Harris explained

Sam Harris (among others) likes to portray religious "moderates" and non-"literalist" interpreters of scripture as somehow deviant or deficient qua religious persons. For example, in his opening salvo in his blog-debate against Andrew Sullivan earlier this year, he says:

Given my view of faith, I think that religious "moderation" is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception....

Harris thinks that all religion is bad, but in the case of "moderates" he not only faults them for being religious, he also faults them for failing to be really religious. He sees "moderates" as guilty of having committed themselves to a bad game, and then guilty again of playing that game really poorly.

In the eyes of many people (both believers and non) who have more sensible views of religion, this attitude can be a bit mystifying.

A common diagnosis is that these are prejudices which get adopted just out of convenience. It is convenient (so the story goes) to cast "literalists" as the paradigm religious believers because "moderates" and non-"literalists" are harder targets for anti-religious manifestos. Now, there might be some truth to this, but I doubt it's the whole story. Besides, it's not at all clear to me that, in general, "moderates" make for tougher game. For example, Sullivan is a "moderate" if anyone is, and is a generally articulate writer to boot, but that doesn't seem to slow down Harris' rhetoric much at all. (I didn't follow the whole debate, but from what I did read, I'm inclined to give Harris the win.)

Another diagnosis, made by Slacktivist, seems to suggest that Harris et al. are, like "literalist" believers (whom he dubs "illiteralists"), suffering from a lack of literacy skills--leading them to be incapable of figuring out how there might be truth in a text without it having to be read literally. But this seems pretty implausible to me. As best as I can tell, Harris functions at a high level of literacy, and is perfectly capable of understanding that, in principle, there is a difference between reading scripture non-literally, and falsifying it. (And actually, I'm not sure this is really the right way to describe what is motivating "literalist" theists, either, but I won't get into that now.)

Anyway, I thought I'd say something about what I think is going on behind Harris' anti-"moderate" and pro-"literalist" attitudes. I can't recall anywhere where he spells this rationale out explicitly, but I think it makes sense of some of the things he says.

It's all based on this starting point (from the same post as above):

Perhaps I should acknowledge at the outset that people use the term "faith" in a variety of ways. My use of the word is meant to capture belief in specific religious propositions without sufficient evidence....

In the philosophy biz, we appreciate this sort of terminological clarification. That said, Harris' explanation of what he means by "faith" could be fleshed out quite a bit more.

First, I think that, at some level, Harris understands, as he ought to, that "faith" is the name of an aspiration. To declare oneself as a follower of a certain faith is to make a substantial commitment, one which makes demands on a person. The religious person can live up to this religious commitment to a greater or lesser extent--it is possible to be more or less faithful in one's religious commitment.

Now, if we assume that faith just is "belief in specific religious propositions without sufficient evidence", we seem to have a pretty straightforward way of measuring a person's faithfulness: tally up the number of "religious propositions without sufficient evidence" which the believer believes, and that will tell you how faithful he or she is.

Now, for this to be at all a plausible picture, we're going to have to clarify it by specifying that, when dealing with a follower of religion X, we need to focus on those "religious propositions" which are associated specifically with religion X. (So, for example, the proposition that Joseph Smith read divine revelation off of golden tablets is a proposition specific to Mormonism, and it would be silly to see it as somehow relevant to measuring the faithfulness of a Muslim.)

But now consider two Christians, both of whom believe in the Bible in some sense--but one of them is a "literalist", and one of them is not. The non-"literalist" is probably going to read the Bible as expressing some "religious propositions without sufficient evidence", but it's pretty certain that the "literalist" is going to read the Bible as expressing a considerably greater number of "religious propositions without sufficient evidence". In both cases, there is some sort of Christian faith, as Harris understands it. But, compared to the non-"literalist", the "literalist" is going to end up believing a greater number of "religious propositions" associated with Christianity. And so, given Harris' method of measuring faithfulness, the "literalist" is clearly the more faithful of the two, with the non-"literalist" being a comparative failure as a person of faith.

So there you go. Doesn't that all make sense?

The essence of the humanities

This Onion article was sent to the maillist for the philosophy grads, under the subject heading "What we do":

Professor Sees Parallels Between Things, Other Things

AUSTIN, TX—University of Texas professor Thom Windham once again furthered the cause of human inquiry in a class lecture Monday, as he continued his longtime practice of finding connections between things and other things, pointing out these parallels, and then elaborating on them in detail, campus sources reported.

"By drawing parallels between things and other, entirely different things, I not only further my own studies, but also encourage young minds to develop this comparative methodology in their own work," said Windham, holding his left hand up to represent one thing, then holding his right hand up to represent a separate thing, then bringing his hands together in simulation of a hypothetical synthesis of the two things. "It's not just similarities that are important, though—the differences between things are also worth exploring at length."

Fifteen years ago, Windham was awarded tenure for doing this.

Yup.

And pretty much the only thing I could think after reading this was "Mm, tenure, that sounds awesome."

Fun with TBN

Dr. Myles Munroe, in taped commentary on John 1:1-2, remarks:

When you read those original words in the Hebrew, it doesn't make any sense.

Nope, no sense at all.

Respect Darwin's authoritay

The arguments for evolution ultimately succeed. The arguments for creationism ultimately fail.

I'm using this word 'ultimately' because it takes a rather thorough grasp of biology and geology (and I think maybe also the nature of scientific argument in general) before one can really see precisely why the evolutionary arguments (as a whole) end up defeating the creationist arguments (as a whole). Because there are creationist arguments that are powerful enough and sophisticated enough to completely overwhelm the ability of the average pro-evolution layperson to respond to them.

And when the pro-evolution layperson encounters such a creationist argument, and has no idea how to respond, and yet continues to believe the evolutionary thesis -- on what is that continued belief based? In general, it is based on the assumption that, somewhere, there is some scientist who has the knowledge necessary to validate the evolutionary thesis against the problematic creationist argument -- or, if not that, then there is some scientist somewhere who could do some further research and then come up with the knowledge necessary to validate the evolutionary thesis. Now, even if this complicated evolutionist response were provided to the layperson, it probably wouldn't be really understood -- high school biology was a long time ago, and wasn't all that informative in the first place. But that doesn't matter: someone is doing the relevant scientific research, and this other person understands what that research means, and how evolution works, and why exactly this creationist argument is wrong. And the justification of the layperson's belief in evolution is happily deferred to this expert authority.

So, in general, the layperson's belief in the evolutionary thesis is based on trust in an authority, trust which cannot be fully justified by the layperson.

Now notice that you can replace 'evolutionary' in that sentence with 'creationist', without making the sentence any less true.

This is because, with respect to the believer's ability to give articulate empirical arguments, the average pro-evolution layperson's belief in the evolutionary thesis is in the same 300-cubit-long boat as the average anti-evolution layperson's belief in the creationist thesis.

And this is true, notwithstanding the fact that the creationist thesis (when properly understood) is ultimately unjustified, based on dogma, and dependent upon authority, in ways that the evolutionary thesis (when properly understood) is not.

AAAAAA!

Just got back from a game of Texas hold 'em. After a few hours of play, in the wee hours of the night, we called last round with three players left in the game.

