2101. Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo

Comment #43193 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Onions usually make me cry. But the word "Comedy" under the title of this article made me laugh.

2102. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43191 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2007 at 5:49 pm

lindaj,

An aside: with phrases like "old white boys," you seem to make a number of assumptions about race and gender. But everyone on the Interwebs is actually 14 years old, African-american, and female. Weird, I know.

You're saying that what's best for the fetus doesn't enter into the equation. Only what's best for the woman. Fine. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

I have more trust in prospective mothers than I have in the government. That's why I'm 100% pro-choice. So we agree here.

2103. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43185 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2007 at 5:13 pm

I don't feel that a position critical of abortion necessarily is also anti-choice.

If a person kills a day-old infant, people are horrified by that. What about a fetus one day prior to delivery? When does a fetus graduate from non-person to person?

And doesn't it bother most people, when a pregnant woman drinks? Don't we accord the fetus concern for its future prior to delivery?

I'm solidly pro-choice. But I don't like abortion.

2104. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43166 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2007 at 3:07 pm

lindaj wrote:

If Hitchens has changed his spots and is now advocating choice, then hurrah.

It's not clear to me that Hitchens changed his position. The article I linked to was dated 1997, about 10 years ago. If you have evidence that he was at one time against a woman's right to choose, I'd like to see it.

My impression is, Hitchens doesn't like the moral over-simplification which equates a fetus with any other part of a woman's body, such as an organ or a tumor. Some on the pro-choice side make this argument.

2105. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43082 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2007 at 1:30 pm

lindaJ wrote:

Swaggering Hitch's misogyny is probably another thing many of the posters above share. You do know he doesn't believe in the right of a woman to control her own reproductive processes, right?

Hitchens touches on abortion in god is not Great. He's pro-choice. I googled for a reference on the web and found this interview (http://users.rcn.com/peterk.enteract/Progint.html):

Interviewer: So, what is your position regarding the continued legal status of abortion?

Hitchens: There's no choice but choice. I mean that to sound the way it does sound.

2106. Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post

Comment #42973 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2007 at 7:36 am

Totally off topic: bluebird, I like your avatar. Take that photo yourself?

I put a feeder up about two weeks ago, and I've seen chickadees, titmouse, nuthatches, lots of goldfinch, gold rumped warblers, those tiny guys with cinnamon on their heads, and a couple of Orioles. Can't wait for the cardinals.

I'm not a native to the east. I've never seen a bluebird. Hope I can this summer.

2107. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42972 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2007 at 7:23 am

pretomzee wrote:

You say this person is a friend of yours. Do you often speak of your friends in such derogatory fashion?

I have friends who are generally level-headed, but have a few odd ideas I can't respect. They probably have a similar attitude about me, and behind my back they may make a few cracks. So it goes.

2108. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42957 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2007 at 6:32 am

Ryan.Vilbig:

Why are you ignoring my request to end this discussion thread?

Uhh because you're not the boss?

Ryan, do youself a big favor. Use a pseudonym on the web. Future employers can Google your name, and you might later feel embarassed to have the stuff you've written here come up.

Your thinking is disordered and you don't appear to see it. Go talk to someone at your school's counseling center. If you're having problems sleeping, or mood swings, or problems concentrating and getting your work done, those might be other symptoms of an illness.

Good luck to you.

2109. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42764 by Dr Benway on May 19, 2007 at 12:29 pm

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

2110. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42728 by Dr Benway on May 19, 2007 at 8:09 am

When I don't have time to weigh evidence myself, I try to determine which viewpoint is most mainstream or acceptable among the experts. I put my trust in the academic peer review process. I think that's the most reasonable way of forming an opinion.

The current controversy regarding global warming underscores why we ought to protect the scientific community from excessive political pressure. When the White House selects scientific advisory committees on the basis of party affiliation rather than real scientific achievement, we're corrupting the peer review process. Hello 1984.

2111. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42713 by Dr Benway on May 19, 2007 at 6:30 am

"But, of course, religion is man-made. Men build the temples, write the prayers, organise the rites and offer the oblations and sacrifices. That does not mean that there is no divinely inspired and true religion".

I made the pancakes this morning. That doesn't mean that magic little elves had nothing to do with it.

2112. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42631 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Helios G2V wrote:

I would like to suggest that religious belief has its origins to prowess on the battlefield.

Something like that, I would think.

Someone to claim us, someone to follow
Someone to shame us, some brave Apollo
Someone to fool us, someone like you
We want you Big Brother, Big Brother

2113. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42625 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Bonzai:

Is it an escape from real life interactions with real people to post messages on internet forums?

*pinches self*

I don't seem to be dreaming, so I'm guessing you're either an actual person or a Turing machine.

Trolling these Interwebs is an escapist pass time, I will admit. Escape from chores, in my case.

2114. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42623 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 6:13 pm

There is something intriguing about mystical dimensions, past lives, angels, astral projection, etc. Makes for great art, books, movies, video games, theater, and "let's pretend" play. Might even spice up sex, as someone above noted.

