1. An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

Comment #424519 by Tumara Baap on October 17, 2009 at 6:57 pm

It would be in order for AAI to issue Bill Maher a letter of official rebuke, forever to pin itself on his legacy just as the Richard Dawkins award does. What innocent kids will be put through because of the stance of celebrities is unconscionable. And especially so for a Bill who bills himself a rationalist. It should be AAI's ethical obligation to consider a letter of rebuke.

Going by the tenor of Shermer's letter and comments from the godless legions Maher supposedly lionizes, I'd say his award is already sullied. Though it's never too late to repent.

2. An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

Comment #424508 by Tumara Baap on October 17, 2009 at 6:32 pm

Maher certainly needs an education. I cannot imagine he was clueless that his award was not controversy free. And still, he goes on air just a couple of weeks later, throws in his lot with bimbo brains Jenny McCarthy, so much so that a full fledged "Schaivo-is-conscious" Republican comes across as the rational one.

There are a small number of children who legitimately cannot get all vaccination shots - because of organ transplants, immunosuppressant drugs or some other issue. Because herd immunity is being lost, some end up getting diseases through no fault of their own. Vaccinations have been so successful, the horrors that accompany some of these diseases like measles, mumps, rubella etc have been forgotten.
I hope you are listening Maher, about what these diseases lead to.

BLINDNESS. DEAFNESS. MENTAL RETARDATION. And much more.

For the sake of decency, please at least be informed about what you are doing to these kids when you spout conspiratorial crap from your megaphone.

3. Baby Bear's lament: James Wood in the New Yorker

Comment #410207 by Tumara Baap on August 28, 2009 at 10:04 am

Comment #410165 by TheVirginian

Hinduism is a loose word that spans a number of beliefs across the eons. But I do think you are correct the shift from polytheism to monotheism was for the worse - and not just in elegance of explanation. Some Vedic texts estimated the age of the universe in billions of years. They posit a cycling rhythm to the universe, growing and collapsing. They dally with ideas of Maya, that reality may be much more spooky than the illusion that meets the eye. And that gods may exist only in the dreams of men. Likewise some of the beliefs in ancient Egypt were not correct but exhibited a remarkably supple imagination. In terms of ethics, the Egyptian book of the Dead is way more sophisticated than the puerile Ten Commandments. Christianity was backward even for its time. But it had an effective meme: blood and gore. It promised the slaves salvation (though not from slavery). Among the trodden this primitive faith festered, and like a disease, a pandemic gathered steam as Rome collapsed into economic and intellectual decline. The infestation was fully set in with burning of the pagan works at the library of Alexandria.

Interesting then where our judeochristian nation gets its values. One influence on Thomas Jefferson were the heretics of the enlightenment. But possibly even more important were the works of Cicero and Tacitus. Without a doubt it is an appreciation of these polytheistic pagans that compelled him to famously remark that it neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg if someone believes in one god, twenty gods, or no god.

4. A Grand Bargain Over Evolution

Comment #409145 by Tumara Baap on August 25, 2009 at 9:17 am

"...a long and messy op-ed piece..." The incomparable Jerry Coyne takes Wright to task. Given how titillated the media has been with Wright, a full-throated response is in order.
Check out:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/robert-wright-pirouetting-on-the-fence/

5. A Grand Bargain Over Evolution

Comment #409001 by Tumara Baap on August 24, 2009 at 9:20 pm

Dear Thomas Guihen, I want to commend you for your civil posts in the face of aggressive lecturing. You've obviously given this topic plenty of thought. I consider myself a voracious reader but am aware I'm in the company of people vastly smarter than me at such sites who routinely conceptualize research paradigms at the margins of human understanding. I would hope they would consider me amenable to reason, and argue respectfully if I were to express an opinion counter to their own.

Amongst Enlightenment figures I admire are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Morality in those ages was governed by the interpretation of heresy laws. These were based on scripture. Moral arguments singularly revolved around what the scriptures said. There was simply no other way to conceptualize right from wrong other than examine what scripture decreed. Hobbes and Locke went one step further. They posed the question why and how religion serves humanity, if at all. Doesn't sound like a big deal nowadays but this next small step was a watershed event that influenced the course of western civilization.

Like you, everyone has an emotional sense of goodness and virtue. It is so profoundly grounded in us that taking that next small step to question why it permeates our world view can be steeply counter-intuitive. But I encourage you to take it.

Things like altruism is manifested in several species. In one dramatic instance, E.Coli bacteria in times of stress trigger their own demise so that a handful a few in their colony may feed on them. It evolved simply because it improved odds of the gene regulating this "goodness" to propagate. This should help illustrate that our own sense of virtue is a perspicaciously naturalistic phenomenon. Our goodness instinct is so deeply embedded into us that our minds easily slip into furrows of a "privileged perspective" when we start contemplating rubbish such as a transcending universal goodness.

Some of the latest research in anthropology and neuroscience is instructive. It is now believed that the primary conduit for altruism to have evolved and valued amongst humans is war. Individuals possessing the gene where empathy and devotion to the group were strong enough to lay down their lives for it underwent natural selection. We would not be who we are, and we would not have a sense of overweening sense of goodness (at least a major facet of it) were it not for murder, mayhem and war. It's a perspective that hardly soothes the ego. But that's not what science and reason are about.

P.S. I recall reading Winston Churchill bemoaned how the Pashtuns regard the vices of murder and betrayal as virtues. Indeed, many a historian has noted how such "vices" are admired as qualities of strength, cunning and ruthlessness in these lawless badlands. The role of culture cannot be neglected in what we perceive as virtuous.