I was first to deal, Aidan to my right, Daniel to his right. First hand of this final round, I go up against Aidan, and it turns out that he had started with a pair of aces in the pocket, and ended up with triples.

Note for those unfamiliar with the game: in Texas hold 'em you start out by dealing two cards to each player, face down: this is the player's "hole" or "pocket". Further cards are then dealt face up as "community cards", and the players build hands out of the community cards combined with their respective pocket cards. On any given hand, you have about a 0.45% chance of starting out with two pocket aces, which is a rather substantial advantage.

So, Aidan was very lucky on that hand.

Second hand of this final round, Aidan goes up against Daniel. Daniel bets everything he has left, and Aidan calls with (I think) a pair of kings, leaving Daniel with very few ways of coming out on top. One of those ways was to have pocket aces--which he had.

Daniel was very lucky on that hand.

These pairs of aces were clearly migrating clockwise across the table, meaning that I was next up. As the last hand of cards was being dealt, I start cracking my knuckles and bragging about how I was going to play my aces so well as to be sublime.

For pocket aces to hit three people in a row, one after the other, is such a monumentally improbable coincidence that I feel I have a decent excuse for why (as I must admit) I did not play as well as I'd predicted, when I looked down at my pocket cards and indeed discovered that I was the third player, in a row, in that final round of the night, to get pocket aces.

Creepy.

IDNTIMWYTIM: "evangelical"

BBC reports: Evangelicals split on global warming.

This is true: evangelical Christians are indeed split on global warming.

And it's a worthy topic for a news story. Evangelicals owe most of their newsworthiness to the role many of them have played in the rise of the Christian Right; as such, it's quite common for people who are unfamiliar with the evangelical movement / community /subculture to see it as a monolithic group that is totally unified on matters of theology and politics -- which it is not.

So, good idea for a news story. But the execution is questionable.

To illustrate this split among evangelicals, the story focuses on two groups which take opposing views. Choosing a group of evangelicals who thinks that global warming is not important (because it's not happening) is relatively easy: they went to (the now late) Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. As for a group of evangelicals who thinks that global warming is both happening and worthy worrying about, they went to Eastern Mennonite University.

Only problem being, Eastern Mennonite University is almost certainly not evangelical. Mennonites in general are not at all connected to the strains of Christianity that fall under the evangelical banner, and (apart from the BBC story) I can't find any webpage that refers to Eastern Mennonite University as evangelical.

Part of the problem here might be the vagueness of the term "evangelical". But semantic vagueness is no excuse for plain old sloppiness.

Another part of the problem might be that evangelicalism is a phenomenon that is probably largely foreign to the UK, especially the segment of British culture that populates the offices of the BBC. But this is the BBC, and we expect better from the BBC.

Especially when it's not all that hard to find an example of a group of evangelicals who are concerned about the environment. (Say, the Evangelical Environmental Network.)

(For more on the meaning of "evangelical", and an IDNTIMWYTIM going in another direction, see here.)

A fairy tale

Once upon a time, God spoke through a prophet, promising the destruction of the city of Jerusalem for such sins as these:

Her princes within her are like wolves tearing the prey, by shedding blood and destroying lives in order to get dishonest gain. Her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, 'Thus says the Lord GOD,' when the LORD has not spoken. The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice.

Then, true to his word, God saw to the downfall of Jerusalem. And God's people got the message loud and clear. And from then on, those who claimed to follow God never did any of those terrible things ever again. The end.

Sympathy from the devil

The other day I made the observation that pretty much all creationists think that the Earth is round, and are convinced that you have to be a little crazy to think that the Earth is flat--and, somehow, this observation seemed to take some people by surprise.

OK, context: Dawn and I were in a small group of grad students (from different parts of the arts and humanities), and for some reason or another it came out that there has been a debate in the letters section of some paper in Chattanooga, about whether the Earth is round or not. I expressed incredulity, but it was insisted that this debate really was happening, and that there was no indication that the flat-earther letter-writers were being ironic. So then we turned to the question of how there could be this vocal contingent of flat-earthers in Chattanooga, and someone suggested that it might have something to do with creationism getting in the news following the recent debate between Republican presidential candidates (in which a few expressed varying degrees of endorsement for creationism).

Well, I thought that was a weird connection to make: how could a debate about the shape of the Earth be sparked by creationism getting into the news? And that's when I made that observation: most creationists aren't flat-earthers.

And this actually surprised some people. I guess some people thought that maybe all creationists were also flat-earthers. One guy even said he couldn't see how thinking the Earth is flat is any more of a stretch than creationism.

That would be a problem.

Based on the general tone of the conversation, I would guess that we were all well aware of the existence of creationists, and that we all had negative views of creationism, and that we were all at least somewhat concerned about the prevalence of creationism in the American populace. And if you're a person like that, then, it seems to me, you should be moved to spend a moment or two pondering what might be going on in the minds of creationists. And if you spend even a little bit of time on this, then it surely ought to be pretty obvious how it's quite a bit less crazy to be a creationist than to be a flat-earther--that, in fact, the flat-earther would have to think some genuinely crazy things (e.g. that rather a lot of people around the world are lying about their travel experiences for no apparent reason), while a creationist could be merely wrong, and not crazy at all.

And if you can't see how that's so, then there is no way you could ever have any sort of constructive conversation with a creationist--you have made it quite impossible for yourself to imagine what it would be like to convince a creationist that he's wrong, because you imagine that the creationist is utterly crazy, and you can't even begin to reason with someone who's utterly crazy.

At another point in the conversation, someone tried to explain the existence of flat-earthers by pointing out that the Bible says that the Sun goes around the Earth. (Actually, I've seen self-described literalists assert that you need to interpret such passages metaphorically--but that's a different topic.) The problem here is that geocentrism, like creationism, is also quite a bit different from flat-earthism. I get the impression that, for quite a few liberals, including quite a few grad students in the arts and humanities, all these ideas (and more) get summarily thrown together in an undifferentiated mental box labeled "crazy fundamentalist Christian shit".

This is a complete failure of empathy that thoroughly undermines the possibility of civil discourse. Now, in some segments of society, this isn't so surprising to see. (Say, from a certain sort of Christian fundamentalist, who suspects that liberals are possessed by the spirit of the antichrist, and who lumps all liberal ideas into an undifferentiated mental box labeled "demonic liberal / secular humanist / feminist / homosexual poop".) But grad students in the arts and humanities? Come on. What the hell is the point of the humanities supposed to be, anyways?

Adventures in networking, flooring, and whatnot

What with my getting to be an old man and all, I'm inclined to be none too welcoming of this new fad of social networking websites. But recently Facebook has kinda sorta redeemed itself by getting me back in touch with old friends and acquaintances I thought I might never hear from again.

Then it also helped Dawn and I end a fairly unsuccessful and disappointing bout of apartment-hunting when I was able to look up a student in the college with a soon-to-be-but-not-yet-expired-lease (after having stolen some names from the property management office), and arrange a viewing of her apartment, and subsequently get dibs on the place.

