1. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189603 by Steelman on June 6, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Wilson suggests, however, that the lack of a foreskin could make insertion or ejaculation slower, meaning brief, illicit sex is less likely to come to fruition and lead to a pregnancy.

I wonder what the breakdown is for the percentage of modern males who suffer from premature ejaculation, with or without foreskins. And exactly how long does it take for a premodern quickie?

It seems to me that equal helpings of danger and arousal, with a bit of saliva, and, foreskin or no, a fella is bound to end up a two pump chump.

More actual science, please...

2. Wanted: Moral Education for Secular Children

Comment #48604 by Steelman on June 8, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I have two young children of my own.
I have read Stephen Law's book, and recommend it.
I am presently reading Parenting Beyond Belief, which I also recommend.
More info on that last book (which includes essays by Richard Dawkins, Julia Sweeney, Penn Jillette, et al.) with links to the editor's blog and discussion board:
www.parentingbeyondbelief.com

3. Holy Hot Rods

Comment #47218 by Steelman on June 3, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Hey, now, the hot-rodders didn't invent automotive spirituality; the bikers have been into it for quite awhile. There are a number of annual "bike blessing" events around where I live (San Francisco area), and all across the country.

The question is: do you prefer a new agey, earth centered, native American blessing done by a local chief or medicine man; or do you go with the more traditional priest, pastor, or deacon affair?

4. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42060 by Steelman on May 17, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Roll: If you're interested in dialogue and cooperation between the religious and non-religious on social issues you might want to take a look at some of the links and discussions on Hemant Mehta's Friendly Atheist blog (the guy who sold his soul on ebay and wrote a book about it - there's a story here on the RD site about him).

steve99: You might take a look at the same blog I mentioned to Roll, above, and at this specific entry where pastor Mike Clawson (a regular on the blog) talks about the "emerging church". There are links to his site at the article. BTW, there are a number of Christian denominations mentioned as "progressive" in that article (they tend to welcome homosexuals as members).

5. Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

Comment #40566 by Steelman on May 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm

It's my understanding, from my reading and participation there, that the Friendly Atheist blog is about religious believers and atheists engaging in respectful dialogue. While blustering Christian proselytizers and disdainful atheists show up at times (unfortunately, more often now that the blog and book are getting wider press), there are plenty of regular commentators who engage in respectful dialogue about religious and moral issues.

I don't think religion can, or necessarily should, be abolished (I'm with Dan Dennett on that one), so atheists like myself are going to have to live and work with theists for the foreseeable future in a (hopefully!) pluralistic society here in the U.S. Hey, even Richard Dawkins has Christian friends: " 'I never feel personal hostility to people who believe in God,' he insists. 'For instance, I'm great friends with the local vicar, and also with the local bishop.' "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/12/17/svdawk17.xml

I would like atheists to be a respected, rather than the most distrusted, group. One of the ways to accomplish that is for theists to get to know more atheists. However you feel about Hemant's book and blog, they are just one of the ways we are getting more non-threatening exposure.

To John Phillips: I'm not sure you're being overly cynical about the idea of an atheist helping a Christian boost church attendance; it certainly sounds a bit subversive on the surface. However, I think Hemant's book serves two good purposes:

1. The publicity it's generating lets the general public know that atheists are not the non-theistic, dogmatic equivalent of fire and brimstone preaching Christian fundamentalists. In other words, we ain't just a bunch'a haters.

2. It lets Christians have a better understanding of how an outsider (one of them anyway) sees their religion and its practices. Holding up that mirror for church goers to see themselves, and to see what other churches are like, may prompt them to do a little thinking about what they believe and why. Not nearly as effective as a class in comparative religion might be, but it may have some affect.

BTW, I certainly feel there's room for more than one kind of approach in the atheism vs. theism arena. Dawkins' method is one way (I own a copy of The God Delusion; great stuff), Dennett's another (I recommend Breaking the Spell), Mehta's yet another.

6. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35942 by Steelman on April 29, 2007 at 11:54 am

ToTim Marsh: Thanks for the reply.
You say that "abnormality" and "normality" are difficult to define, and that "wrong doers" is a nebulous concept. I agree. It's exactly the difficulty in defining these terms, especially "normality" and its opposite, that makes the introduction of brain scans into the ethical minefield of any country's criminal justice system such a can of worms. It's the purportedly predictive, and therefore prejudicial, nature of such a technique that makes it so controversial in my mind. I've also seen Gattaca. I think such a society could easily be built around us if we aren't cautious.

I mostly agree with your statements about education and higher standards of living having a positive affect on social behavior. Unfortunately, the cash generated by those nice folks sometimes enables the apparently more sociopathic ones in their government to engage in large scale criminal actions. No reflection on anything you've said. It's just that it seems to me the larger a social group (small town to big city to state to country) the greater its potential for evil due to the diffusion, and therefore dissipation, of direct responsibility. Injustices are committed, tragedies occur, and officials and advocates shake their heads as they tell the public and the victims' families that "the system failed them."

The points in your last paragraph are well taken.

7. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35745 by Steelman on April 28, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Tim Marsh said: "It is generally a safe assumption that people do not elect to do bad things, in the full and unbiased understanding that it is bad. Be it due to misinformation or impulsivity, when a person does 'wrong' they simply don't know any better, or can't help it"

Are you talking about mentally ill, or emotionally disturbed, people here? I've known plenty of people who knew quite well that what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway. They knew their acts were wrong because they wouldn't have wanted anyone to treat them similarly. Yet they committed the acts because they felt they were somehow justified in doing so. Cognizance and intentionality are the basis for determining if someone is legally responsible for their actions, and may therefore be prosecuted. Maybe I'm misreading you here?

Tim Marsh said: "If you were a person who was very easily irritated, lashed out uncontrollably, and had various lifestyle and personal problems associated with this, wouldn't you welcome medical interventions that would not only make you feel calmer and open more social avenues, but also make everyone else around you safer?"

Are you on the "medicate your problems away" bandwagon, then? I hope not. Maybe you, like I, actually prefer mind altering drugs be used as a last resort? I know a number of folks who regularly pop a pill(s) rather than deal with their problems in some other therapeutic manner. There are a ridiculous amount of kids at schools here in the U.S. taking drugs to deal with ADHD and bipolar disorder (the bipolar treatments are not approved for use on children, but are still prescribed!). The parents go to the doctor, get a diagnosis and a prescription, and little Johnny gets some pills to make him a good boy. Meanwhile, the family problems that may have led to his misbehavior continue; but the drugs, and their unfortunate side effects, now keep the young man from being considered the "cause."

Back to brain scans and Orwellian nightmares: It's my understanding that the U.S. congress has recently passed legislation that prevents insurance providers from using DNA information as a basis for charging higher rates to those who might develop expensive ailments in the future. It also prevents the misuse of this information by employers. I'm glad to hear this. Genetic research projects have been stymied because potential volunteers were afraid to submit their DNA due to possible future discrimination in the areas of insurance acceptance and job hiring. Can you imagine getting a brain scan, and then being handed a card telling you all the jobs you can't have, and the insurance carriers (health, auto, etc.) who consider you too great a risk to cover?

8. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35743 by Steelman on April 28, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Nails said: "How easy it is to misrepresent."

Hmmm...not sure I misrepresented your position. You said this in your original post: "Thought for the future - maybe finding a 'paedo' anomaly would enable us to lock up these bastards before they hurt anyone or are hidden by the church, as this sicko was: [link deleted]"

You're talking there of imprisoning individuals based on a brain scan. This reminds me of the film Minority Report, where technology allowed arrests and convictions to occur prior to the actual crime being committed. How, exactly, is what you stated above different from the scenario I posted about a person being locked away just because they might harm others at a later date? I think we need to be very careful indeed about the methods used to dictate who is or is not a potential danger to society. How would you ever appeal the judgement of a brain scan?

Nails said: "The point I was trying to make is that criminals who are till a threat to society should remain incarserated - especially with repect to violent and sexual offenders. In the UK we seem to have a big problem of such offenders being given minor sentances and parolled after just a couple of years - and a percentage will then re-offend (sorry, I don't have any figures to hand)."

The social and financial problems behind this practice of too early release would have to be solved prior to brain scans, or any other manner of determining extended incarceration, being of much help, I think. Nonetheless, I think a brain scan could possibly be employed (once the science is confirmed) as an aid in diagnosis of potential re-offense for purposes of rehabilitation. I don't believe a brain scan can ever be used as the sole determiner of any possible behavior; unless we're going to turn the legal system into one that metes out punishment predicated not on actions, but on thoughts (potential actions).

9. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35554 by Steelman on April 27, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Nails said:" if there is good evidence of a serious link, why arn't we scanning criminals routinely before releasing them?
Would also be compelling evidence for a trial, perhaps."

Doctor [stepping out from behind scanning machine]: Well, Mr. Jones this concludes your annual physical.
Jones: Fit, am I?
Doctor: Well, there's just one thing.
Jones: Yes?
Doctor: Your prefrontal is showing just a slight abnormality.
Jones: Oh, my... Is it serious?
Doctor: No, not really. You'll just have to stay in hospital for the remainder.
Jones: The remainder? The remainder of what?
Doctor: Well, your natural life, of course. Just for safety's sake. Can't have you snapping some day and committing mass murder, now can we?
Jones [incredulous]
Doctor: Not to worry; the beds are clean, there are television and Internet privileges - nothing violent, though - and your family will be allowed to visit twice a week as long as you continue to exhibit good behavior.

10. Mozart doesn't make you clever

Comment #32597 by Steelman on April 17, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Scottishgeologist, take a look at album #5 "#5- Orleans- Waking and Dreaming" at the album covers link you provided in your previous post: http://www.atlantaillustrated.com/blogs/blog02/2005_05_01_atlantablog02.asp

That's John Hall in the middle, one of our newest congresspersons here in the U.S.!
http://tinyurl.com/2jfu37