6. A Grand Bargain Over Evolution

Comment #408750 by Tumara Baap on August 24, 2009 at 7:23 am

A few posters have referred to Wright's views as a form of Deism. I don't think it is. Deism pushes the instinct of "agent bias" out of the domain of here and now to an immeasurably distant past. An elemental point of this early form of freethought is that the "author" of the reality we live in is utterly indifferent to all manner of humanly affairs. Wright with his talk of "higher purpose" is distinctly less sophisticated than the deist Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine was.
Wright's rigor of thinking fails on multiple levels. One of the most poignant consciousness raising as a result of Darwin's work was that no matter how mind-bogglingly complex and awe inspiring a paradigm before you, conquering it requires one to commit to a rational naturalistic methodology. It ought to follow that the key to understanding anything and everything requires such a path. And paid dividend it has - the majesty of scientifically attained knowledge handily eclipses the wildest hallucination under the banner of God. People like Wright, instead of drawing enlightened lessons on their outlook to the universe instead play whackamole with the latest body of facts. They hob and bob around the knowledge gleaned through the sweat of others to find a way of propping the same worn modes of worldview that apotheosizes some version of a sentient super-agent. In so doing Wright makes a mockery of every tenet of scientific thinking - of upholding occam's razor in rendering ultimate explanations, of not falling prey to any "privileged perspective", of not shaping arguments so as to conform to a soothing emotional predisposition, of ensuring the most robust established knowledge is concordant with any overarching theory that ties it together, and so on and so forth. Wright is a fucking joke. On closer inspection his thinking hews closer to the ancients who believed lightning occurred because the gods were cross - the differences lie in degree and chronological order, not in kind. But apparently his woozy casuistry is giving many media personalities from Fareed Zakaria to Andrew Sullivan an immense hard on.

7. A Grand Bargain Over Evolution

Comment #408723 by Tumara Baap on August 24, 2009 at 4:56 am

I'm getting fed up with the term militant atheist. There is no doubt those who use it do so in the context of a subtle pejorative. Well, it is about time the term is exposed for the skin-deep asinine slogan that it is. What -exactly- is meant by it? Is it an atheist who speaks his or her mind with candor? Is it an atheist who simply has the darned moxie to conflate god-belief with superstition? Is it an atheist who won't sugar coat their disdain for religion... in exactly the same manner a believer won't sugar coat their words addressing heretic positions? (and oh I wonder why the word heretic, pagan, or blasphemy has a contemptuous connotation to it in the first place).
It is tragic those fond of the militant atheist term are secular humanists (like E O Wilson). They should not be allowed to get away with it. For starters, if you choose to use it, have the spine to spell out exactly what you mean by it.

8. 77 Favourite Atheist Books

Comment #397698 by Tumara Baap on July 18, 2009 at 2:18 am

The Four Horsemen rule the atheist universe. But a book with a historical approach that sadly gets scant attention is Susan Jacoby's A History of American Secularism. It ought to be a mandatory read. I doubt even atheists realize the extent to which the religious bloc have impeded social progress. Or the extent to which just about every leap in humankind, from science, to emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, public education, conferring of human rights to children etc was either conceived or fervently encouraged by brave atheists and agnostics. That's for starters but what'll get you worked up is how the sacrifices and pioneering efforts of freethinkers were swept under the rug to appease the religious masses. Next time someone questions how you can possibly be a good atheist, fling a Jacoby paperback into their face.

9. Correspondence regarding the Templeton Foundation

Comment #389843 by Tumara Baap on June 22, 2009 at 1:04 am

I hope Michael Shermer could learn a few things from Grayling and Dennet.

I'm glad these letters are being made public. TF is merely a propaganda machine and has been having a great run of late. About time someone countered them a little more forcefully.

10. More Americans Say They Have No Religion

Comment #350544 by Tumara Baap on March 10, 2009 at 12:11 am

The figure of 14 to 20% of Americans who have no religious affiliation gets bandied about much. It is nothing but self-flattery when spokesmen from humanist and atheist outfits go on radio and proclaim their kin to be as numerous by conflating atheists in that estimate. Atheists are no more than 2% of the population at most. And it not likely to change much. Atheists have reached their intellectually bold conclusions through assiduous reasoning. They're usually highly educated and have the guts to buck orthodoxy. But your average "no religious affiliation"Joe has everything from football to Angelina Jolie on his (or her) mind and is minimally steeped in matters of church. This latter segment may have no gripes ascribing to New Age woo-woo or incessantly worrying about being abducted and inappropriately fondled by aliens. There is a world of difference between these "not religious" folks and true non-believers.
Not that I don't welcome the decline of religious influence in our lives. As many books as Dawkins and Hitchens may write, nothing will speed up a general secularization of society as a high GDP combined with universal health care, high literacy, and an amelioration of other social inequalities. We may not have nailed the mechanism of why this happens, but can be fairly certain that it does. The future looks bright.

11. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313161 by Tumara Baap on January 5, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Fascinating. Thought provoking. Even uplifting.

And surely profoundly upsetting to Dinesh D'Souza. I suppose it's time for round two of a Bonobos-really-do-suck conservative rant in the WSJ.

12. The Ten Days of Newton

Comment #306516 by Tumara Baap on December 24, 2008 at 11:48 pm

Good article. But what delights me most is Richard's name nicely plopped in the very first sentence. Like most on this site I'm naturally a fan. But the point I'm making is the persona of the fountainhead of a movement or school of thought has greater social impact than the pith of what he spearheads. Pele did something for soccer. Likewise Richard does something for reason. There are a lot of lay clever people out there who will now google and probe further and will consequently be energized. Olivia does us a great service. Thank you.

13. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor

Comment #304098 by Tumara Baap on December 20, 2008 at 10:25 am

I felt the ground had caved under my feet when I heard about this. Even if you downplay the Rick pick that it has no bearing on core policy, such an overtly religious figure should not be given a bullhorn. A huge number of Americans, most of them believers, worry that the religious right has an excessive influence on politics.

Obama's depressing choice however says little about his personal beliefs. This is purely political calculation. The democrats are committed to winning back "values" voters from the Republicans. The strategists behind this might as well have secular sympathies, but they correctly conclude that none of their political inclinations matter if they are locked out of power. Faustian concessions to the right are all but a necessity.