If all goes well, I'll soon be making the switch from linoleum to hardwood floors, which I'm told is a matter of infinite importance, for reasons which are largely inscrutable. Apparently, linoleum's ability to lie flat under furniture and feet is insufficient to redeem it as worthy of constituting the upper layer of one's floor. I fear this issue may utterly transcend my intellect: as a child, I was tutored in Bert's school of linoleum appreciation (seriously, I had that song on tape or a 45 record or something).

The place also has balconies. Appreciation of this may be within my grasp.

Only believers can fight the spiritual battle

Sectarian militias, your days are numbered. Behold the Baghdad Prayer Patrol.

AzN is the new black

So this was pretty predictable:

"I understand what happened recently at Virginia Tech," said the teen's father, Albert Lee, referring to last week's massacre of 32 students by gunman Seung-Hui Cho. "I understand the situation."

But he added: "I don't see how somebody can get charged by writing in their homework. The teacher asked them to express themselves, and he followed instructions."

Allen Lee, an 18-year-old straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with disorderly conduct for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.

So, it seems clear that Lee was pretty dumb to have written this so soon after Virginia Tech, but, even so:

Unless somebody is holding back some important fact, this young man is getting a raw deal. He doesn't belong in the criminal justice system. And the main reason he was treated this way is that people are on edge because another young Asian-American student killed 32 people two weeks earlier in Virginia.

(I sure am glad my high school days are far behind me. If being a socially inept Asian student inclined towards dark and disturbing imagery had been the profile of a rampage-killer-in-the-making back then, I'd have been screwed. Actually, now that I think about it, I still fit that profile. Ooh, look out!)

I don' blame his teacher for alerting her supervisor at the school. I can see where she might have been worried.

By all means, pull him out of class the next day and try to figure out what's going on. Haul in his parents to find out what they know. Huddle with the rest of his teachers. Get him to a shrink for a psychiatric evaluation. Interview his friends, if it seems necessary.

Hell, call in the police if they honestly believe the young man poses some kind of a real danger and ask them to look into it.

But to have him arrested and criminally charged as the starting point of their response, based solely on what he wrote for a class assignment that instructed him not to censor himself, that's just outrageous.

Judging by the e-mails to the newspaper, I'd guess that at least half of you disagree with me. Lucky for me, you can't have me arrested.

Many of you are from the better safe than sorry school of thought.

Similarly, whenever I see a black man walking in my direction on the sidewalk, I always cross to the other side of the street. Better safe than sorry, I always say. (Crap, when I started writing this, I told myself I wouldn't turn it into some race thing. Oh, well.)

End of a scholarly era

Well, for Anglophone students of Kierkegaard, at least. Earlier today I was looking up pictures of Kierkegaard scholars Howard and Edna Hong in order to show Dawn how they aren't even a little Asian, and we ran across news of Edna Hong's fairly recent death.

The Hongs are best known for going approximately 30 years without sleep in order to produce probably the best available English translations of Kierkegaard's works, comprising just about every word he ever uttered. The results of their efforts currently make up a substantial and pleasantly coordinated section of my own little library.

Enough said

The Christian Century interviews Bill Moyers and asks:

Some people on the left think the Democratic Party needs to be more explicitly religious. What do you think about that counterstrategy?

If you have to talk about God to win elections, that doesn't speak well of God or elections. We are desperate today for cool thinking and clear analysis. What kind of country is it that wants its politicians to play tricks with faith?

(h/t JP)

"Finding Eternal Hope in Present Sorrow"

Are you bored of the garden variety empty platitudes and mindless punditry that quite naturally followed the Virginia Tech shootings? I have the cure for you: Doug's Blog: On the Horror at Virginia Tech. The writers at the Onion couldn't do a better job of coming up with a parody of a Christian Right analysis of the shooting spree.

The post starts out by addressing the "why" question. Now, talking about the "why" question doesn't make Doug's post stand out from the crowd (nor does his answer to the question), but I would like to say something about that general phenomenon. (Perhaps similar to this Slacktivist post.) When news-worthy tragedies like this happen, and people start talking about topics in the vicinity of the problem of evil, I get a little confused. Because I'm pretty sure that just about everyone knows that, say, the Holocaust happened. (I briefly considered picking a less trite example, but what the heck, let's not pussyfoot around.) And it seems to me that if you can believe in God despite the fact that the Holocaust happened, you ought to be able to believe in God in the face of any other tragedy or atrocity that current events can throw at you, without much breaking a spiritual sweat. (To be sure, if one had a special personal connection to one of the victims, I could see how that could create an especially deep emotional sting that could make an understandable difference here, but this is not the case in general.)

OK, so much for that.

What really makes Doug's post shine are such points as: Christians need to go out and convert people in this time of need:

We must be emboldened in our sense of urgency to communicate to others the only source of hope from death.

And we can probably lay some of the blame for the shootings on the secular humanist hegemony that permeates the American public sphere:

We have forsaken the law of God and have worshipped before false idols. We have sacrificed our children, not only spiritually and intellectually to the high priests of a new secular religion in our government schools...

And probably legalized abortion contributed to the shooting:

...but have quite literally sacrificed baby boys and girls to the gods of convenience in the abortuaries of America. One out of four Americans is not here because they were aborted by their mothers.

And let's not forget the theory of evolution:

Our children are being taught the Gospel of evolution and man. It is a religious faith that ultimately teaches that transcendent truth does not exist; life is meaningless, being the product of chance. Why are we surprised when the present generation acts upon the logical implications of this false gospel? If we do not see the connection between this false faith and the culture of death, we are blind bats, or willingly ignorant.

Plus this just goes to show how being armed all the time is a Christian duty:

A strong case can be made that in a violent society like our own, it is the duty of every Christian man to be armed such that he is ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor in the face of the ruthless behavior of lawless men.

And just to finish it off, an additional curiosity regarding how Doug makes that last point:

We have one of two futures — a police state full of regulation and controls, where only the state and criminals have access to guns, thus leaving most women and children defenseless to evildoers, or an informed, well-armed citizen population, which is, to my mind, the surest safeguard against lawless men.

What I find curious is that he picks out "women and children" in particular. Are unarmed men not, in general, defenseless when confronted by an armed "evildoer"? Plenty of dudes died at Virginia Tech. Testicles do not in fact provide any protection against bullets. Or maybe it's taken for granted that manly men only ever concern themselves with the protection of their offspring and womenfolk, never paying any regard to their own safety in the face of danger. I just dunno.

Now, is this the single stupidest thing to be written in response to the Virginia Tech shootings? I have enough faith in humanity to be confident that it's not. But it's still a remarkable piece of work.

(h/t Jesus Politics)

Confidential...

To whomever it was who arrived at this blog after googling for "Heidegger thanksgiving": if you should happen to search for that again, and run across this post, please leave a comment explaining what it was you were hoping to find. It is bugging the hell out of me.

Vonneguttered

RIP Kurt Vonnegut, humanist extraordinaire.

From A Man Without a Country (see here):

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes be posted anywhere.

"Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break!

As a result of passages like this (from earlier works), I credit Vonnegut with getting me to start reading the Bible with a bit of charity. At the time, that meant seeing Jesus as a socialist, which I wouldn't see as a particularly good characterization nowadays, but a heathen's gotta start somewhere.

Here's hoping he didn't have too much trouble getting through that death thing, whatever it is.