However there's a worm in the magic apple that kills any appeal outside the fictional realm, at least for me. That worm is solipsism. Ugh.

Real sharing with real people all happens in a place I like to call *reality.*

2115. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42619 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 5:45 pm

from windweaver:

2) the remarkable capacity of autistic savants to know things beyond the capacity of the material brain

WTF?

As a quantum theory of mind...

I'm torn. By banning use of the term "quantum" in the context of theories of mind, we might put a stop to this painfully endless pseudoscientific bullshit. However, we might not. And in that case, "quantum" might serve as a handy red flag signifying "read no further."

2116. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #42616 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 5:23 pm

from Tukka:

Bill OReilly: "I can't prove to you that Jesus is God, so that truth is mine and mine alone."

Touche.

It would seem to follow, that if one admits the subjective nature of one's religion, one would have the good manners not to act with self-righteous superiority toward those of a different persuasion. Clearly I stand corrected.

2117. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42610 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 3:49 pm

"The religious man not only assumes that paradox will occur, but he takes the paucity of reason to explain paradox as an indirect confirmation that there are realities that not even reason, as estimable and valuable as it is, can penetrate or comprehend."

'I can't believe THAT!' said the atheist.

'Can't you?' the theist said in a pitying tone. 'Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'

The atheist laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said: 'one CAN'T believe impossible things.'

'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the theist. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

2118. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42584 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 1:28 pm

BMMcArdle wrote:

Trolls only want one thing, to stir up responses with their ignorant bleating. Resist the urge to pander to them, for as Thomas Paine said: "To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead".

Updated version: Arguing over the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. You might win, but you're still retarded.

2119. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42508 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 10:01 am

Ryan.Vilbig wrote:

"I think faith is uplifting, not mindless."

Today Sunnis and Shiites will murder each other in Iraq, because Allah commands it. Muhammad (PBUH) declared that Muslims are duty-bound to punish *bida* or innovation within Islam, by death. Sunnis believe Shiites are guilty of bida. Shiites believe the same of Sunnis.

Neither party has any evidence of Allah that would pass any sort of peer review process. Each side appeals to books of hearsay about hearsay. Each side will claim an inner knowing, a feeling of Allah's presence confirming the truth of their particular holy books. But no experiment can be designed demonstrating that this Allah has any quality we can describe reliably or in a repeatable manner.

How is such faith, or belief without evidence, uplifting?

2120. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42463 by Dr Benway on May 18, 2007 at 8:56 am

Roll,

Forgive my flip reply (i.e., "friends don't let friends drive drunk"). I was rushing out the door and didn't give your thoughtful post the time it deserved. Your heart's in the right place. Somehow, we all have to get along on this planet, theist and atheist alike.

I don't think we can persuade the fundamentalists. We sound like Satan to them. They won't listen to our lies. Our audience therefore is the liberal religionist. They hold the keys to peace.

The liberals sound like allies, because they often condemn the "extremists" just as we do. However, their criticisms have no impact, because the criticisms are misdirected and hypocritical. If God commands us do do something, there's nothing extremist in following those commands.

The lukewarm religionists want to have things both ways. They want modern enlightenment values, and they want the holy books and the magic. This is cheating. This is dishonest.

How can the liberals claim the Bible as God's word, while picking and chosing the verses that count and the ones that don't? Why don't they see the contradiction inherent in their position?

The liberals have been anesthetized by communal reinforcement. Humans are highly social mammals. Humans are wired to subordinate reason and perception to a sense of group belief. So long as large groups of humans appear to believe religion is a good thing, the still, small voice of reason will not penetrate their slumber.

If we talk to the liberals in a friendly manner, we may appear as though we view their position as reasonable. We may inadvertently crank up their dose of anesthesia. I don't think we can afford to waste time on such efforts. Instead we ought to shout into their ears, "Holy Christ! People are dying because of you! Wake the fuck up!"

The message is simple: In the public sphere, faith, or belief without evidence, is not a valid justification for any action. Keep the ancient books, the lovely buildings, the inspiring talks, the charities, the singing, the weddings, the funerals. Give up just one thing: faith.

2121. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42049 by Dr Benway on May 17, 2007 at 2:21 pm

How can you possibly hope to win over a friend when you you use these kind of arguments?

Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

2122. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42035 by Dr Benway on May 17, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Leora Tanenbaum:

Religion offers community, a framework in which to celebrate lifecycle events and mourn loss of life, distinctive recipes, and a code of values for moral living, among many other positive things.

That aspect of religion seems quite nice. The poison part is faith. When you encourage people to act according to faith, you open the door to many good works, but also to horrors. You open the door to deeds of charity in Jesus' name, and to suicide bombings in shopping malls. Faith is the most elastic justification imaginable. For that reason, it's got to go.

The brilliant thing Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens have done is this: they've called the liberal religionists to account. If the vast sea of liberal religionists condemned faith as a justification for political action, the fundamentalists would be shaken and disempowered.

When the liberal religionists list the positives of religion in response to the criticisms of Dawkins et al, they're missing the point. Let the Sunday services and holiday feasts continue. Let the art, poetry, history, and community bonding of the parish continue. Give up just one thing: faith. Give it up entirely.