Obama did what he deemed politically expedient. Now we must do our part. We are numerous, but we have no political bite. I want to see the day where a politician would shake in his boots at the thought of crossing the secular constituency. For starters, groups like the Secular Coaltion and FFRF can do with our unflinching support.

14. Dr Adam Rutherford criticises teachers' views on creationism

Comment #281175 by Tumara Baap on November 9, 2008 at 10:59 pm

I'm assuming the poll was conducted in the U.K. I cannot believe that almost one in five science teachers hold such absurd views... in the U.K.! I thought we Americans had a lock on Wasilla Hillbillies. It shudders me to think what a poll among U.S. science teachers would yield.

Is it improper for me to wonder how many of these teachers are naturalized Brits from places like Somalia or Pakistan...

15. Cassini

Comment #280093 by Tumara Baap on November 6, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Hope to see more such videos/ articles on this site. I just got done reading Carl Sagan's Cosmos. For those rationalists who were too young to immerse themselves in Sagan when he peaked in the 80's (as I was), it's not too late to grab his book. The space exploration he speaks of is dated. But his zest, supple intelligence, and emotion vested into narrating the adventure of exploration and the history of our rational transcendence has no equal. Having been infected with Sagan's enthusiasm makes the hairs on my neck stand when I view videos like this. What would he have thought of Cassini?
I plan on reading Demon haunted world next...

16. Surprise: Scientists for Obama

Comment #276980 by Tumara Baap on November 2, 2008 at 10:41 pm

Incomplete. And how many Nobel laureates endorsed McCain?

McCain shouldn't lose heart being left a little behind. After all, how cool is it to be endorsed by a sitting Vice President?

From the article I gather that the Nobel laureates are exclusively from science backgrounds. I'm curious how many laureates from all fields lean towards one candidate.

This website has a pro-science bias. It's little surprise scientists back Obama. But what about Economists?
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127

17. A 'values' voter speaks her mind on Obama

Comment #267377 by Tumara Baap on October 20, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Surely some of you can find something redeeming in the woman's words. Meanies!

Now she did say Obama's Christianity is not the sort that's really found in the bible. She's dead-on correct about that.

18. Convert or we will kill you, Hindu lynch mobs tell fleeing Christians

Comment #266943 by Tumara Baap on October 20, 2008 at 1:26 am

If they teach little Indians anything in school, they ought to instill these ideas from one of modern India's founding father's, Jawaharlal Nehru:

On organized religion...

“almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation and the preservation of vested interests.”

and then again...

“religion has not only broken our backs but stifled and almost killed all originality of thought or mind”

19. Convert or we will kill you, Hindu lynch mobs tell fleeing Christians

Comment #266935 by Tumara Baap on October 20, 2008 at 12:28 am

These deplorable events showcase the extent to which religious violence is a manifestation of the limbic brain. Sex, hunger, territoriality and in-group loyalties effortlessly tend to circumvent ethics, laws, or for that matter any sort of cerebral considerations. In this case, the instinct happens to be mindless out-group hostility. Hinduism itself is a loose amalgam of beliefs. It's theology ranges from monism, monotheism, polytheism to atheism. The "religion" embraces every imaginable idea, from the absurd and silly to the bold and surprisingly sophisticated. These sick acts against Christians cannot have any conceivable theological underpinning. The violence boils down to misplaced nationalism and cultural chauvinism. Historically, India has been comparatively welcoming of people of foreign faiths. Jews and Zoroastrians sought haven here.
The exception has been the nationalistic push back against Abrahamical faith's singular focus on proselytization and expansion. This is seen in the growth of religious bodies like the Khalsa, Arya Samaj, and RSS. Some have morphed over a couple of centuries into new religions (e.g. Sikhism, which incorporated Sufism with Upanishadic theology). Other more recent outfits like the RSS remain fringe groups. India's constitutional secularism notwithstanding, it is a nation hopelessly steeped in superstition, mysticism and religious stupidity... a land where the degree to which faith and spirituality are viewed as virtues is truly lamentable.

20. Richard Dawkins at Conservative Party Conference 2008

Comment #264214 by Tumara Baap on October 13, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Tories in the U.K. are to the left of Democrats in the U.S. in several areas, notably so in religious attitudes. Americans agape at Richard's presence at a conservative forum will be helped by the Yougov poll chart in this Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10926321

The United States is probably the only advanced country with a major political party with a closer bearing to the Taliban than any other political entity in rest of the first world.

21. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #261534 by Tumara Baap on October 7, 2008 at 1:59 am

Evolution can never be stopped. Right now, the world population is expanding. Once it's static, evolutionary leads should manifest themselves, led by sexual selection pressures for example. Or the accumulation of mutations that lead to loss of function. Since natural selection pressures have been so heavily altered, many of our senses may go the route of our sense of smell, down the tube ... color blindness is already more prevalent in modern settings than it is in primitive groups.

22. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today

Comment #259854 by Tumara Baap on October 4, 2008 at 3:06 am

For those of you who've never watched Bill Maher on HBO before, you're being misled by the balance of comments posted thus far.
Some people may genuinely not think highly of him. But I'm sure there's a measure of egoistic "my tastes are way too cool for this" thrown in the mix.
I'm a fan of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Maher. Jon is the sharpest of all. But their style and wavelength of humor varies and I certainly wouldn't diss any one. Maher is not by any measure dull or boring. On the contrary I think he's witty and outspoken. He has fabulous guests on, from big-name politicians to contributers to the New Yorker, the Post, and the Times to the odd comedian. On no other political show will you ever find such a showing of freethinkers and secular humanists: Salman Rushdie, Hitchens, Janeane Garofalo etc. You may not find yourself always agreeing with Maher, but he certainly comes across as a person amenable to reason. He is refreshingly irreverent. His New Rules segment aren't to be missed. I'd be wary of those issuing tortuous uptight verdicts. At the end of the day, the man's a comedian... one who abhors George Bush and religious nuts with every fiber in his body. And that makes for a rollicking permutation that has few peers in American media.