Backblog

O! my poor neglected blog!

Lessee, what's been happening?

1. One of my sisters is going to college down in Daytona Beach. So, naturally, when Spring Break hit, she wanted to come up to visit me in frigid unbeachy Chicago. All things considered, I very much approved. (My teenaged sister? In Daytona Beach for Spring Break? Like hell.)

2. The new crop of prospective grad students came down for the annual "prospective week" to check us out. I hosted a guy from Finland who said he'd already decided to accept our offer of admission, barring anything short of a "catastrophe". I guess they knew what they were doing when they sent him to stay with me.

As per tradition, the week's festivities included a night of Live Band Karaoke. I horribly abused "Living on a Prayer" (accursed rock anthems!), but then redeemed myself by doing a decent rendition of "Hunger Strike" with a fellow rockstar (I was Vedder, he was Cornell, and we totally nailed the harmonies).

3. Dawn and I went thrift shopping uptown. Chicago has some awesome thrift stores. One of them was in the heart of the gay neighbourhood, which is cool, because gay guys are more likely to wear pants that fit me. (Chicago is, by some estimates, the fattest city in the country, and I have a skinny ass.) I found a pair of shiny black Armani pants in my size for $20. A good deal on Armani, I'd imagine, but that's about 4 times the price of any other pair of thrift store pants. Still, I was sorely tempted to buy them, and then go around saying "Who are you wearing? (etc.)"

4. My preliminary essay (mini-dissertation, due right after the next New Year) is going to be on Socratic irony. I've totally decided.

The wheel in the sky

I had a dream.

I had a dream that there was a spoked wheel spinning around in the sky. (Coincidentally, I've recently been reading Ezekiel.)

I don't know how many spokes the wheel had, but I'm pretty sure it ought to have had twelve.

Adjacent to the spinning wheel was a Bible. Upon picking out a Bible verse, the wheel would stop spinning, and a spoke on the lower-right side of the wheel would poke out through the wheel's rim, then turn until horizontal, and merge into the Bible verse. Then it would come back out, and take its original position in the wheel.

The wheel would then begin to spin again, until another Bible verse was chosen, and so on.

I'm pretty sure this was a vision that will someday lead me to develop some kick-ass scriptural hermeneutic. As in, if you got this hermeneutic, you would automatically get 10,000 bonus Experience Points in Christianity (and probably in Judaism, too, though I'm not so familiar with the level system in Judaism). I just need to figure out what the spokes represent, and why they have to be arranged in a wheel (for this was crucial) and why the wheel has to be spinning (for this was absolutely crucial).

Quantum Kierkegaard

Check out this exciting new book:

The first volume of The Lost Spiritual World explores the complete Gospel of Mark, using the renowned Scholars Version by academics from Harvard, Notre Dame, Vassar, and other major universities.

How respectable is that? The webpage even goes on to quote Kierkegaard.

Nearly two hundred years ago, the great theologian Soren Kierkegaard concluded that “Christianity is absurd.” But he was not mocking; he was despairing our inability to believe in a scientific age. [...] The Lost Spiritual World struggles within the tradition of Kierkegaard

But that's not all. Other selling points include:

The Lost Spiritual World is not shaped like a rectangle. In Greek, the word orthodox means “straight thinking.” But some fundamentalists have called me a "blasphemer" and a “heretic” because I don't "think straight" according to their orthodox doctrines. That's why I created the wavy shape. It immerses you into the quantum field, showing you how to explore the interconnection of seemingly opposite perspectives.

The Lost Spiritual World uses twelve metallic inks. Their vibrational frequencies have been around since the Big Bang, but we are just becoming aware of them. They literally connect you to the cosmic stardust from which you were born. They sparkle with the living presence of our real creation story, the real elements of God within us.

I have come to suspect that if you took a poll of people who say they do "work" on quantum physics, the scientists would be far outnumbered by people who think that quantum physics has something to do with Kierkegaard.

Academic update

This quarter has consisted of:

A logic course on the meta-theory of sentential and first-order logic. I've done more than enough logic before, but I think it would be a good career move to be able to teach logic in the future, so I wanted a refresher. Turns out a fair bit of the material is new to me - as far as I can remember, which isn't saying much, considering that I learned some of this stuff a decade ago (eep).

A course on medieval philosophy. I'm not going to do much with any of this, but I think it's worth having filed away in some compartment of my brain.

I'm also sitting in on a course on the New Testament in the Divinity school. It's interesting, sometimes-despite / sometimes-because it's not presupposing any sort of Christian perspective.

Plus some of us have been doing a reading group on the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, which is just marvy.

My coursework gets wrapped up next quarter. Looks like I'll be getting deep into Freud territory. I'm planning on taking a course titled "consciousness", which is really about the unconscious mind (it should be titled "the unconscious"). I've also just found out that another department is giving a course on "neuropsychoanalysis" which has me intrigued and somewhat excited. I plan on taking that, too, so I might end up getting to make use of some of my cognitive science background, which is a little unexpected.

I'll also have to start work on my "preliminary essay", which is like a mini-dissertation. First I'll have to find a topic. Then I'll have to write about it. Both are daunting tasks.

Things you can learn in college

The office of the President of the University set up a task force on sexual ethics, which has produced, among other things, a useful poster providing some "Educational Guidelines for SEXUAL CONSENT!"

Informative excerpts:

Some POOR Practices

VIOLENCE: The threat of or use of violence or force negates any previous consent or subsequent assumptions of consent.

COERCION: Like physical force, coercion and intimidation negate consent.

DRUGS & ALCOHOL: GIving someone drugs or alcohol with the intent to impair his or her judgment or make them unconscious violates the Illinois law.

HARASSMENT: By the very definition, when someone is sexually harassed, the behavior is unwelcome; therefore, any form of sexual harassment is non consensual. For instance, masturbating in front of someone without their agreement and/or touching and groping someone at a party is not considered consensual.

Well, I'm glad that got cleared up.

(At the risk of depriving some wayward college student of this wisdom, I decided to take the poster home to decorate my apartment.)

Windy winter wonderland

I just got back from a quick trip to the store. Or, it should have been a quick trip the store. It took a bit longer than normal, because I had to contend with the odd 3 foot snow drift, and 50 km/h wind gust.

Woo! Great fun. For me, I mean. For people who actually have things to do and places to go, it's a terrible inconvenience, but, me, I just got to bound around in the snow and get blown around a bit, and share a chuckle with a guy using a briefcase to plow his way to his door.

Whose God is it?

An untranscribed portion of the video for this ABC News story on the prejudice faced by Muslims in the American military begins:

It is a sign of their devotion when Muslims bow 5 times a day towards Mecca and pray to their God.

See anything weird? Let's try a little substitution:

...when Christians pray to their God.

...when Jews pray to their God.

It's quite unlikely that ABC news would ever air a statement like that. Because the God that Jews and Christians pray to is just: God. "God" here is a proper name, and identifies its referent quite nicely without anyone having to stick a possessive adjective in front of it. In fact, maybe I should remove that capitalization:

It is a sign of their devotion when Muslims bow 5 times a day towards Mecca and pray to their god.

Yep, that's starting to look icky.