From this day forward, O liberal religionist, each moment you do not declare yourself an enemy of faith, you stand accused by the blood of those murdered in God's name.

2123. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41814 by Dr Benway on May 17, 2007 at 5:50 am

Hate isn't my favorite emotion. But I don't feel it's improper or unethical to hate something. How can you love something, if you're incapable of hating that which threatens what you love? Hating a hater doesn't necessarily make you "just like him." The reasons for the hatred matter.

Intolerance of intolerance isn't the same thing as intolerance.

When someone repeatedly slanders individuals and groups of people, that person deserves a bit of tit for tat. They've forfeit the protection offered by the rules of civil discourse. Ad hominem attacks are appropriate. Maybe a taste of their own medicine will help them appreciate why the rules are there, and will caution their admirers.

I value social systems that give individuals a bit of elbow room for self-discovery, self-expression, creativity, and spontaneous, natural bonds of caring and love for others, with a minimum of state interference. I know how frightening it can be to stand entirely alone against a powerful group, and so I want minority rights protected from the abuses of majority rule.

People like Falwell threaten that which I feel is essential to a civil society. The content of their talk is a threat, and their method of argument is a threat. They say things like, "Homosexuals want to destroy the family." This sort of content threatens the rights and often the very lives of homosexuals.

But more dangerous than the crazy content is the method of argument used by these religious leaders. They don't appeal to evidence. They don't admit that their position is mere opinion in a wide universe of diverse opinion. They act as though emphatic assertion from their own holy mouths makes a thing true. They'll deny this. They say they're offering God's opinion, not their own. They'll cite scripture.

We (a minority group, sadly) know that scripture quoting is a shaky foundation for any argument. It's not hard to show how Christians cherry pick verses. The fact that the Good Book needs some "interpretation" means that opinions about what it says are *subjective*. Subjective arguments aren't arguments at all. They're noises of pleasure or unpleasure. They're like the sounds of dogs barking.

Misplaced respect for religion has created a monster. The monster feels entitled to pimp for social policies hurtful to millions of people, with only subjective opinion as a basis. And the monster has wealth, computer databases, police, armies, suicidal killers, and nuclear weapons, to serve its ends.

I hate the monster. Because Falwell was an example of it, and because he built a political and educational empire in support of it, I'm glad he's gone. Good riddance.

2124. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41154 by Dr Benway on May 15, 2007 at 2:54 pm

steve99 wrote:

I know this because I was brought up Catholic, and I can remember the deep warm feeling that belief gave me. (I remember thinking what a nasty and misleading song John Lennon's 'Imagine there's no Heaven' was).

Bingo.

On a molecular level, our bodies sort out proteins that are "self" and "not-self," and so we're able to fight infections. On a psychological level, we likewise divide the world into "people like me" and "people not like me." The bias against members of the out-group is profound and will over-ride rational argument. Think of eating something revolting. That's what it feels like for many Born Agains to listen to Richard Dawkins.

Confidence in our own perceptions and thoughts is in large part a function of communal reinforcement. We're social mammals. We don't have a choice about this. We need feedback from a community, or we can't even think.

Groups form around shared values and interests. They don't form around a rejection of certain values. Thus the lack of solid group identity for atheists.

However, there is a positive value shared by the atheists here that might make a great basis for group identity: intellectual honesty. Who wouldn't want to be a member of a group that values honesty?

Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens have done a great job pointing out the problems with religion. The next wave of books ought to expand upon the positives. Someone needs to illustrate the life and times of the tribe among us made up of people who yearn for truth and who prize honesty above other things. Show how this tribe is present, real, and heroic. Show how easy it is to join. No secret handshakes or membership fees needed. Simply learn the rules we use to establish certain propositions as more or less factually true.

A second, related value: people ought to be given time and tools to reason things out for themselves. No fair using bribes of heaven or threats of hell - or any other form of coercion - to force premature conclusion or opinion.

2125. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41097 by Dr Benway on May 15, 2007 at 1:39 pm

In his favor:
1. Never busted for doing crystal meth with a gay prostitute while at the same time fighting against civil rights for homosexuals
2. Never caught with a prostitute
3. Never sent suggestive IMs to high school boys
4. Never accused of using donations as hush money to silence former lovers
5. Never caught by James Randi doing fake healings
6. While championing "family values", he didn't have an affair with another woman while his wife was dying of cancer

Totally insufferable, but at least he wasn't the most outrageous hypocrite among the lot of true believers on TV.

2126. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #40929 by Dr Benway on May 15, 2007 at 8:07 am

Why can't religious people appreciate the subjective nature of their claims? Isn't it clear to all reflective people, that we live in two realities? That is, the subjective, direct experience of life and the social reality we share with others.

If I say to a friend, "do you year that ringing sound?" and he says, "no", I will wonder whether he might have a hearing problem, or my ears are playing tricks. If he says, "yes", we might continue to talk about the ringing until we both understand what it is. The ringing will then exist in both my subjective reality and in a shared, social reality.