If you're a freethinking political junkie, sample Maher's show for yourself.

23. Sherri Shepherd, Bill Maher Spar Over God: Bill Tells Sherri She Should Go To Psych Ward

Comment #258123 by Tumara Baap on October 1, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Thanks Kaiser for the links to The Daily Show forums.

Bill Maher is getting beat up with the same old Christian apologist arguments in these forums.

I enjoy being on the RichardDawkins site, but let's be honest. This is an echo chamber where most people already agree with each other on gross positions.

It'd be helpful if some of you could head to the Daily Show forums and unleash some of your firepower. Most Daily Show fans are intelligent and well read, and would at least be receptive to reasoned arguments from the non-theist perspective.

Thank you.

24. Sherri Shepherd, Bill Maher Spar Over God: Bill Tells Sherri She Should Go To Psych Ward

Comment #257689 by Tumara Baap on October 1, 2008 at 1:04 am

About the most distressing thing in the interview was the whoop and clapping from the audience following the inane question about asking God what he thinks. It's chilling to think what sort of world these minds dwell in, what sort of questions they feel are incisive, what sort of stuff they're titillated by...

Glad this interview was done for this audience. It sickens me how many women get fuzzy over Jesus despite the fact this is one group that has been historically most subjugated by the clutches of religion. Perhaps a comedian is needed to pave the way for someone like Annie Gaylor to give these pious women a real education on the abyss they've been pulled out of by freethinkers like Elizabeth Stanton, Frances Wright and Margaret Sanger.

25. Which science book should the next US president read?

Comment #257664 by Tumara Baap on September 30, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Seth Shulman's Undermining Science is a very concise and easy to read book. Chris Mooney has also written in Harper's on the subject and has a book, "The Republican war on Science" which I haven't read. Quickest way to get up to speed is "Political Science" by Michael Specter in a March 2006 issue of The New Yorker. The verdict is profoundly upsetting. I don't think there's a single government agency that hasn't been drowned in a torrent of conservative stupidity. Religious belief is a culprit in most instances. What is remarkable is the amount of stuff that isn't in Shulman's book, for example the bullying of the ex-surgeon general Richard Carmona. Apparently the downpour didn't stop after the book was published.

What peeves me is McCain sympathizers who say Bush is an anomaly we should just forget about. Bull! Bush and Palin are the natural byproducts of a Republican tryst with anti-intellectualism beginning with Nixon, and which has been gathering steam ever since.

26. Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Comment #255015 by Tumara Baap on September 26, 2008 at 3:29 pm

I'm very curious about the ministers strategy. There must be something that gives them the confidence to take such a defiant stand. The risks are high. There is nothing more houses of worship love than a cash inflow. The bar against public endorsement is something they've always easily been able to hob and bob around.

One weapon always at their disposal is too bully politicians into a hopeless pulp. No politician wants to be painted as anti-christian. And of course it's no secret these guys revel in inflaming the culture wars. It's a source of power. Nixon, Buchanan, Reagan, Bush and now Palin have always understood how the game is played. As discussed in George Packer's New Yorker article "The fall of conservatism", the country is more thickly populated by religious regular folk with average intellects who feel small and inadequate next to competent and progressive minds. Class, religion and race are to be ruthlessly exploited. Injecting social poison has never failed to reward a power high before.

27. Secular schools of thought tainted

Comment #252353 by Tumara Baap on September 23, 2008 at 1:30 am

Two hours a week of atheist instruction sounds like a splendid idea. I am sure the outcry would be thunderous. This despite the fact that it is not indoctrination, but critical thinking at its best, aimed at the most entrenched form of dogma. This is when I realize Sam Harris is onto something with his Reason Project.

Even if you don't call it atheism, you could still teach it in a multitude of ways. Classes on general science, scientific history, scientific philosophy, naturalism, empiricism, secularism, comparative religion and religious sociology can all be tweaked to be bold, honest and provocative enough to impart the same message.

I don't watch much tv, but aside from Daily Show and Bill Maher I sometimes enjoy watching the History, Discovery, National Geographic, Science and Smithsonian channels. They cover a broad range of subjects. But in every show, there is some measure of omission or soft-pedaling on the pernicious effects of God and religion on knowledge and society. The role of freethinkers and secularists is given short shrift. Or when they are acknowledged, their perspective is not adequately contrasted with the rot of a god suffused mind. What we need is media penetration. We could talk about anything imaginable (in a class, on radio, or television) and merely have to present it uncolored and unbiased by a culture that steadfastly sees faith as a virtue.

28. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251011 by Tumara Baap on September 21, 2008 at 2:04 am

Sarah Palin is a Philip Cooney, Monica Goodling, George Deutsch, Julie MacDonald, and David Hager rolled into one.

Most Americans may not be familiar with all of these names. But ask them whether McCain has chosen yet another Brownie, and they'll know exactly what you're talking about. It's high time the public familiarizes itself with the nation's litany of Brownies, and how much McCain is doing to further this peculiar Bush legacy.

29. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #250870 by Tumara Baap on September 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm

The writer would have been better off not quoting the part about atheists who pray. It just illustrates the point that studies that stand the test of time account for confounding factors, are repeatable by other respectable researchers, and that other studies by the researchers have a high citation rate... a reflection of scientific rigour. In this case, respondent mischief or misunderstood questions are obvious suspects. It's not surprising that such a stupid and self contradictory study being used to buttress the writer's argument comes from a conservative newspaper. Earthily, high scores on the Wilson-Patterson index (marker of conservatism) have an inverse correlation with scientific attainment.

It is not unreasonable to posit that one superstition may compete with other superstitions on the social playing field: one religion would try to out-shout and drown out other religions and superstitions in its quest for greater clout. Also, even if there is a hypothetical inverse correlation between, say, belief in homeopathy and the belief you were abducted by aliens who fondled with your testicles, how would it possibly make a case for rationality one way or the other when both positions are patently wrong? Except that in the case of religion, it's not only wrong but has an infamous track record for being pernicious.