So by identifying the object of Muslim prayer as "their god", the article (which is meant to address anti-Muslim prejudice) also perpetuates a kind of anti-Muslim prejudice, by suggesting that Muslims worship some freakish alien deity completely unrelated to the one that normal people worship.

This was probably unintentional. As Slacktivist has noted on occasion, journalists tend to be pretty much clueless when it comes to issues of religion. But there are people who really do think that Allah is something entirely distinct from God; some Christians even think that Allah is Satan or some such. Hearing this sort of thing on the news isn't helping matters.

Defending the faith, Maimonides style

I'm studying some medieval philosophy this quarter, and so far the star of the show is clearly Maimonides, a leading Jewish jurist and philosopher (and a member of a Jewish community which flourished under Arab, Islamic rule - something worth keeping in mind for those who think that religious differences (particularly those involving Muslims) are an irremediable threat to the public peace).

Maimonides' major philosophical work is The Guide of the Perplexed, which deals with, among other things, the problem of people who raise objections against scripture. At one point, he addresses a representative example (of someone who criticizes the story of Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the Garden). Never mind the substance of the objection and Maimonides' response - just feast on how he prefaces the response:

O you who engage in theoretical speculation using the first notions that may occur to you and come to your mind and who consider withal that you understand a book that is the guide of the first and the last men while glancing through it as you would glance through a historical work or a piece of poetry - when, in some of your hours of leisure, you leave off drinking and copulating: collect yourself and reflect, for things are not as you thought following the first notion that occurred to you, but rather as is made clear through reflection upon the following speech. (Guide, I, 2)

Sadly I was unable to "reflect upon the following speech", for I was laughing too hard at the time. (Maimonides presents this as something he actually said as part of a real conversation. If only we could go back in time and bring him into the present to have a chat with Richard Dawkins.)

And here is a diagnosis of why some people are limited in their abilities to understand religious matters:

There are, moreover, many people who have received from their first natural disposition a complexion of temperament with which perfection is in no way compatible. Such is the case of one whose heart is naturally exceedingly hot; for he cannot refrain from anger, even if he subject his soul to very stringent training. This is also the case of one whose testicles have a hot and humid temperament and are of a strong constitution and in whom the seminal vessels abundantly generate semen. (Guide, I, 34)

One of those is, in fact, a major difficulty I have faced throughout my own studies.

I am awesome!

You know the Bible 100%!

 

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

Boo yah! Plus 15 God Points for me!

(Dawn points out there's a scriptural reference there: "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). Except "reader" has been substituted for "doer" - a questionable adaptation.)

(h/t Scott)

Edification but not maturation, up-building but not growing-up

A bunch of us are doing a reading group on Kierkegaard/Johannes Climacus' Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments. The other day, this passage came up:

A person in love, for instance, to whom his erotic love is his very inwardness, may well want to communicate himself, but not directly, just because the inwardness of erotic love is the main thing for him.

It was Dawn that brought it up, and read it out, and then all the guys started giggling.

Erotic love! Hee hee hee.

From a bit later on in the Postscript:

Here erotic love manifestly means existence or that by which life is in everything, the life that is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite. According to Plato, Poverty and Plenty begot Eros, whose nature is made up of both. But what is existence? It is that child who is begotten by the infinite and the finite, the eternal and the temporal, and is therefore contiually striving.

Striving... erotically!

Kierkegaard makes existence sexy. Oh. Yeah.

Faith is a rope, tied between man and God - a rope over an abyss

On occasion I've wondered about the connection between Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The SEP informs:

Kierkegaard's social realism, his deep psychological and philosophical analyses of contemporary problems, and his concern to address "the present age" were taken up by fellow Scandinavians Henrik Ibsen and August Strindberg. Ibsen and Strindberg, together with Friedrich Nietzsche, became central icons of the modernism movement in Berlin in the 1890s. The Danish literary critic Georg Brandes was instrumental in conjoining these intellectual figures: he had given the first university lectures on Kierkegaard and on Nietzsche; he had promoted Kierkegaard's work to Nietzsche and to Strindberg; and he had put Strindberg in correspondence with Nietzsche.

Which leads me to wonder whether this striking image (from Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra):

Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman --- a rope over an abyss.

...has anything to do with this one (from Kierkegaardian pseudonym Anti-Climacus' The Sickness Unto Death):

As a sinner man is separated from God by a yawning qualitative abyss.

That would be a disappointing adaptation. Compared to the original, Zarathustra's abyss is like a puddle in a gutter or a crack in the pavement. Silly Nietzsche.

The creation story of the Timaeus

In the Timaeus, Plato describes the fashioning of the universe (thought of as a living being) by the Creator:

...he made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the centre, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures; for he considered that the like is infinitely fairer than the unlike. This he finished off, making the surface smooth all around for many reasons; in the first place, because the living being had no need of eyes when there was nothing remaining outside him to be seen; nor of ears when there was nothing to be heard; and there was no surrounding atmosphere to be breathed; nor would there have been any use of organs by the help of which he might receive his food or get rid of what he had already digested, since there was nothing which went from him or came into him: for there was nothing beside him. Of design he was created thus, his own waste providing his own food, and all that he did or suffered taking place in and by himself. ...as he had no need to take anything or defend himself against any one, the Creator did not think it necessary to bestow upon him hands: nor had he any need of feet, nor of the whole apparatus of walking; but the movement suited to his spherical form was assigned to him, being of all the seven that which is most appropriate to mind and intelligence; and he was made to move in the same manner and on the same spot, within his own limits revolving in a circle. All the other six motions were taken away from him, and he was made not to partake of their deviations. And as this circular movement required no feet, the universe was created without legs and without feet.

So if you've ever wondered why the universe is perfectly spherical, or why it's lacking in eyes, ears, mouth, hands, and feet, there's your answer.

Islam and terrorism postscript

In response to my post on The "new atheism" and Islamic terrorists last week, Paul recently commented:

Damn, I wish I'd found this post earlier... now I'm relegated to making mostly unnoticed comments.

So they don't go unnoticed, here are those comments quoted in a new post:

Are there certain "Islamic" beliefs that enable suicide bombings? Short answer - yes. Most suicide bombers in the most recent campaigns (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Second Intifada, and Al Qaeda's jihad) really are motivated in crucial part by visions of a glorious afterlife. And the virgins thing, though almost certainly mistranslated, actually counts - the fools in the martyrdom videos are often damn near salivating over the prospect.

But it's ludicrous to say that this makes suicide bombing a uniquely Muslim phenomenon, or even a uniquely religious one. The now-marginal Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade subset of Fatah, for example, didn't claim explicit religious sanction for its bommbings like Hamas or Al Qaeda do. A far starker example would be the Tamil Tigers, who have never promised their human missiles a bountiful afterlife but have fielded (at last count) nearly 150 suicide bombers in Sri Lanka. For other examples, see the Japanese kamikaze pilots, the Jewish Zealots of the 1st century AD, or the Sikh bodyguards who assassinated Indira Gandhi. Or (shameless plug coming up) just peruse my M.A. thesis, when I get around to posting it on my blog.

