want to paint us as having faith, atheism is also not defined as, "believing there is no god". There is a subtle, but important difference between the two.

This post is not original in the idea that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, just as someone can be an agnostic theist. One can have no knowledge of god, and either have a belief, or a lack of belief. These are the two categories that concern everyone. You will have people on either spectrum that claim to be gnostic (a)theists-but we can safely ignore these people unless they can prove their claims. I am an agnostic atheist. This is really the only reasonable position. Why would you have a belief in a particular god when you have no evidence for their existence? You certainly cannot claim to have knowledge of a god, because to call something knowledge means that it must be accessible to the rest of us. What people have is faith. Those that say they are "fence-sitters", not sure if they believe in god or not are atheists. They don't have knowledge of a god so they are agnostic, but unless they affirm belief in a god, they are atheist.

I have no doubt that many will disagree with me on this point...words evolve, ideas evolve. Really we are talking about semantics here, but my case is built around the original meaning of the term agnostic. Feel free to put in your two cents.

The Bush Theocracy

Faith

Cardinal to Atheists: You are like Jesus!

First I am told I "serve the devil"....now, I'm told that I am not fully human. Perhaps, this is a compliment...afterall, Jesus wasn't fully human either, according to Catholics. He couldn't have been, if he was partly god, right? So, maybe the cardinal was just misunderstood. Maybe he was really saying that atheists are godlike. We are an intelligent lot, so maybe this simple-minded Cardinal simply hopes to be on the same level with us someday ;>

Here's another one from my new favorite Romanian

Steve, You Will Like This One!

Atheism

A message for you kids out there

On Anecdotal Evidence

Damn, I thought of a reply to the anecdotal evidence presented in regard to prayer helping patients recover....and I will remember this the next time. My response will be, "Yeah, and my lucky baseball cap made my favorite team win last Sunday." Can't prove that wrong, just like I can't prove wrong the idea that prayer cured the person in question. In both cases, the explanations given are worthless.

A Reflection On Dover

Anti-evolutionists have attempted to place disclaimers in biology textbooks warning students to be skeptical of evolution. Well....if religious organizations and individuals wish to advance this. I propose that we place a disclaimer in every Bible sold.

If....

+

Then................

+

Absolutism? Theism is such a joke

Ok, tonight really sealed the deal for me when it comes to religion. Faith is bullshit. Absolute bullshit. I was at that spiritual shots meeting at a local pizza place and the topic was "Absolutism: shouldn't we just find truth for ourselves?". The speaker has a masters of divinity (whatever the fuck that means), and a doctor of ministry (seriously?). I expected the word "truth" to be ill defined, and I was not dissappointed. In fact, the speaker equivocated so much that I had to ask what he meant by "truth". In some contexts, the word "truth" seemed to mean something obvious to all: the sun will rise the next morning (or rather, the Earth will rotate and thus I can see the sun). I thought to myself, and later said to him, "inductive reasoning such as this is based on ALOT of experience...not only that, but we have a theoretical framework that allows us to understand this process". In other instances, he meant "truth" in the way that people say, "Jesus is the Truth"...you know, some nebulous idea that we are just supposed to accept.

So, I pointed out that his reasoning was circular. "You claim that Christianity is "absolute truth", yet you are begging the question when it comes to deciding whether the claims made about Christ are true. How can we determine that there was a virgin birth, or a resurrection. The argument is circular because you claim that Christianity is true because the Bible says it is true." Interestingly, he admitted that his argument was circular. Point for me. He didn't see it that way though. He said to me that "there are many ways of knowing, this notion of evidence is a very recent idea". I said, "What? How do we approach claims about the world other than through evidence?" This is no joke, he replied, "Well, this rational, scientific, skeptical approach to claims is a relatively new idea and it still has to prove itself". At first I was flabbergasted, then once I thought about it for a millisecond, I angrily replied, "Prove itself? Look at what modern science has done! We've split the atom, sequenced the human genome, people used to think that demons caused illness. Modern science has replaced this with the germ theory of disease, we know about microorganisms now." It just keeps on gettin worse for this guy. He tried to defend demon possession. He even used the phrase "anecdotal evidence"...IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM!!!! This is what he basically said, "There have been numerous documented cases of demon possession and excorsism." I said, "We also now understand mental illness and the power of suggestion." He claimed that the claim for demon possession was on the same level of evidence as the germ theory of disease. I fired back, "If someone is sick, I can try and isolate the organism. Take this organism and infect an animal, re-isolate the organism and today I can determine the mechanism through which the organism causes disease....where are these "demons"?" I mean, what a stupid, fucking ignorant thing to say. This guy has a doctorate? Anyone with half a brain knows that anecdotal evidence doesn't pass the test...that is why we run controls!!