Data that may contradict the writer's assertions also seems to have been conveniently sidelined. Folks who are merely trying to scrape by a basic living would not be expected to have articulate opinions compared to the slightly more affluent who simply have more time to indulge in non-essential matters: be it politics, philosophy or ideas about acupuncture and homeopathy. Secondly, one might have such a clustering in critical thinking skills within certain education ranges that a study may not have the sensitivity to resolve anything useful. Studying extreme ends of social groups can therefore unveil the lay of relationships in the middle. A myriad studies that show embarrassing correlations of religiosity amongst Republicans and the prison population on the one hand, and the extreme lack of religiosity among elite science achievers were just not mentioned. Conveniently...

A point about Bill Maher. I have heard him spout questionable stuff but he always tries to proffer good arguments. True, he has decried the use of drugs. To take the example of antidepressants, studies show them to be only marginally better than placebo. And they are no more effective than psychotherapy. They certainly do have numerous side effects. It's one class of drugs that is being grossly overused. I'm a healthcare professional and can tell you that drug companies reap generously with their freebie samples and misleading direct-to-patient marketing. Drug reps who visit doctors are chosen more for their good looks than therapeutic mastery. Maher has spoken out against this. I'd not be at all surprised if the WSJ writer is deliberately misrepresenting Maher.
All in all, a downright sloppy article.

30. Turkish edition of The Ancestor's Tale sells out within a day!

Comment #250625 by Tumara Baap on September 20, 2008 at 2:54 am

I certainly hope those who bought it actually read it. It took me months to finish. I don't have a strong biology background, which made all the zoology references hard to follow without being able to visualize the subject matter. If they can have an illustrated version of the Da Vinci Code, then surely Ancestor's Tale should qualify as a candidate.
Dawkin's is in his element writing this book. TGD seems almost dumbed down in comparison. Ancestor's Tale is rich, detailed, and introduces one to a plethora of provocative concepts and perspectives. It's a must read for anyone interested in evolution.

31. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #246747 by Tumara Baap on September 13, 2008 at 2:33 am

I like Michael Shermer. He's a lucid thinker and I think he's done enormous service to rationality with his magazine, podcast, articles, lectures and books.

But I have serious reservations about his tryst with Templeton. I do not deny that many theists have probably been exposed to our way of thinking with this collaboration. On the face of it, such "balanced discussions" do sound entirely reasonable. It is probably one reason why many writers for whom I have the utmost respect agreed to participate. Many also have books of their own, and such large scale promotion at someone else's expense in the Times and Economist must've been irresistible. Some maybe humanists who sympathize with Templeton's agenda on some level ... they're atheists themselves but want to lure believers to common causes of promoting science to combat global problems, albeit at the cost of soft-pedaling a few hard truths.

Templeton has a very obvious agenda. Their innocuous mission statements notwithstanding, their prizes to the tune of a whopping two million dollars goes to those academics who convey science and reason as not at odds with the supernatural. It is a position I oppose with every fiber in my being. One has to take stock of the painful history that led to our current culture of rational assessment. Advanced civilizations from the Indians, Greeks, Mayans and Chinese got only so far. As perplexing as it is to modern Western minds, the Chinese viewed every paradigm as a war of two opposing unseen forces. We take rational inquiry for granted today but for Thucydides to chronicle events based on painstaking research and eschewing rumour and myth was a watershed event. The scientific method eluded all of these people ... a sort of dualism prevailed ... believe that which you can verify, and believe just as well that which you can never see, measure or prove.

The scientific method is a precious rarity, only feebly in our grasp. You either believe in the scientific ethos, or you don't. There cannot be one compartment for reason, and another for God, just as you cannot be a capitalist the first half of the day, and a communist the second half. Yet Templeton and more than a handful of myopic atheist scientists would have us do just that. This is intolerable.

Of course, I'm all for dialogue between theists and non-theists. But on whose terms? Templeton's? I'd rather have the clout and authority for honest answers reside with Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, or Sam Harris' Reason Project. Given the sort of media coup Shermer has handed Templeton on a silver platter, they ought to give him a smooch along with the money and kindness they've showered him with.

32. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #243499 by Tumara Baap on September 6, 2008 at 3:22 am

Templeton Foundation paid millions to have their God vs Science essays published online/ and in magazines such as Huffington Post and the Economist. Michael Shermer believes in having a civil discourse with the other side, and he was apparently given full latitude by Templeton to choose the writers. But what did Templeton Foundation get back for its millions?
A religious Deepak Chopra/Eckhardt Tolle reading buddy of mine wrote me an email about his distrust in leftie over-analytical scientists who don't see the big picture. He thinks Richard Dawkins is so foolish not to believe in God. Appended was a link to the Templeton Foudation essay project by Shermer! It dawned on me then what Templeton got for its millions.
It will never occur to the average reader that the intellectuals who contributed are not necessarily the finest minds on the subject, and especially not by Shermer's standards. The writers I'm sure were chosen to reflect a diversity of opinions. Some such as Ken Miller hold an extreme minority opinion about God amongst evolutionary biologists, but is a public relations gem for NCSE. Another was a theologian notable for being pro-evolution. Nothing wrong in pursuing diverse views. But Templeton got away relaying to countless people that there is legitimate division on the subject amongst leading thinkers, even scientists. (a breakdown of members National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society is overwhelmingly lopsided on the subject) It also legitimized Templeton Foundation as an arbiter of the debate. Shermer's participation in this project surely lends heft to all those dubious prizes they intend to award. Michael Shermer, you got bloody bamboozled.

I noticed Richard wasn't one of the essayists, though he must've been approached. Hats off to him!

33. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239075 by Tumara Baap on August 29, 2008 at 2:48 am

It's widely believed Obama is a Christian. Even Hillary thought so..."as far as I know". Many on this forum seem to accept this. Am I the only one who is a little incredulous?
Ryan Lizza's recent article in the New yorker on how Obama became a pol is an eye opener on the extent to which a politician's persona is manufactured. It's all cold calculation... Hope and Change and the resolve to stay on message; the reluctant okay to Axlerod's "Yes we can" mantra; to become a man of faith etc. During a meeting with a Chicago powerbroker, Obama was told he needs serious legislation under his belt and needs to join a church. He responded to the latter by sending out his staff to vet pastors and churches. Trinity United, of which Oprah was also once a member, seemed like a safe bet (at the time).
Take into account other factoids. Obama had a youthful flirtation with agnosticism, it's been reported. He is clearly informed about the old testament's more ridiculous stipulations, as Dobson brought to our attention. His father was an atheist. His mother a PhD anthropologist secular humanist. He readily admits his parents believed all religion was mumbo-jumbo. These are bold and enlightening ideas which the parents most assuredly must've conveyed to little Barack. He was never brain washed. He didn't look pastor Warren in the eye when he uttered that he believes Jesus died for our sins. His musings on faith employ the most parsed language imaginable... "it's matter of enduring questions." He's seemed visibly uncomfortable whenever discussing theology, especially in that infamous CNN faith debate with Hillary. He does grant that religion is what the masses look to to channel their inner goodness, and that much, however unfortunate, is largely true. We know Obama has studied Nietzsche. He must therefore be well acquainted with Spinoza. As constitutional law scholar, he's probably better than any of us at tracing the historical ideas that culminated in a formal separation of church and state. He has to be well versed in the freethinking deliberations of Thomas Paine, Jefferson, John Adams and other founding fathers. We all accept Obama is impressively intelligent.
Of course, one can always start off as little Barack and eventually mature and morph into pious Christian. The people willing to believe this most readily are theists. If Einstein had proclaimed at the cusp of announcing his theory of relativity, that by the way, the Earth is the center of the universe, a handful few might not have suspected of Einstein of being dishonest or losing his mind. And they would precisely be the dimwits who themselves believe such a ridiculous notion, and would therefore never fathom the gulf in sophistication between the positions. As a secular humanist, I find it exceedingly improbable Obama is the sincere Christian he purports to be.

34. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229717 by Tumara Baap on August 14, 2008 at 1:20 am

The Koran and hadith ought to be critiqued to bits. However, it's a stretch to point out these absurdities in the koran and then link them to deviant social behaviour. Such a link would be tenuous. Muslims, as people of most other religions, have rarely ever critically read and imbibed the contents of their holy book. Sure, they mindlessly blabber its verses. But their perspective is colored by other historical muslim figures, contemporary culture, sufi "saints", local traditions and folklore. I think it was Taner Edis, the Turkish-American physicist who pointed out that the sort of narrow Wahabi interpretation of Islam as portrayed in End of Faith (even though accurate) is just not how the vast majority of Muslims view their own faith. Caution therefore ought to be exercised before condemning all Muslims as being nourished by something sick. Reality is a little more complex. That said, there ought to be no hesitation in frankly stating historical facts. Mohammed was a ruthless, bloodthirsty, power hungry, plagiarizing, caravan raiding, sex obsessed murderer. Ibn Warraq gives one of the most sober and academically responsible accounts of this horrible human being.

35. Obama Should Re-Think His Faith-Based Agenda

Comment #221657 by Tumara Baap on July 30, 2008 at 1:05 am

Mind you, religious organizations have been able to funnel government funds for charity work long before George Bush came on the scene. They simply had to set up fronts that completely divested themselves of religious identification, proselytizing, etc. Groups such as SOS had been conducting charity work in this secularized atmosphere all along. Apparently, Bush feels that if government charity is dished out, bragging and waving of a religious banner is essential to the endeavor. He is, after all, a fucktard. Obama merely has to revert to the previous benign arrangement. Apparently his sentences are so parsed I'm not sure how Faith Based Initiatives will pan out in an Obama administration. I fear the worst. He's already tasted the power that flows by working in concert with Chicago's churches. He may sincerely feel despite of his secular instincts that working with grassroots religious bodies is critical to fighting poverty and urban decline.

36. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215429 by Tumara Baap on July 21, 2008 at 10:07 pm

I'd never imagined this is what Al-Jazeera is like. These guys seem far more professional and even handed than Fox news. No wonder... heard a guy on NPR a while back who claimed that Fox is not allowed to re-broadcast from British soil, whereas Al-Jazeera is! Apparently Fox fell foul of British journalistic standards on objective reporting. And this is before Fox pulled that stunt where they doctored images of Times reporters to make them look uglier.

37. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195896 by Tumara Baap on June 19, 2008 at 2:12 am

The "Strengths and weakness" strategy is shameless promotion of ID/creationism. Science by its very nature is a vetting system of ideas and reason. Such legislation is therefore seemingly redundant. So what the legislation does enable is a SCIENCE classroom scenario where strengths are taught for a couple of hours, using a standard biology book, and weaknesses are highlighted for the next couple of hours, perhaps by showing students the film Expelled (where ID is not explicitly taught, but its doctrine merely advertised, and evolution trashed).

ID guys are trying to distance themselves from Dover's ramifications. Of course, no one is fooled. We should continue to ram Dover down their throats relentlessly.

It would be fitting to enact legislation where the Judge Jones verdict is part of the science curriculum. Since the verdict, unlike ID, is decidedly not religious, there is no constitutional bar to teaching it. The students duly get their science and a heaping dose of critical thinking, whereas Jindal and George Bush get their Teach the Controversy wish fulfilled. Just a thought...

38. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195887 by Tumara Baap on June 19, 2008 at 1:35 am

We should entertain the remote possibility that Jindal was cozying up to his Republican base but does not truly hold ID in high regard. One should not dismiss writing him a hopeless endeavor.
It isn't heartening that Jindal was born Hindu and converted to Catholicism in high school. Such late conversions are indicative of strong indoctrination. Or maybe he had an early budding of political ambition...

