201. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54935 by Mango on July 9, 2007 at 11:25 am

To try to get a consensus on this issue of evolutionary psychology, I think we must all agree that culture has not completely replaced the genetically-encoded software that dominated our evolutionary history.

Wolpert in "Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast" reasons that the cause-and-effect thinking we developed with stone tool use had the side-effect of humans conjuring supernatural explanations for causes they did not understand. Perhaps this is where the meme enters the picture: even though we now have many explanations for the natural world people still cling to their Iron Age myths about the causes of effects ("effects" being anything from childhood leukemia to earthquakes to good grades in school.)

202. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54903 by Mango on July 9, 2007 at 9:26 am

comment 16: The whole article is amateur speculation anyway

You must remember that every PhD is, by definition and at heart, a degree in philosophy, which is speculation, and so you should not dismiss it with a fillip as "amateur speculation."

203. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54899 by Mango on July 9, 2007 at 9:13 am

comment 6: More important than having the best genes from a male partner (unless you're relegated to the absolute bottom of the barrel, gene wise,) is having assistance raising the child.

Try to maintain a gene's-eye view of processes. Assistance in child-rearing can come from fellow mothers and grandmothers. In fact, longevity for grandmothers (and women more generally) is perhaps explained by the assistance they give their daughters to raise children (linked below). Whether a male is monogamous or polygamous he and the other males would defend the tribe against threats as well as hunt for food. Sexual dimorphism is, by force of evidence from other primates, a sign of polygamy, so it must've happened in our species as well probably even before Australopithecines, and it's no surprise that men of power and means today tend to enjoy the practice.

http://www.huli.group.shef.ac.uk/bbc-news-2004.html

Also, most of the reasons given why men like the sort of women that appear on modern magazine covers are not backed up by any evolutionary psychology I've read.

I do not know what you've read, but here is my understanding. Clear skin, facial symmetry, blonde hair, pouty lips, all are traits we evolved to find attractive because they are signs of health and/or fecundity. Sometimes, as you point out, culture makes a physical feature aesthetically important when it's not evolved to be (e.g. bound, deformed little feet in China). But Western culture is a capitalist culture, and what sells is what we have evolved at the most primitive levels to be attracted to. Hence our fashion models are not hairy -- hairless is a feminine trait and (Western) culture emphasizes it. Beauty products more generally, such as products to clear up skin conditions, emphasize lips, lift breasts, shave men's faces and women's legs, so on. In short, Western capitalism reflects the impulses of our evolutionary psychology, and so some patterns of behavior we see today are fairly easily explained by our evolutionary psychology.

204. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54864 by Mango on July 9, 2007 at 7:11 am

Evolutionary psychology is something I've enjoyed since reading Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape" (though he didn't call his work evolutionary psychology). It explains so much of even the mundane, such as why women's business suits have shoulder pads and taller men have more children on average.

This article is also perfectly aligned with the concepts outlined in "The Selfish Gene."

205. Evangelicals See Dilemmas in G.O.P. Field

Comment #54633 by Mango on July 8, 2007 at 8:43 am

I picked out two main points in this article: First, Americans will only vote for someone who has a good chance of winning, not someone who is the best candidate, which means we end up with incompetent elected officials in a two-party system. Second, religious conservatives want to place a right-wing candidate on the ballot but know he will not be electable in the general election. So what's an evangelical Christian to do except smear humble pie on his Bible and vote for a Mormon or a cross-dressing ex-Mayor of NYC? Poor Christians, such a spot they're in!

206. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54476 by Mango on July 7, 2007 at 11:37 am

"militant atheist"

So, does that mean I'm also a "militant atoothfairyist"?

"All this denouncing leaves unspoken the vast amount of good done from religious motives."

A religious motive is a selfish motive, a servile motive. Humanists who do good works are the admirable ones.

"Science is far from complete - there is so much we still don't know - but their assurance is that one day we will."

No respectable scientist has said that one day we will have all the answers. This is the statement of a person who does not understand science.

"So atheism is a belief in pointlessness."

Why do there need to be supernatural beings in order for humans to have meaning in our lives? There is much meaning in our relationships, our personal development, raising children. Atheism is life-affirming because it acknowledges there is no pie in the sky after you die.

"Why has no one joined in the battle against these warriors for atheism?"

There have been many rebuttals by theists in book reviews, debates, editorials. If this person meant to ask the question why has there been no adequate response to the neo-atheists, it's because there is none.

207. Ah, the fervour in returning to my flock

Comment #54451 by Mango on July 7, 2007 at 7:34 am

If this article is meant to be satire, it's very subtle. Too subtle in fact, and all theists are going to gain from it is a reinforced idea that atheism is just another religion.

208. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54400 by Mango on July 6, 2007 at 9:19 pm

In short, most people are religious because most people are ignorant.

209. At a Theater Near You ...

Comment #53929 by Mango on July 4, 2007 at 8:50 am

"Norwegians aren't doing this — nor are starving Africans or unemployed Mexicans."

He can't compare religions with nationalities.

210. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53395 by Mango on July 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

Brockman, "Since when have the masses of people had any ideas anyway? It is always a certain percentage of people who do the thinking for everybody else."

I cringe at his elitist attitude, and I also cringe in my agreement with it.

211. The Benny Hinn Report

Comment #49388 by Mango on June 11, 2007 at 6:28 pm

There needs to be more pressure from the news media on these types of mountebanks, especially as concerns how they spend the donations received.

212. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Comment #49082 by Mango on June 10, 2007 at 8:41 am

My hope is that the chidren of those who believe in both Creationism and evolution will, when polled themselves as adults, affirm only evolution.

213. In U.S., faith is never far from politics

Comment #48932 by Mango on June 9, 2007 at 4:24 pm

One does not lose votes for being a mainstream Christian, but he/she will if he/she is not, hence the cowtowing to the electorate and the fact that only one congressman has openly stated a lack of belief in a higher power.

214. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48434 by Mango on June 8, 2007 at 12:35 am

As with some other posters here, I think Hitchens' message on religion is refreshing but his interruptions and ad hominen attacks are unsavory and he would do well to try to be a tad more polite (you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar).

215. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44708 by Mango on May 25, 2007 at 7:46 am

"'People should not be allowed to spew racist propaganda without others being able to respond,' Cohen said."

There are usually comment boards like this one for people to respond to online videos. But what shall we do with books, television, radio and movies, Mr. Cohen?

216. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #44695 by Mango on May 25, 2007 at 7:32 am

You know, even were he to grow stalactites in that manner, all he would have done was to increase our knowledge of stalacites, not prove Judeo-Christian "creation."

217. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44662 by Mango on May 25, 2007 at 6:44 am

The author seems surprised that the Rabbi is warm and thankful to Hitchens -- Wellllll, doubtless the Rabbi knew EXACTLY who Hitchens is and what he'd say when he invited him to speak at his Synagogue.

The author also says atheists hate God -- Incorrect, we hate the lie of God.

218. 'Einstein - His Life and Universe'

Comment #44050 by Mango on May 23, 2007 at 8:23 am

Eintstein's feelings about religion are no more valid than mine or yours, Patchell. But unfortunately the "cult of celebrity" that Einstein has gives his words disproportionate authority on the matter. Although Dawkins specifically thinks about and argues over whether there appears to be a God, Einstein did not and only made flippant remarks that indicates he was a fence-sitter and not out to ruffle theistic feathers.

219. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43403 by Mango on May 21, 2007 at 9:31 am

The author says that without religion something else would take its place to cause as much or more violence. He is assuming that there is a certain amount of violence that humanity will always perpetrate -- like putting your finger in a leaky dam but a leak starts somewhere else. It's not like that. Violence can and has decreased and extirpating faith will decrease it further.

220. Nothing sacred: Journalist and provocateur Christopher Hitchens picks a fight with God

Comment #40901 by Mango on May 15, 2007 at 7:23 am

I just noticed this -- in the book title God is not capitalized yet Great is. I don't think this was a mistake and am pondering the reason behind it. Merely to strip a little respect away from religion?

221. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40899 by Mango on May 15, 2007 at 7:17 am

It's fairly easy now, after reading many many book reviews at this website, which reviewers are theists and which are not.

222. Face-Off: Can You Prove God Exists?

Comment #40474 by Mango on May 14, 2007 at 10:28 am

I don't think it's harsh to say that it's lamentable that this excellent opportunity to speak out about atheism was, as someone above has said, so middlebrow (on both sides). After all, the national audience largely doesn't know Dawkins or Hitchens from Adam, so they mistakenly assume these two are the "cream of the crop."

"Not every atheist can have a PhD and top-of-the-draw debating skills." Of course I agree -- but why not book one for such a high-profile debate as this?

223. Face-Off: Can You Prove God Exists?

Comment #40429 by Mango on May 14, 2007 at 9:34 am

Unfortunately, this nationally-televised program did not have more well spoken, erudite, neatly dressed atheists. It sends the message to the country that this young man and woman are the best that atheists can muster to debate theists, which is very far from the truth. Hitchens has said he will enter a debate anytime, anywhere -- ABC should've called him instead.

224. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36581 by Mango on May 1, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Usually the statistics I run across about self-deception concern a person's sexual prowess as well as whether they will get into Heaven.