I can never argue against a person's subjective reality because I have no way to perceive it myself. I might suspect a person is intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting a subjective experience, but that's as far as I can go.

Sometimes people are pressured into denying what they see, hear, or feel by their social group, as in the story about the emperor's new clothes. This is a terrible thing to do to a person. So I never say, "you didn't actually have that experience," or "you didn't see that." I might however offer alternative ways of understanding the experience - e.g., "might it have been a weather balloon rather than a UFO?"

The human brain is not a video recorder. Example: yesterday someone told me that boxes of ammo shells were found at a high school and the school was evacuated. I repeated to someone else, "shotgun shells were found at the high school." The person replied, "Shotgun shells, really? Not handgun shells?" The question surprised me. I realized that the word "shotgun" was my own elaboration. It likely arose from vivid memories of the Columbine perpetrators with their trench coats and shotguns. My brain must have classified the "ammo at the high school" story as similar to the Columbine story.

We've learned a lot about the sort of errors witnesses are prone to making. We can grade evidence as more or less reliable. We know that an eye witness report is worth a lot more than hearsay, for example. These rules of evidence determine what ought to be allowed into our shared, social reality, and what ought to be kept out. In areas where getting the facts right is a life or death concern, such as in the design of airplanes, people are rigorous in their analysis of evidence in support of one design verses another.

When we agree on our shared map of reality, we can work together to solve problems. So it's important that we first agree upon basic rules of evidence. We've no hope of a civil society without such rules. In this, we're all fundamentalists. Either we embrace together, fundamental principles of establishing a proposition as factually true or not, or we have no basis for dialogue. We're merely dogs barking at each other.

With respect to the subjective, all is permitted. There are no evidentiary rules. Congress shall make no law against the sacred, seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, wondrous flame of living experience. All little boys everywhere are entitled to say, "look at the emperor's butt!" if that's what the boy's eyes are saying to him.

If religious people were to say, "My God speaks to me. I pray he speaks to you." I would be content. Religious people often go further however. They say, "You're lying when you say you don't hear God." They're like the townspeople saying to the little boy, "You're lying when you say the emperor is naked." And so they trample upon the inner flame, the living testimony of the senses and feelings, the very thing that ought to be held most sacred by everyone.

There's no room for argument regarding basic, evidentiary rules. I'm a fundamentalist about this, as is everyone else with an education.

The argument comes when people want to admit subjective, unconfirmed, personal experiences others cannot witness or replicate to the set of social, shared facts upon which we base our civil institutions.

Please, let me read one religious person admitting the subjective nature of religious belief.

2127. Hitchens and God: a book review

Comment #40108 by Dr Benway on May 13, 2007 at 6:09 am

I just finished God is Not Great. Hitchens makes a very good point I haven't heard elsewhere, which I'll paraphrase: when people are given laws and rules they can't possibly obey, they're more easily controlled. When you're guilty, you don't question your betters.

Examples of religious rules impossible to follow: no masturbation; love your enemies as you love yourself; don't covet your neighbor's belongings.

Religious people say that these rules prove the inherent sinfulness of "the flesh" or human nature. I disagree, but haven't ever had a good response to this argument. Hitchens has given me one. I can point out the social and psychological consequences of defining one's self as a criminal. You become more masochistic, submissive, and willing to follow those you believe are morally superior to yourself. Perhaps this is the root of the fascist impulse.

Any rule which makes criminals out of most people is likely a bad rule.

I hope Hitchens cuts back on the drinking. The book is brilliant. But in live interviews, I've seen some perseveration. He gets his mental train on a track and drives forward, when it might be better to stop the train and shift tracks. Sometimes he doesn't stop himself talking when another is talking and he ought to wait. That looks like a bit of frontal lobe impairment to me.

Alcohol poisons everything too, but the damage is dose dependent. Older people after years of heavy drink gradually become parodies of themselves, and finally, they become irrelevant in their intellectual fields. Hitchens' brain is a precious thing and I don't want to watch that happen.

2128. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37960 by Dr Benway on May 6, 2007 at 1:30 pm

J wrote:

Nevertheless, I sympathise with the decision not to watch. But I think there are valid reasons for choosing to see it – needing to see it, almost - too.

I agree. I only mention my observation, that some people are harmed by exposure to such vivid cruelty in a way analogous to exposure to excessive sound or light, so that people are mindful about this. We make decisions all the time to do things that cause us a degree of personal injury, for a variety of valid reasons.

Personally, I'm not going to watch the video. But I'm glad there are those who will. If I were to be murdered like this poor girl, I'd want someone to bear witness to my death. I'd want justice, but often that's not a realistic expectation.

As an aside, I think it's worth repeating for late comers to the thread who may not have read carefully everything above: the stone throwers weren't Muslims or Arabs.

2129. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37888 by Dr Benway on May 6, 2007 at 5:35 am

Extremely loud noises are painful. Bright lights hurt the eyes. Cruelty also can cause a kind of sensory injury. Fearful experiences, even if vicarious, can become seared into memory more vividly than many might like.