I was listening to a Point of Inquiry podcast in which D.J. Grothe interviews Taner Edis. In discussing ID, Edis very concisely renders judgement that the little intellectual gravitas ID might have had has now all but evaporated. ID is wholly a media hatchet job and nothing more. This needs to be emphasized in letters being sent out. The Dover trial is a colossal embarrassment for the Discovery Institute. Absolutely nothing gets under their skin like the trial. Therefore, please duly pepper your content liberally with references to the Dover trial, Judge Jones, etc. Jindal and his friends must be sobered to the reality they'll be on the wrong side of history. Dover is our punching bag, and we must punch it till our knuckles bleed.

39. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189677 by Tumara Baap on June 7, 2008 at 1:04 am

This is a real problem ... I don't understand why atheists are so splintered. Granted there are differences in meaning between atheists, secular humanists, skeptics etc, but they really do comprise of individuals with remarkably similar world views. I think the term "freethinkers" is broad and all encompassing enough for all to unite under. FFRF is an excellent umbrella organization to start with. I respect the independent streak of many a heathen but our views count for nothing without political organization.
I'm personally a lifetime member at FFRF. I cherish the sense of community with other rationalists and find its newsletters and broadcasts very intellectually enriching. Any accusation of such membership as another form religion is a silly and hollow charge ... I'm a member of several others, from Union of Concerned Scientists to Sierra Club, all with a sense of purpose that benefits immensely from organization and political savvy. There is absolutely no reason why non-believers should not coordinate themselves likewise.

40. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185782 by Tumara Baap on May 28, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Conflating secularism with atheism is something increasingly common among the general public. That car salesmen don't get it is hardly surprising. Atheists naturally are avid secularists. But they probably comprise merely a slice of the secularist pie. Many believers are cynical of organized religion. They understand well that their religion is highly labile, and will surely be exploited by politicians and clergy toward selfish power hungry ends. The converse is also true that the political establishment may try to influence and control religious doctrine. Hence Jefferson's eloquent metaphor of a "wall", one that shields church from state in regard to influence, politics, mischief and exploitation, and vice versa. It is really one of the most wonderful concepts introduced to society, and one which the faithful ought to lovingly embrace. To equate secularism with atheism is troubling and tends to undermine the appeal of secularism. I feel believers and non-believers are not vigilant enough in combating this clever lumping foisted by those hostile to secularism.

41. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180243 by Tumara Baap on May 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Styrer, I ain't about to defend Brooks. Sentences such as science and mysticism coming together really rankle me. Altruism has been beautifully explained in terms of gene propagation, and he states the very opposite. He places Buddhism and atheism on diametric ends, whereas many features of Buddhism are a repudiation of dogmatism. His op-ed is flawed.
But there's been a lot of venom for him personally. A bit of empathy would be in order. It is rather difficult for a paper columnist, and almost impossible for a conservative one, to decry spiritualism, mysticism, or some manner of high-bandwidth communion with a sky-god as a legitimate and real experience. His focus is on an ensuing debate between Bible believers and meditation practitioners of the East. He's parsed his article well enough to acknowledge that the cause of God experiences can be winnowed down to specific brain processes. That he couldn't convey the dispassion through which science views these alleged mental states is something I wouldn't hold against him, especially in context of his general audience. I bet he isn't too displeased his borderline woo woo piece is at the top of most emailed articles at the Times...

42. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179896 by Tumara Baap on May 14, 2008 at 12:50 am

Styrer, we ought to give Brooks the benefit of doubt that he isn't taking sides. Much of what he talks of is corroborated by Scientific American articles on the mind; about the "God Helmet", functional MRI studies on religiosity, meditation, musicality, vegetative states, and the respective involvement of cortical layers, temporal lobes or the caudate nucleus. All of our behavioral patterns, conscious or otherwise, are the product of neural firings. Brooks' language is decidedly unscientific. But for this he should not be slammed.

43. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179890 by Tumara Baap on May 14, 2008 at 12:19 am

Brooks seems to be taking a bit of a rap from atheists for this op-ed. I thought it was a good piece, especially for the Times readership. A couple of things: By calling Buddhism a religion, and hence lumping it together with other (Abrahamic) religions, and thereby positing all of these religions as pitted against atheism, is a dreadfully misleading demarcation of the warring camps. The most sophisticated iterations of Buddhism and Hinduism have a resemblance to secular humanism. Most of the New Atheists are firmly on record that they have no scruple against such versions of Eastern "religions." There is nary any rubbish about a sky-god here; just an emphasis on introspection, learning, self-discipline, and the mastery over one's mind.

To assume atheists would be threatened by the phenomenon of mystica priori is to severely misunderstand them. They are against dogma. If science and reason show us to be capable of exquisite elation, so be it. If meditation, or for that matter thinking, can influence brain structure, it would suggest the brain like a muscle is malleable to stimuli. There is nothing that ought to reek of mysticism in this. Thus far, peculiar temporal lobe excitation has been correlated with both religiosity and musical appreciation. This merely tells us that we are complex and sentient. That such labile states can be precipitated by imagining the Virgin Mary, Amon-Ra, or the Spaghetti Monster hardly means such beings actually exist. I suppose a tenuous case could be made that we are predisposed to religion. Again, if science demonstrates this to be so, that such belief aided social bonding perhaps, then so be it. The case against an actual God still remains as air-tight as ever. Any unfortunate delusional ailment can be overcome. The profound gift of reason is within reach of everyone.

44. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176766 by Tumara Baap on May 8, 2008 at 1:36 am

Just unbelievable ... I had some vague notion of fundus, but who'd have imagined this sort of darkness in the abyss. I wish there was a way to document and tape everything these guys say. It would be priceless.

45. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164281 by Tumara Baap on April 20, 2008 at 1:42 am

I just received an eSkeptics email in which Shermer eviscerates Expelled. As for the podcast interview, Shermer simply sounded level headed. It is quite a stretch to take this as Shermer not caring much about the rationalist view point. By not getting overly excited and worked up, he helps his own credibility, especially with anyone in the general media looking for balanced and dispassionate assessments. Dawkins may be right that Expelled is downright horrid. Shermer may be right that the movie nevertheless succeeds at its intended purpose. It doesn't take much to titillate a fundu audience ... frankly they're not scientifically savvy and not altogether bright. One simply has to beat them up into an emotional lather to stir them to action.

That said, I feel Shermer's deadpanning dry logic to a roomful of believers won't win debates. A speaker who can project humor and empathy, vividly carve contrasts in positions and delineate a relationship of those positions to first instincts, and finally deliver a few knock-out blows is one we need battling on our behalf. I'd love to see more of a fighting spirit in him.

46. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #160760 by Tumara Baap on April 14, 2008 at 11:22 am

All very well. But the Guardian article seemed to go a step beyond advocating appreciation of religious works for their literary value; that religion itself is a wellspring for the inspiration of art.

I'm curious what the author of Shalimar the Clown (atheist Rushdie) would have to say about this.

47. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160384 by Tumara Baap on April 14, 2008 at 2:34 am

As has been pointed out by Dawkins and his "soldiers", this army has no interest in suppressing religion inspired art. Emotion and feeling are behind music, art and poetry. Not religion per se. Religion has simply been placed on a high pedestal throughout our history, hence the correlation with amassed art. The world and universe now being revealed through reason is far more complex, wonderful and breathtaking than anything put forth in a religious text. The secular ticker has only just begun.

Still, let's entertain the writer's musings for a moment. Modern Art appreciation transcends and intersects pockets of style, region, culture or period. Some of the most astounding art enjoyed today abounded through the ages in India, Persia, China and so forth. So which god or religion should we give a shot in the arm on that count? Something from ancient Egypt perhaps? Not only is the art swell, but the theology often a tad more sophisticated than Christianity's. Me thinks Mayan art is most evocative. And the first heart to be ripped out at the temple altar ought to belong to one of those pesky apologists, who bandy their past or current disbelief thinking it will somehow blunt the ridicule they richly deserve.

48. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159721 by Tumara Baap on April 13, 2008 at 1:13 am

Hats off to Dr. Dawkins. There are lots of scientists and lots of atheists out there. But few can pull off what Dawkins does.. Shows such as Colbert Report and Real Time need one to be above all funny, witty, and lighthearted. Access to the New York Times requires one to engage an intelligent though not necessarily a scientifically savvy crowd. I remember a thread critical of Dr.Dawkin's that went on for days ... it concerned a clever and evocative example (in the Times) that pointed to a pathway from wolf to chihahua(?) as being flawed since it wasn't natural evolution in the wild. Carl Sagan faced the same shit... where people wouldn't pass an opportunity to flaunt their "scientific rigor" over a celebrity scientist. But it is precisely the ability to adapt one's dance to changing rhythm in the media world that makes Dawkins an invaluable spokesman.
I was thrilled to see Dawkins mention this site on the show. TGD got excellent attention showered upon it. All in all, a wonderful day for atheism and rationality.

49. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157679 by Tumara Baap on April 9, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Davis' remarks are tragic on several levels. They come from a woman African American Democrat.

As windweaver's superb post points out, it took a brave freethinkers/agnostics such as Elizabeth Stanton and Margaret Sanger to advance women's causes of voting rights, equal treatment, right to contraception etc. Davis would not be in the position of political power today if not for these atheist women standing up to bibles being hurled at them, ridicule, harassment and even imprisonment.

Secondly, the bible says nothing against slavery. In religious societies, each party will try to cherry pick those parts of a religious text that support their agenda. That said, it was the southern slave owners who were on firmer theological footing. The bible thus never made the slightest dent in that awful institution for thousands of years. And if it weren't for the emasculation of religious authority so that reason could breathe, Davis today would still be picking cotton and getting her backside whooped, in turns.

Davis also brings up the subject of atheists "destroying". I am not sure exactly what she meant, but if she wants to learn about how atheists, humanists, and freethinkers contribute to American society, I'm certain we could give her more than an earful. Right through our founding fathers from Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine to elite science and academia today, freethinkers have overwhelmingly contributed to modern high civilization, under whose umbrella Davis now comfortably lives.

Davis is also a democrat. In the 2004 elections, whereas the fundamentalist Christian vote went to Republicans, an ever larger lions share of the secular vote (consisting of both believers and non-believers) went to Democrats. This may be a religious country, but it is more so a secular one.

Davis, Davis, Davis, talk of grappling the wrong end of the stick! I encourage her office be bombarded with the specific themes of each toe she's stepped on.

50. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146758 by Tumara Baap on March 19, 2008 at 11:17 am

Many posters have tried to defend atheism. Something is being missed here. The article was about religious versus non-religious. The non-religious and atheists are not the same. Atheists are an extremely small portion of the non-religious, who've reached their conclusions following vigorous reasoning and reflection. Most non-religious people may have indeed expressed skepticism at some point, but for the most part haven't thought about the subject, being more preoccupied with video games and television than boring old texts.

Social implications of religious affiliation are primarily what account for happiness scores. It's a powerful factor. Religious affiliation is tied to a sense of identity, trumping even nationalism in many cases. No other explanation is even remotely persuasive, and certainly not one about religion "giving meaning". That one makes me practically cringe. To an extent religion does allay the anxieties and questions of life and existence. To the ancients, the act of dreaming was not understood... nor were natural calamities, diseases and other misfortunes. And a stroke of good luck was never perceived as chance. The sheer complexity of the world around could not be grappled with. In that sense any horse shit of an explanation "gave meaning". But to modern man, even the deepest religious explanation doesn't come close to capturing the true richness and awe of life and universe as revealed by science and reason. If religion still "gives meaning" to anyone in the modern world, it only serves to expose a chilling poverty of intellect.