He was then asked by someone if he had experience of the supernatural. He replied, "Oh yeah, I've witnessed miraculous healings". I almost shit my pants. "Yeah, I have been with really sick patients, who weren't given much of a chance by doctors, but I prayed for them and they were inexplicably healed. The doctors had no scientific explanation for their recovery". Now, at this point, I burst out, "Just because a doctor cannot provide an explanation for something, does not therefore imply that the patient recovered due to supernatural causes". I explained the importance of controls, "How do you know that the person wouldn't have recovered without your prayers?". Second, how does the speaker know that it was his god that did the healing???

Now, at this point he had openly admitted that his position was not rational, that there was no evidence for the divinity of Christ, and had admitted that his claim to knowing that Christianity was "absolute truth" was based on his own subjective faith in this particular religious doctrine. Furthermore, he demonstrated in the above examples that he cannot critically think and doesn't understand science. Now, it got worse for him. He thought he had me with the following: "How do you know that the things in your science textbooks are correct?" I smiled and replied, "The implication is that I have faith in the textbook writers. Well, I can go out and test the claims made." Indeed, the texts are not the authority, nature is. If the textbooks claim that chlorophyll absorbes at a particular wavelength, I don't have to simply accept the authority of the text....I can takes some leaves, add some ether and extract the pigment. After some simple purification steps (column chromatography), I can take the isolated pigments and scan them with the visible spectrum and determine whether the texts are correct. How do you do this with religious claims? The objection to this may be in reference to historical methods. Well, the reply is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't need overwhelming evidence for the existence of Socrates, I am not concerned with who wrote Shakespeare's works...I don't feel the need to have overwhelming evidence to learn from and enjoy their works. But the Christian message is quite another thing.

Anyways, I've gotten off on a tangent. His reply to the textbook statement was this: "What if you discovered something and wrote it down, but the evidence was destroyed. It was a one-time event. Now, would you expect people 1,000 years from now to believe you?" The implication here is that the gospel writers wrote an accurate account of what happened (even though we know they weren't witnesses). I quickly replied, "Well, what sort of observation are you speaking of? I mean, nature is regular in that even if I can't witness an event occurring 1,000 years ago, I should be able to observe similar events today. For instance, let's say that a comet only comes around every 10,000 years. Let's say that someone chronicled this observation 1,000 years ago, and I couldn't witness it. Well, it doesn't matter, because I have seen photos of other comets. There have been comets passing close enough that I could have viewed several in my lifetime already. So I'm not sure how relevant this hypothetical is." He resorted to ad hominem. I was called, "A typical 21st century scientist". I thanked him for the compliment. I was left wondering why people are so quick to accept something without good reason.

Finally, a Christian woman in the audience, who had asked some Christy questions in the beginning, after listening to the weak drivel coming out of the speakers mouth gave the following suggestion, "Maybe instead of calling this "absolute truth", maybe we should say, "absolute faith". It was clear to everyone there that the speaker lost the argument.

Now this is religion I can get down with...

The Christian Message

This cartoon by Richard Gunther, for Ray's blog, encapsulates the Christian message. Can anyone really maintain that Jesus was a moral teacher given this fact? Based on a corrupted, self-contradictory compilation of texts, whose authorship is largely unknown, I am to "trust" in-that is believe in-Jesus? Or else, right? If I do trust in Him, I am told, "ahhh, eternal bliss for you"(where we will likely have to suck up to Jesus in person for eternity). If not, well, "In that case, go on and open door number two. Have fun!". Sick. This is a sick, man-made message meant to hold people in servility through fear until the day they die. Fear is the basis of the whole thing. Jesus was immoral. I don't think anyone is in doubt that Ray Comfort is an immoral person. Anyone who makes their living by lying to children about science, and threating people with eternal torture, is not a moral individual. It's just that simple.

A-S-S

Yes, this fried salami says "G-O-D". Although, it could also spell "D-O-G", or maybe it is an acronym that we have to interpret from each combination of letters. Perhaps an alien is sending a coded message, or maybe God is only able to communicate through patterns in food. Enough already!!!! This is so childish! Can't people recognize that if you eat fried salami for breakfast for 20 years, it would be surprising not to find something that looks like a pattern.

BTW, this is the 400th post!!!! Too bad it was wasted on some holy tube meat (as the priests call it).