Some people are born tougher than others. Some, like soldiers and police, become toughened by their work. But more generally, I don't think that a muted emotional response to suffering is a virtue.

Think twice before watching videos like the one posted here.

2130. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37868 by Dr Benway on May 6, 2007 at 4:14 am

Not long ago another physicist went off the deep end - Steven E. Jones at BYU. Wrote a conspiracy theory book about 9/11. He was offered early retirement.

Tulane's a far better school than BYU. The collective cringe energy among Tippler's peers must translate into some kind of action. I see a sweet retirement deal in his future.

Perhaps Tipler is angling for the Templeton prize, and he's getting some signals that he's in the running. If he were to bring in a million to use for research at Tulane... well, standards of scholarship can be bent without being broken, can't they?

2131. 'No proof Jesus heals Aids'

Comment #37856 by Dr Benway on May 6, 2007 at 3:18 am

Ernest Angley?? Oh, my. I used to watch him when I was a kid, just for the weirdness factor (he's just this side of Todd Browning's Freaks).

I remember his special interest in deafness. Many times in a given service, he'd push his finger into someone's ear and say, "thou foul spirit of deafness... come OUT! In the Name of Jesus." He'd simultaneously yank his finger from the ear, and the startled person would lose balance and fall, as folks tend to do at these kinds of healing services.

A funny moment I remember: an old fellow came up for healing of deafness. Angley wriggled his finger in the guy's ear and began praying loudly. The old guy pointed to the opposite ear and repeated several times, "um... it's my left ear... it's my left ear." Took a while for Angley to catch on.

Angley travels the world channelling God's healing power for the sick. Too bad a bit of that healing never landed on his head, to save everyone from that truly awful toupee.

2132. Ape gestures 'show human links'

Comment #37393 by Dr Benway on May 4, 2007 at 11:22 am

Bizarro Dawkins wrote:

Animals are motivated by survival, whereas humans use language for a variety of purposes.

The typical argument regarding the qualitative difference between animal communication and human language focuses upon the apparent human interest in establishing a shared subjectivity in contrast to more immediate, utilitarian goals (e.g., chimps may sign "want banana"; they don't sign, "how was your day?").

Recently bird song researchers have been challenging this argument. Bird song appears to convey emotion in much the same way as music.

2133. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #37378 by Dr Benway on May 4, 2007 at 9:50 am

If the Sharia judges would sign the UN Declaration of Human Rights (see http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html), I might then accept a Sharia court as a valid, extra-judicial arbitration system for voluntary litigants, akin to Judge Judy or marital mediation.

I'm sure Judge Judy would sign the UN declaration, as would any marital mediator in the US. I'd like to think the Orthodox Jewish mediators would do the same, but I'm not entirely sure about this. But I am sure that there's no good way to reconcile Sharia and human rights. The UN Human Rights declaration is a minimal standard for legitimacy, in my view.

At least by asking proposed Sharia judges if they'd sign the document, we'd force a recognition of whether our rejection of Sharia is based upon racism or a basic disagreement regarding the nature of justice.

2134. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #34984 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Thomas Paine awakes because we need him.

It's possible to accept a poet for his art without idolizing him as greater than the rest of us.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11

Human beings can change. We no longer bind the feet of female babies. Likewise, we can shrug off the mental bondage of ancient superstions.

2135. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33775 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Let me guess the cards O'Reilly will play:
1. Personal attack
2. Comfort
3. Good deeds

Personal attack: I've yet to see a critic debate the substance of TGD. It's always about style. O'Reilly will be no different from the others. He'll say it's impolitic to call religious people delusional. Too extreme, inflammatory, arrogant, alienating, etc.

O'Reilly has likely seen Dawkins explaining with some embarrassment how the BBC gave his television piece the hyperbolic title, "The Root of All Evil." He'll expect to provoke similar defensiveness with a few quotes out of context making Dawkins seem like an intolerant bigot.

My imagined answers, echoing things I've heard Dawkins say:

"Bill, I'm sure no one has ever accused YOU of being arrogant or saying unpopular things. Really, I'm not interested in questions about style. I'm much more interested in finding out what's really true about the world. Is there a God who intervenes in human lives, who answers prayers, or not? Surely an answer to that question would prove more interesting and meaningful to people than the fluffy debates over personal popularity we see so often on television."

Comfort: Religion comforts many people. Why do you want to take that away? (insert gratuitous reference to recent student deaths at VT) What have you got to give as an alternative?

"I recognize that some people would prefer to hear a pleasant fantasy rather than an unpleasant truth. I'm not one of those people."

Good deeds: Nutters aside, religion does an awful lot of good for people. Many are inspired to works of charity and compassion in the name of religion. How can you deny this?

I think O'Reilly will end on this point, because I'm guessing he'll view it as a guaranteed win for his team. A no-brainer. As Logicel says above, OReilly seems like a believer in belief. Not a true believer himself. I'm guessing he's somewhat annoyed by grip the fundamentalists have on the Republican party. But as a loyal team player, he can't always call them out.