But anyway, the "deception" of a person's religious beliefs probably do help proselytizing considering how modern religious minds are compartmentalized. A theist is just unable to marshal and comprehend the counter-evidence because his/her "deceit" is so ingrained into his/her worldview.

225. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36514 by Mango on May 1, 2007 at 11:51 am

A reasoned review from a moderate Christian, but not very substantive.

He seems to argue in favor of richer philosophical rather than theological dialog.

This person might make an excellent new Humanist, if he could totally surmount his God delusion.

226. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #36086 by Mango on April 30, 2007 at 6:51 am

Why don't scientists pay close attention to the dialog in Star Trek (especially TNG) to figure out how warp engines work and then invent them!

227. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35985 by Mango on April 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Hardly a case of getting a slice of the "cash cow." Hitchens has had this book inside him waiting to be written for years (obvious when you read "The Missionary Position").

And the cash is with Jesus, as any "megachurch" should tell you.

228. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35935 by Mango on April 29, 2007 at 11:22 am

My interpretation of the events is that the group did leave pre-meditated.

Also, why did no one from the school (a parent or teacher) attend a prior performance to ensure its appropriateness before they bought 87 seats??

Ultimately the students are the victims of their parents and teachers who are teaching them to ruin something they disagree with rather than, say, merely writing a letter or protesting OUTSIDE the theater.

229. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #35672 by Mango on April 28, 2007 at 7:40 am

The website's calender says that only Roanoke, Wichita, and Muncie are airing it. So most Americans are going to have to contact their local stations.

I'm not surprised that it's not being picked up, but I am surprised it is those particular (conservative) markets.

230. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35530 by Mango on April 27, 2007 at 1:39 pm

This sounds very familiar to the work of "neurotheology" which posits that spiritual feelings are manifested through the physical structures of the brain. Makes you wonder just how much free will we all really have.

231. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35279 by Mango on April 26, 2007 at 6:52 pm

He's not as eloquent as Dawkins or necessarily as deep a thinker as Harris, but he DOES bring attention to some pertinent issues, such as the stacking of the US Justice Dept. with theists loyal to Bush. And he comes out and says that if you believe Jesus rose bodily to heaven, you are deluded. So I have no beef with the message or the messenger himself.

And remember to vote for Dawkins at Time.com

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1612457,00.html

232. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35237 by Mango on April 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm

It's the gov't trying to legislate morality and that doesn't work, in America or even an Islamic theocracy. The "moral Zeitgeist" moves forward regardless albeit slowly.

233. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #35125 by Mango on April 26, 2007 at 9:41 am

Vote. I'm sure Dawkins could not care less about this popularity contest but if he finishes in the top 10, it will be good publicity.

234. New Primate Species Found In 42 Million-year-old Texas Fossils

Comment #32205 by Mango on April 16, 2007 at 7:17 am

As Rtambree says, fundamentalists at least pick a clear side and do not try to have it both ways. Or to paraphrase Harris, "They betray their reason and their faith equally."

And to Veronique's remark in comment 2 about humans entering North America, bear in mind that anatomically modern humans evolved from the Australopithecines in Africa, a species that evolved over 2 millions years ago. Homo sapiens only evolved about 100,000 years ago in east and northeast Africa, at which time we radiated around the globe (in various waves) and entered North America by 15,000 years ago.

235. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31411 by Mango on April 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I agree with ericross that it doesn't matter what Einstein thought about God. It's interesting to read his thoughts the genius he was, but his opinions on God have no bearing on the existence of one. But the infatuation with Einstein makes people hang on his every word, same as today's movie stars who because they are cultural icons have a disproportionate amount of attention paid to their religious and political thoughts.

236. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31014 by Mango on April 10, 2007 at 3:47 pm

At first I thought, "This could be staged." But after I viewed it 2 or 3 more times I realized that the mom was so panicky and frazzled that she said some gibberish about God and Christmas presents that could not have been rehearsed.

237. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26566 by Mango on March 20, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Was there no support from parents who actually champion the teaching of this rubbish? If not, then that's hopeful.

238. The Religion Clause Divided Against Itself

Comment #26424 by Mango on March 19, 2007 at 8:40 am

Even though Bush cannot eliminate the Establishment Clause he can make it harder to enforce. Check out this despicable piece of legislation that the Republicans introduced in the last session that would have denied attorney's fees in cases that argue for the enforcement of the Establishment Clause. Let's hope it doesn't get reintroduced ever again.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-2679

"In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion brought against the United States or any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction over such claim, and the remedies with respect to such a claim shall be limited to injunctive and declaratory relief."

239. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26388 by Mango on March 19, 2007 at 4:38 am

I was surprised by how breezily he dismissed Dennett's book with a fillip. No, the notion that religion is a natural phenomenon is not new, but Dennett's specific interpretations are. And the very fact that so much is being written about the subject means it deserves attention, not dismissal. What a snake-like maneuver on Novak's part.