That's not to say there aren't serious problems in Islam right now; there are. Chief among them is a disturbing legitimacy conferred, even by many 'moderate' Muslims, upon those who respond to perceived heresy with violence and collective punishment. But that's an argument for another day. In the meantime, speaking as a proud atheist, I've lost most of my once-substantial respect for Richard Dawkins, who now pursues his atheism with the characteristic snark and lack of intellectual rigour one typically expects from the most ardent religious fundamentalists.

One more thing: "'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes." - James Morrow

I'm pretty much in agreement with all of that. Here are a couple of points in response, to make clear how very much I agree with all of that.

I hope the first paragraph there wasn't intended as a criticism, because I do of course recognize that a lot of Muslim terrorists think of their activities in terms of the concept of martyrdom (and also jihad). My point was that functional equivalents of those concepts aren't particularly difficult to come by. (I figure ideals of nationalism and generic heroism do just fine. The Tamil Tigers probably illustrate that.)

And as for other "serious problems in Islam", there are plenty of those: responses to heresy, responses to apostasy, the treatment of women, and so on. I take it there's a question here whether these are genuinely intrinsic to Islam, but I don't know enough about Islamic theology to comment on that. In any case, these problems (while far from trivial) are beside the point when it comes to the most hysterical fear-mongering about Islam (such as we find in Dawkins and Harris, and other bigots across the political and religious spectra), which declares that Islam could very well be responsible for the end of civilization, or whatever.

sigh

Bush's interview on 60 Minutes:

PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

OK, pause. He just willfully misheard that question. Apparently he actually thinks that there's a question whether the Iraqis should apologize to America for not doing a better job of... what? Not having their homes invaded and getting shot execution style in the street by armed militias? Not being kidnapped on the way to school? Not getting stopped at fake checkpoints, killed, and then dumped some place where their families never find them? Yeah, they really should stop having that happen to them. It's a big annoyance for Americans.

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

I... I... I don't think I know enough swear words to respond to that.

Dennett: the war discredits religion

I feel the need to get that Jesus-Boxer picture off of the top of the page, so I guess it's time for a new post.

Over at On Faith, Daniel Dennett answers the question of whether the invasion of Iraq constituted a just war. He spends most of his response giving the obvious answer, and then turns his attention to the role of religion in the move towards invasion:

Inflating these declarations [of good intent] with religious rhetoric about God being on our side is nothing less than obscene, however sincerely these protestations of faith may be uttered.

OK, so far so good. But Dennett continues:

Nothing has done more to discredit religious faith in recent years than the self-righteous overconfidence with which our leaders have “listened to God” instead of listening to the knowledgeable secular advisors who have warned them, repeatedly, of the follies they were embarking on.

Defenders of religion are eager to point out that the motivation for this war was not religious, in spite of President Bush’s blunder in calling it a “crusade,” but they must admit that the administration’s faith in faith over faith in facts has probably been the principle cause of the moral calamity that now confronts us.

I'm not sure where he got the idea that the decision to invade Iraq had anything to do with anyone thinking they'd "listened to God". The only relevant piece of evidence I can think of comes from this report:

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

But this piece of testimony is pretty worthless, as was pointed out in Common Dreams (not an outfit known for its loyalty to Dubya):

Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha'aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English.

Clearly, we don't yet know what Bush said, or why.

There is plenty of room to criticize the decision to go to war without basing criticisms on unsubstantiated hearsay.

Even if Bush did think that God had told him to invade Iraq, I doubt that Cheney or Rumsfeld or the other major figures in the Admin would ever have cared much about Bush's imagined conversations with God. It's true that the invasion was based in a kind of faith, but it was faith in a purely political fantasy (being greeted as liberators, democracy spreading throughout the region, etc.). What that has to do with religion is anyone's guess.

And even if religious claims had played some substantial role in the decision to go to war, it's mysterious how that could serve to "discredit religious faith" in general, as Dennett claims.

More "Contemporary Christian Art"

First, "Undefeated":


The webpage for that one cites Psalm 136:12:

With a strong hand and an outstretched arm,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting.

I'm not sure what that verse (which isn't even a complete sentence) has to do with this vision of Jesus as Boxer.

The title is a little odd, considering that Jesus was soundly defeated, what with all the getting betrayed and arrested and mocked and spat on and beaten and whipped and crucified and killed and all. True, there is a sense in which that defeat counts as a victory, but it's not any sort of victory relevant to the world of boxing.

Next, "If My People":


The webpage for that one is essential to understanding the meaning of the painting. It turns out that it is bristling with subtle visual metaphors. It truly is a wonder.

(both via JesusPolitics)

The "new atheism" and Islamic terrorists

I made a post about the "new atheism" and history, so I thought I might as well round it out with a post on how Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris think about some more recent events.

Anti-Muslim attitudes are hardly the exclusive province of the "new atheism", but you do find them there. (Naturally, I continue to leave Dennett out of this.) In support of the claim that religion is dangerous, the chief contemporary example is of course the 9/11 attacks, and associated terrorist attacks by Muslims. Somehow these attacks are supposed to be motivated adherence to Islamic principles.

Well, I think I mentioned this before, but, as far as I can tell, the motivations of terrorists and the reasons why Muslims tend to be angry at the West don't have much to do with specifically Islamic or specifically religious ideals.

Before I get into details, here's an interesting comparison. Can the Rwandan genocide, in which Hutu militias killed about a million people (mostly Tutsis, but some not) over the course of about a hundred days, be explained by reference to ideals inherent in Hutu religion or Hutu culture? Were there inherently violent Hutu ideals which helped motivate that insane slaughter? Well, no. The Hutu and Tutsi populations shared pretty much the same religious demographics, and there was no such thing as a specifically Hutu culture, or specifically Hutu ideals. But that didn't prove any obstacle to power-hungry Hutu demagogues.

With that in mind, let's consider the two common candidates for Islamic ideals especially responsible for terrorism by Muslims: jihad and martyrdom. Dawkins, for example, picked up these points a few days after 9/11, and has been waving them about ever since. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris follows suit and declares:

Subtract the Muslim belief in martyrdom and jihad, and the actions of suicide bombers become completely unintelligible

OK, let's see about that.

Jihad

The standard view of jihad seems to be this. Jihad is primarily a spiritual struggle. I'm not sure, but some Muslims seem not to recognize violent forms of jihad at all. For those who do, though, violent jihad, jihad as holy war, isn't what some seem to think it is: you don't embark on a holy war just because some random nut says that Allah said so, or because you don't like non-Muslims. Rather, violent jihad is authorized by the Koran under specific circumstances: when Islam is facing violent persecution. That is, if an armed force is trying to wipe Islam off of the face of the earth, Muslims are warranted in coming together and fighting back in the name of Islam.

Three comments about this conception of jihad.

First, this isn't a view specific to "moderate" Muslims, but can be seen also in the arguments Islamic terrorists give in justification of their activities: a central premise is that Islam is under attack by America and its allies, Israel in particular. This is explicit in Bin Laden's 1998 fatwah declaring holy war, for example. He argues for holy war against America, and the two main premises of this argument are:

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans [in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Israel] are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries.