The "good deeds" position gives him the opportunity to argue in favor of religion with some sincerity. He thus can pander to his supporters without feeling like a complete whore.

10 second response: "Again, if we're asking, 'What is true? What's the evidence for the many and conflicting claims of religion?' the good done in the name of any of religion is really beside the point."

30 second response: "I don't dispute that. And I don't dispute that there are many non-dogmatic, liberal Christians and other religious people who are not in favor of holy wars and the establishment of a theocratic society. I'm most concerned with those who want us to accept ancient scriptures as literally true, no matter what we've learned about the world through scientific investigation. And insofar as liberals seek to protect religious ideas generally from the kind of scrutiny and criticism we apply to everything else, I have to fault them for the double-standard. The double-standard is a serious problem. When you can't say anything bad about religion, you can't stand up to extremists."

May the noodly appendage give you strength.

2136. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33752 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2007 at 3:00 pm

I'll out myself as a doctor. Benway is a pseudonym, because I cherish my privacy. It's also a bit of a joke for those familiar with Burroughs.

I don't believe this case exists as presented. Someone recommended being slow to take any side in a messy custody dispute. Words of wisdom. Real, independent corroboration of the facts is necessary before any reaction is warranted.

2137. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33744 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2007 at 1:30 pm

In my post I noted that Richard Dawkins had not been invited to address the mourners at Virginia Tech. Several atheists--who haven't yet lost their fundamentalist habit of reading--took this sarcastic statement literally.

I think of Dawkins as a biologist primarily. So I was struck by the weirdness of the idea that someone might invite Dawkins to speak at a funeral in Virginia for people he's never met. If D'Souza didn't literally mean "no one asked Dawkins to speak at the VT funeral," but meant instead, as he seems to indicate above, that people don't ask atheists to speak at funerals, his claim is clearly false. He needs to get out more. Maybe visit the Unitarians, or attend a few funerals for prominent academics.

I don't see how atheism or any other theological or intellectual position is specifically relevant to the business of delivering a good public eulogy. When considering who ought to speak at a large funeral, I'd put a greater priority on literary and public speaking skills. The speaker also ought to be someone highly respected, and connected in some way with the real experiences of those affected by the loss.

Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy. Only God seems to have the power to heal hearts in such circumstances.

As an atheist, I'm fine using God as a metaphor for that which is beyond our power to understand or express. Human beings naturally personify the impersonal when expressing profound emotion. We are creatures of relationship.

If someone started to read from Dawkins on why there is no good and no evil in the universe, people would start vomiting or leaving.

Dawkins specifically talks about funerals in The God Delusion. He makes the point that in his experience, people are often more deeply affected by the non-religous parts of a funeral service. People who get up to share personal stories about the desceased have a greater impact upon the congregation than the religious readings and hymns. The religious parts have a certain utility; sometimes you want a break from the impulse to sob.

Per D'Souza, Dawkins asserts (or maybe Dawkins-as-exemplar for atheists generally - forgive my fundamentalist reading skills) that "there is no good and no evil in the universe."

Well, this is the sort of insulting straw-man I associate with intellectually limited people, or sociopaths, frankly. If D'Souza can show me where Dawkins actually says this, I'll surrender my worry regarding sociopathy.

Grounding "good" and "evil" in human subjectivity is intellectually honest. If not we, then who is to judge what is good, including whether God is good.

edited to add: Well, that's a weird coincidence. I read Allan Greene's post above, after I posted my comment suggesting that bad straw men sometimes go hand-in-hand with sociopathy. Guess I'm not the only one who gets that gut reaction, when I'm arguing with someone who cheats, who really ought to know better.

2138. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32473 by Dr Benway on April 17, 2007 at 6:12 am

This is so weird it's difficult to believe.

Someone tell the boy to say this to the doctor: "I don't want this. If you do this to me, when I'm older, I will sue you. I'll take everything you own." The statute of limitations clock doesn't start ticking until 18. This doctor will have lots of years to fret.

The boy should also say, "I'm going to call the Board of Medicine and complain about you."

No doctor in his or her right mind would do a procedure with no medical benefit if told directly such forceful things by the patient.

2139. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #31985 by Dr Benway on April 15, 2007 at 5:53 am

Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's arguments against religion.

No. I don't think we should. Let's all start there and refuse to move on until this point is settled.

2140. Is God poison?

Comment #31807 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2007 at 11:27 am

The attention reviewers give to books like 'The God Delusion' is welcome. But the personality slams are getting old.

Maybe the reviewers feel the need to appear neutral. They know, by quoting Dawkins, Harris, et al, that their piece will contain a lot of charges against religion. Lacking any effective arguments for the points made in these books, the reviewer resort to veiled ad hominems so at least there's *something* "on the other hand."

Two more reviews of this nature, and I'll conclude there's nothing more to be said. I'll recommend that we turn our attention to something more fruitful. Learning bird calls maybe. Or debating the merits of triple-fermented beers. My favorite: http://www.unibroue.com/products/fin.cfm

Is Quebec's La Fin Du Monde available overseas?