I was bemused by his daughter's feeble attempts at understanding the world. I hope you all were as well. She's seems like the kind of young woman you often overhear at a coffee shop waxing philosophical to her friends, "I mean, like, there's totally too much irrationality in the world for there not to be a rational Creator, right?"

240. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24990 by Mango on March 9, 2007 at 3:31 pm

This guy also has a double-standard for the behavior of humans and animals. Dogs act like dogs, cats like cats, and so forth. But he says he sees people not acting like people -- obviously we are more complex in our deeds than animals so he just needs to broaden his accepted limits of human behavior.

If we do it, it's human behavior by the very fact we do it! QED.

241. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24988 by Mango on March 9, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Watching this guy was like watching David Brent from "The Office" -- he says something completely inane and then gets this self-satisfied look.

There is no "bad" science, only science that works and science that doesn't. Eugenics isn't "bad science." It works. We can breed horses, and we can breed people. But to actually implement that science is bad. Guns are a great product of science, they work just like they are supposed to, but *how we use* them can be bad. Same with nuclear science, lasers, and just about anything. So he's mixed up about the truths of science and the way science can be used detrimentally sometimes.

242. Darwin's God

Comment #24075 by Mango on March 4, 2007 at 4:17 pm

As far as Atran's students putting something in his box, I had the same thought as Donald in post #8, which is that the students probably thought the box was rigged. I highly doubt any bright university students actually thought it was possessed of a supernatural power. Atran is a fool if he mistook his student's nervousness to be anything other than suspecting a trick pulled off by Atran himself.

243. The return of God?

Comment #24018 by Mango on March 4, 2007 at 8:33 am

Humphrys says that Wolpert's book title is "stolen" -- it is not, Wolpert credits the title in the book's preface. That was sloppy or biased writing by Humphrys. Logically, it would make Wolpert a thief.

244. Religion in Conflict: Are 'Evangelical Atheists' Too Outspoken?

Comment #23298 by Mango on February 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm

I agree with the author that the phrase "sectarian violence" is a euphemism.

245. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21633 by Mango on February 10, 2007 at 8:24 am

Having the video in the corner that shows scientists reconciling the fact of evolution with their faith is important to have. The museum recognizes that many Americans still need to get on board with evolution as a fact.
So when every theist leaves the museum they will have no rational option but to accept that evolution is true. That is, they'll feel terribly stupid for ever having said, "I didn't come from no monkey!"

246. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20452 by Mango on February 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I just want to echo an earlier post about how these kinds of programs would never air on American television.

247. What a Friend We Have in Dawkins

Comment #20305 by Mango on February 1, 2007 at 4:41 pm

It's a sorry state of affairs when a brilliant man like Dawkins is seen as a "hard-liner" for asking for evidence for what people believe about the nature of the universe and man's place in it.

Hopefully, TGD will be read by future generations and they will have no idea why Dawkins was so forceful in his argument, and they will think to themselves, "Of course supernatural beings are false -- even children know that!"

248. God and gorillas

Comment #20303 by Mango on February 1, 2007 at 4:12 pm

The emergence of religiosity in our australopithecine ancestors is a great topic to research, but shouldn't this study ipso facto lead her directly to atheism? I do not, I cannot, understand her "beautiful agnosticism." She calls atheist scientists "arrogant," no doubt directing that barb to Dawkins. Yes, he tells people the truth and backs it up a reasoned argument. Are scientists arrogant who espouse evolution, global warming, et cetera? No, only if you break the taboo of calling religious beliefs made-up (or naturally evolved) do you get the label of arrogant scientist. She even distances herself from the work of Boyer and Dennett because they have perfectly natural theories for the emergence of religion that are not as mystical as hers. She has abdicated her position as an intellectual.

249. No stoning, Canada migrants told

Comment #20296 by Mango on February 1, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Even the most liberal and pro-multiculturalism among us wouldn't even try to rationalize stoning or honor killings, or even I suspect female circumcision, as showing respect for other cultures, so the town's declaration isn't necessary. Wearing the hajib and a mosque receiving funds from Saudia Arabia to support Wahhabism are fuzzier matters, and I wonder why the townspeople didn't address those substantive issues.

250. Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death by Black Hole

Comment #20059 by Mango on January 31, 2007 at 7:24 am

deGrasse is much like Carl Sagan, trying to educate people about the beauty, vastness, and majesty of the universe. Yet no matter how humbling and awe-inspiring the universe is, I do not think that it will necessarily plant any doubt in a theist's mind about the existence of their god. deGrasse isn't promoting atheism directly, but he confronts religion directly when it is raised by a questioner, and his explanation of his atheism might "break the spell" of a theist.