Second, it's not hard to see how a demagogue like Bin Laden could make a convincing case for the claim that the West is violently persecuting Islam. Bin Laden referred to Western and Israeli military activity, and while the real motivations for that activity have little to do with the fact that the people in the area are predominantly Muslim, it probably wouldn't take much spin to create that perception. (In terms of religious persecution complexes, this one is infinitely more plausible than that of those Christians who imagine that they suffer political persecution here in America.) Once that's settled, add to it the fact that Muslims are seriously outgunned, and things can look grim for the future of Islam.

Finally, you don't need to be a Muslim to think that a violent response is warranted when violent persecution is threatening your very way of life. Quite the contrary: assuming it's at all possible to do so, it would be extraordinary for a people to refuse to respond violently in the face of that sort of threat. Such a refusal would require an uncompromising pacifism bordering on religious fervor, or a visionary or prophet showing a better way. (History records one occasion when the enlightened democratic West seemed genuinely threatened in its very way of life. The response involved Churchill firebombing German cities - civilians and all.)

Martyrdom

As for martyrdom, the promises of virgins in the afterlife, or whatever, I can't see how that's relevant. For one thing, I can't imagine what difference it makes that the 9/11 terrorists perished in their own attacks; it hardly would have been an improvement if they'd managed to kill all those people while living to tell the tale.

The problem isn't that the 9/11 attackers died in their attacks; the problem is that they made the attacks at all. And the concept of martyrdom isn't necessary for the conclusion that Americans should be killed. If the concept of martyrdom plays any role at all, it's in... well, let's follow Bill Maher in being honest in our labeling: all a belief in martyrdom can explain is how these guys got so brave as to be willing to pilot planes into buildings while remaining in the planes. It doesn't explain why they accepted the cause of killing Americans, but maybe it could explain why they were willing to sacrifice their lives for that cause.

Is that right? Is it necessary to believe in the Muslim afterlife in order to do die for a cause, whatever it may be? Is it necessary to believe in any sort of afterlife? Not as far as I can tell. You might as well declare that there are no atheists in foxholes.

(It's an interesting asymmetry in the minds of many atheists of the anti-religious variety that they are entirely willing to implicate beliefs about the afterlife in the commission of evil acts, but reluctant to implicate such beliefs in the commission of good acts. Belief in the afterlife is not the least bit necessary to be willing to sacrifice oneself for a good cause, but it must play a crucial role in the willingness to sacrifice oneself for an evil cause.)

* * *

Now, I said that specifically Islamic ideals (the ones brought up above, at least) aren't really necessary to explain the motives underlying terrorism on the part of Muslims. That said, I think Islam does play a role. But it's the same role played by nationality or race in other conflicts: it's a source of group identity that can be exploited by demagogues under the right sorts of circumstances. As in the role played by "Hutu identity" in the Rwandan genocide, the content of that identity, or whether or not it even has any discernible content, isn't essential.

Noodles can go into space

From The Japan Times:

Momofuku Ando, the founder of Nissin Food Products Co. and inventor of instant ramen, died of heart failure Friday evening at a hospital in Ikeda, Osaka Prefecture, his family said. He was 96.

Born on March 5, 1910, in Taiwan, Ando initially ran clothing companies in Taipei and Osaka while he was a student at Ritsumeikan University. In 1948, he founded the precursor to Nissin and in 1958 unveiled Chicken Ramen, the world's first instant noodle product.

Ando was inspired to develop the instant noodle after coming upon a long line of people on a cold night shortly after World War II. They were waiting to buy freshly made ramen at a black market food stall.

The experience convinced him that "peace will come to the world when the people have enough to eat," according to Nissin.

:::

In July 2005, Nissin introduced a vacuum packed instant noodle specially designed for Japanese astronaut Soichi Noguchi to eat during a mission aboard the U.S. space shuttle Discovery.

Showcasing his Space Ram noodles, Ando said, "I'm happy I've realized my dream that noodles can go into space."

See also the in memoriam comic at PhD comics.

Eat a cup of noodles today. And be sure to slurp.

More happy fun pictures

See this here blog post.

The theme in that post is sexiness (oh, yeah) in fundamentalist art (oh, dear). But, apart from that, I was especially tickled by the painting entitled "Blessed Are the Peacemakers", which features what seems to be a knight from the Crusades.

Peacemaker.

Crusader.

Wow.

(h/t JP)

The "new atheism" and history

Common to the recent anti-religious writings of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris is (roughly) the following train of thought: (A) religion is irrational, and (B) tends to lead people to be irrational about pretty much everything, and so (C) tends to lead to violence.

Sometimes it seems that (C) is supposed to follow from the general principles of (A) and (B), in apriori-ish fashion. But of course concrete evidence is needed, and so usual suspects like the Crusades, the Inquisition, and, more recently, terrorist attacks by Muslims are trotted out.

Regarding the historical examples of supposedly religiously motivated violence, blogger Shannon Love criticizes Dawkins on the grounds that (let's say) his grasp of history lacks opposable thumbs. Love (an atheist, and former Dawkins admirer) notes that there was no non-religious world-view around back in the day, and remarks:

This leads to a form of confirmation bias on the part of atheists. They look into the distant past, see some actions we disapprove of in the modern world, notice that the people who chose the actions had a religious world view, and conclude that the religious world view caused the problem. However, since everybody in the distant past had a religious world view, and no significant decision makers until the very recent past had an atheistic world view, the fact that decision makers in the past were religious tells us about as much about them as the fact that they all breathed oxygen.

That last bit made me giggle.

There's further discussion about the Crusades and Inquisition, which I don't really know about, but it sounds good. She moves on to the modern era to consider some of the morally questionable political activities spawned by atheists, as well as the abolition of slavery and the establishment of welfare programs, where religious motivations seem to play a central role. None of these points really prove anything, but whatever. All the reviews of Dawkins and Harris that I've seen in major periodicals have turned out to be pretty unenlightening (whether they're pro or con), but this one's all right.

(A note of regret concerning the title. Because it's a catchy label, I've used "new atheism" to refer to Harris and Dawkins and their followers. Unfortunately, Daniel Dennett has also been lumped in with them under that category, despite the fact that he can actually navigate an argument and make decent conceptual distinctions, and proposes a critical look at religion without being anti-religious. I think he belongs in better company.)

How to remember a President

In a radio address on the late President Ford, Bush gives us some tips on how to remember a President:

He always put the needs of his country before his own, and did what he thought was right, even when those decisions were unpopular. Only years later would Americans come to fully appreciate the foresight and wisdom of this good man.

This is, of course, how the American people will come to see Dubya's Presidency. It's very unpopular now, but someday Dubya's stupid, shortsighted detractors will come "to fully appreciate the foresight and wisdom of this good man".

I'm sure he has great faith in this.

Justice is served

Not that anyone is going to shed tears over Saddam Hussein's death, but it looks like all the TV news media are reporting this as justice served at long last. At last, the Iraqis can feel certain that they live in a regime under the rule of law, with the age of tyranny firmly behind them.

But I doubt whether the fall of Saddam is plausibly seen, from an Iraqi point of view, as having been authorized by any applicable law. Similarly for the subsequent establishment of the court system which subsequently tried and sentenced Saddam to death. Saddam's law certainly didn't guide the overthrow of Saddam's law. American law is some other place's law. International law withheld its approval.