With its champagne-like effervescence, it has a vigourous presence in the mouth, which accentuates its strong personality. Slightly tart, with the balanced flavours of wild spices, malt and hops, it belongs to the class of great Trappist beers and, in this regard, is a North American first.

2141. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31787 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2007 at 9:59 am

greatness wrote:

It was all very weird and he was also offended by my assertion that his idea about walking through a door to a different world was not original to him. We argued about that for a long time.

Welcome, greatness. You're quite right. I think many here could cite at least a dozen well-known stories about a person finding a portal linking the 'real' world to some other dimension. Off the top of my head: 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe', 'Alice in Wonderland', the movie 'Stargate'.

The imaginative portal idea doesn't strike me as odd. What's odd is your friend's insistence that he originated the concept. That's nuts. No, it's beyond nuts. It's bat-shit crazy.

Is your friend functional? Can he brush his teeth, tie his shoes, hold down a job?

The movie, 'What the Bleep Do We Know?' is the WORST MOVIE EVER. The kindest thing I can say about it, is it's got great potential as a drinking game: take a swig each time someone says "quantum." You'll find yourself on the floor before you're tempted to throw things at the screen.

2142. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31779 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2007 at 8:21 am

I just finished the insightful book 'Animals in Translation' by Temple Grandin. That's what led me down the 'atheists are brain damaged' path. But I might have said, 'scientists are brain damaged' or 'technical people are brain damaged.'

Of course I'm being hyperbolic with the 'brain damaged' thing. The cognitive processing differences between normal, wild-type brains and the specialized breed of human capable of technical work is subtle and needs some underscoring.

The difference is less subtle in autism, which might be viewed as an extreme form of the technical mind. And it's not as simple as emotion verses reason, Spock verses McCoy. It's something else. Something having to do with mentalism, or the ability to represent other minds to one's self. Seems to me this skill plays a role in the formation of group belief systems, such as religion.

Any behavior that is highly common among a population is most likely adaptive in some manner. Thus, 'brainwashing' and 'indoctrination', although I don't disagree with these terms, can't be the whole story.

Temple Grandin is an amazing person. If you eat a hamburger in North America, there's a 50% chance the cow it came from went through a plant fitted with her inventions. Not bad for a woman who couldn't talk until about age 5, and who couldn't tolerate being touched.

Check out this excellent BBC Horizon production over at Google video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ycu3JFRrA

It's called, 'The Woman Who Thinks Like a Cow'.

2143. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31712 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2007 at 12:32 am

Can't sleep. I'm bored. So I'm gonna pitch a little for the other team, just to mix it up.

Imagine you're an evolutionary biologist from Mars. You notice that humans often reference God in casual conversation. Important life events - births, weddings, funerals - are framed by religious rituals. Most people take part in these things, in every society around the globe. A good number only nominally participate, by paying lip service to the dominant religion of their culture, but not much more. A smaller percentage, something like 5-10%, want nothing to do with religion.

Knowing that Nature is economical and adaptive, you might assume the 5-10% are in the minority for a reason. There might be something wrong with this lot. You notice that the atheist crowd tends to be argumentative and self-congratulatory. They're also more technical than most; less "touchy-feely" or "psychologically minded."

Religion may be a by-product of inborn homo sapien relationship schemas that have been important for survival, at least up until this moment in history. An analogy: You don't need a calculator to work out fast a train is going as it pounds down upon you; you need the good sense to get off the tracks. Your eyes, heart, and muscles know to move without your having to be 'rational'.

Likewise, communication between two persons is easier when each is good at imagining different subjectivities, and when each is able to establish that the other has in mind the same imagined subjectivity. This is difficult to write about, but happens all the time thoughtlessly. People who are bad at this sort of interpersonal jazz generally are less sociable, and often don't know what it is they're missing.

I hope it's obvious how the sense of a shared, imagined mind might facilitate communication and understanding between people, and might also lead to the development of an idealized subjectivity held in common and called "god."

In short, I'm proposing that atheists might be brain damaged. But maybe that's not a bad thing.

The environment of evolutionary adaptiveness for human beings has changed. We need new skills. We need geek skills. We've got to sort out complex, technical threats like global warming, global dimming, in-group-out-group hatreds in an era of nuclear proliferation, potential pandemics in the setting of mass transport, and so on. We can't have 9 billion of our kind on the planet indulging in tribal thinking - brilliant, subtle, insightful for its time, but maybe not for all time.

This parable is my small way of saying, "let's not be smug, but let's speak up."

Ordinary religious people feel the shared belief in God's goodness is what draws them together; they're not generally worried about the books and theology. The people who get derailed by the screwy logic of religion, so it is said, "sound rigid and legalistic - a lot like the atheists somehow."

I await your rotten tomatoes. :0)

2144. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31693 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Thanks Fishpeddler.

I'm stuck in my car several hours a week. Radio and my CD collection no longer sustain me. A couple of years ago, I started trading CD books with a friend. It did take some time to warm to the format. But once my ear adjusted, I got hooked. Hooked bad. It now seems more natural, somehow, to hear the printed word aloud. A talented reader can breathe life into good writing in a very artful way (yo, shout out to Bill Bryson, for one).

Stuff grows on you. I had a subscription to the New Yorker I didn't listen to for several months. But now I look forward to it. Todd Mundt is the best of the three readers. It's funny how you can get an illusion of relationship from periodic exposure to a familiar voice. When Todd announces in his relaxed, good-humored, mid-western, conversational tone, "We have six articles for you this week," I half want to answer, "Why that's lovely."

I love the way Dawkins says, "It's barking mad." And, "That's an argument?"

Do you see my point with the above? Words on a page (or pixels on a screen) can't do justice.

And my eyes are going, sadly. Can't do long hours with my nose buried in a book as I once did.

2145. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31511 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2007 at 4:12 am

Yes, please Prof. Dawkins, more of your work in downloadable audio format. Make a nice cup of tea, sit down with a mic, and start reading. I must feed my addiction to your terrific voice!

I started subscribing to audible.com about a year ago. It's quite nice, being read to. A talented reader can make a good book even better. Favorite readers so far: Kirby Heyborne as Zachry in Cloud Atlas and Lenny Henry in Anansi Boys. One of my least favorite readers is Scott Brick, but he seems to be everywhere. Sarah Vowel is difficult, but she grows on you.

I'm always interested in recommendations for good audible books from others. I'm happy to tell anyone what I thought about a book, if someone wants a review.

Books I'm about to start:
Death by Black Hole
How Doctors Think

My reads from this past year, in vaguely descending order of enjoyment:
Cloud Atlas (I love this book)
The God Delusion
The End of Faith
Letter to a Christian Nation
Animals in Translation
Anansi Boys
American Gods
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell
Life of Pi
A Scanner Darkly
Running with Scissors
The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid
A Walk in the Woods
American Pastoral
The Human Stain
There's Nothing in this Book That I Meant to Say
Enders Game
Speaker for the Dead
The Shipping News
Assassination Vacation
The Partly Cloudy Patriot
Freakonomics
Kabloona
Himalaya
Holy Cow
The Blind Assassin
Conspiracy of Fools
The Company
The Devil in the White City
The Island at the Center of the World
The Kite Runner
Across the Nightingale Floor
A Dirty Job
The Traveler
The Man in My Basement - horrible

2146. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30501 by Dr Benway on April 8, 2007 at 8:42 am

filthyatheist wrote:

"It therefore matters not only how we reason, but how we feel, how we act towards others, how we speak, sing, dance, laugh, cry, eat and wash, how we die, how we pray and how we love."

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why it matters how we wash?!?

Ha! There's always someone more awake in the crowd than I. I remember a microsecond of wtf? when I first read the sentence above.

Of all the possible verbs the man might string together to make his point, how did wash get in there? Why not vacuum? Dust? Floss?

The argument from poetry: "O WORLD, I cannot hold thee close enough!" Therefore God exists.

2147. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30213 by Dr Benway on April 7, 2007 at 8:16 am

Anonymity has advantages and disadvantages. The Wikipedia community is troubled by systematic vandalism that likely would vanish if contributions were not anonymous. However far fewer people would contribute. And there's something to be said for the frankness and roughness of the immediate, unpopular remarks many people make when they don't fear the PC police.

I've observed a natural evolution to message board communities. Early on a community of like minded fans enjoy a golden age of mutual admiration. Next come the trolls. Initially the trolls aren't a major problem, and even add a bit of fun to the discussions. But like roughhouse play that goes too far, real feelings are hurt. There are calls for censorship. There are experiments with IP posting or verifiable user registration. Sometimes this helps a little. Life generally goes on.

There's probably a game theory explanation for the above.

O Great Teapot, I love your moniker.

Zaphod, 'afaithism' - excellent.

2148. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30191 by Dr Benway on April 7, 2007 at 7:32 am

As many have pointed out, Mr. Moore's article boils down to an ad hominem attack. Atheists are the pocket-protector crowd, the guys with no date on a Saturday night. Atheists are geeks.

He glosses his insults in back-handed compliments like "All these atheist thinkers I have mentioned are conscious of possessing big, bulging brains and I share their admiration for them."

In any debate, I don't have a problem responding to ad hominems with more of the same. Where reason fails, entertainment remains.

Mr. Moore's insults are effective because we're wired to trust in people above ideas. The programming seems to be something like this: First, figure out which alpha-male will best protect you and your interests and will most likely dominate rivals. Second, listen to what he says, if you've got the time.

If you can characterize your opponent as an unpleasant person, you can often win people to your side in spite of themselves.

2149. The Selfish Green

Comment #29935 by Dr Benway on April 5, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed it. Although I was a little annoyed by the moderator's frequent use of the phrase, "the selfish gene," to refer to human selfishness and short-sightedness.

Unless I've completely misunderstood Dawkins, human altruism, kindness, self-sacrifice, intelligence, and foresight are just as much a function of the 'selfish gene' as any other human phenotype.

2150. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29512 by Dr Benway on April 3, 2007 at 7:11 am

Definition of post-modernism: objectivity is illusory.