One law that applies in any case is the law of the jungle. Has the age of Saddam come to its final end under the rule of law, or just because Saddam the strong man ran afoul of a yet stronger man?

Well, who cares what I think about it. What I'd like to know is what the Iraqis think about it.

Maybe the talking heads will say something about this after the story about the petition to name a Chicago street after James Brown.

Caption?

Is Jeopardy dumbing down?

I've been distinctly disappointed by a couple of the Final Jeopardies I've witnessed recently. I remember a time, not too long ago, when I found pretty much every Final Jeopardy to be utterly obscure, but a couple of weeks ago my jaw dropped when I saw this one:

This Britishism is a homophone of one of the letters of the alphabet, and is spelled with a consonant followed by a line of four vowels.

One of the contestants actually missed this one.

And just now, I saw this one:

This elevated area, where the Dome of the Rock sits, is also called this, after a different religious building

Two of the three contestants (including the returning champion) missed this one.

I mean, OK, maybe they're a little tricky, especially when you're working under a time limit with that annoying theme music going, but they hardly require the heroic feats of arcane knowledge that were required of Jeopardy champions in the past.

Maybe Jeopardy is under pressure to dumb down, what with all the competitor game shows where you can basically win a million dollars for being able to count to 30. But, come on, Trebek, where's your pride?

It's just so sad.

Quick, someone slap a Bibble up there

Some dude named Chuck Baldwin offers some helpful advice as to What patriotic Christians can do for America.

I read through the article without glancing at the sidebar, so it took me a while to figure out what he was advocating. Baldwin spends the first half or so of the piece talking about how Christians have to avoid allegiances to the two main political parties, the mainstream media, and various sorts of bad theology. Well, fair enough, but the "patriotic Christian" might also like some positive advice as to what sorts of commitments to seek out. Advice which is given here:

Hook up with your local John Birch Society. Join Larry Pratt's Gun Owners of America. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is another terrific pro-Second Amendment organization you should be familiar with.

In addition, I recently left the GOP and am now proud to be identified with the Constitution Party. I recommend the CP to my readers. I also like what Jim Gilchrist is doing with the Minuteman Project.

And... that's about it. Guns and keeping out the Mexicans. There may be other concerns floating around, but these are the ones that merited specific warrant.

Well... OK, that does fit in with a certain vision of patriotism.

As for the latter half of the "patriotic Christian" label, that is addressed, in the manner of an afterthought, in two brief sentences about prayer - presumably, asking God to give us guns and keep out the Mexicans. (Earlier in the article, there's also advice to seek out churches that uphold the central Christian ideals, which turn out to be: guns and keeping out the Mexicans.)

Speaking of Christianity-as-afterthought, I greatly enjoyed seeing how the site as a whole expresses its devotion to Jesus, that embodiment of the ideals of guns and keeping out the Mexicans. If you go to the drop-down menu at the top of the page, under "Documents", the last item is "The Holy Bible". This is a link to an online KJV Bible. Except nobody seems to have noticed that the link is broken, so all it really leads to is "File not found" in big red letters.

Profound.

(I just noticed that site is affiliated with Alan Keyes. That explains a lot.)

(hat tip Jesus Politics)

Behold the voluptuous sea-cow

I'm pretty late to this party, but, oh well.

I heartily recommend this latest creation from Conan O'Brien: HornyManatee.com.

Can a T-shirt send you to hell?

Saying you don't believe that the holy spirit exists won't do it. Neither will buying and wearing this, but it's probably closer to the mark.

(That's the worst I could find on that website, but there are some other ones that are pretty bad, too. I'm fascinated by this artful depiction of Ann Coulter, which scrupulously conceals the fact that Coulter is actually a sack of centipedes poorly disguised as a man poorly disguised as a woman.)

Dream the impossible blaspheme

The Rational Response Squad has issued the following Blasphemy Challenge to all non-believers:

The Rational Response Squad is giving away 1001 DVDs of The God Who Wasn't There, the hit documentary that the Los Angeles Times calls "provocative -- to put it mildly."

Incidentally, I saw that documentary a while back (well before my conversion), and found it pretty underwhelming. Maybe that's partly because I was then part of the choir to which it was preaching, but I also thought that some bits were uncomfortably childish and petty. But, hey, free is free, and this remains a pretty generous giveaway. Back to the Challenge:

There's only one catch: We want your soul.

It's simple. You record a short message damning yourself to Hell, you upload it to YouTube, and then the Rational Response Squad will send you a free The God Who Wasn't There DVD. It's that easy.

...

You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: "I deny the Holy Spirit."

Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.

Indeed, Mark 3:29 comes from the mouth of Jesus himself. Unfortunately, the claim that he's talking about denying the existence of the holy spirit is textually indefensible.

I don't know if anyone really knows what Jesus is talking about here, but it's clarified a bit by the context. The set-up for Jesus' declaration in v.29 is given in v.22:

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."

It's in response to them that Jesus says (vv.28-29):

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

And, in case the reader has forgotten the context given in v.22, a reminder is given immediately thereafter (v.30):

He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

So, blaspheming the holy spirit involves something like accusing the holy spirit of being an evil spirit. I'm not sure what it would mean to do that (it's not clear that Jesus is even accusing the people in v.22 of doing it - this could just be a warning), but, at the very least, it seems that blasphemy of the holy spirit involves having certain spiritual beliefs, which might also involve believing in the Abrahamic God.

This pretty much rules out the possibility that any genuine atheist could truly rise to the Blasphemy Challenge. Merely denying the existence of the holy spirit has nothing to do with blaspheming the holy spirit, and whatever this unforgivable sin really is, atheists can't commit it. Blasphemy Challenge is right that this is a "one-way road", but it seems likely that it's not a road that atheists can take. And one consequence of this is that there's nothing an atheist can do to eliminate the possibility of someday undergoing the terrifying process of Christian salvation.

Kierkegaard quotes (II)

The Kierkegaardian pseudonym Johannes Climacus, in Philosophical Fragments, recommends the following as a kind of (you might call it) statement of faith:

"...despite all objections, which I myself have fully considered in a form far more terrifying than the formulations anyone else is capable of posing to me, I nevertheless chose the improbable."

A point of clarification: The context in which this quote appears suggests that the term "improbable" here means not of low probability, but rather, beyond all categories of probability. The distinction between low and high probability is a quantitative one, as opposed to the qualitative distinction (parallel to that between finitude and infinitude) that is meant here. So Climacus' use of "improbable" is nothing like when e.g. Dawkins says that it is "improbable" that God exists. As Dawkins means it, the claim (that the probability that God exists is very low) is a category mistake: the realm of probability is the realm of the empirical, while religious categories are qualitatively higher.

The quoted statement sounds excessively strong, to the point of being prideful. But I kinda feel that the learning curve with respect to arguments contra (and also pro) faith reaches its plateau relatively quickly - I think you can pretty much exhaust all the important moves in the arguments without too much trouble. And if you've done that (a worthwhile endeavor for every believer), and weathered whatever crises of faith as might have popped up, the "objections" get demoted to the status of non-"terrifying" intellectual exercises. (It's impossible to inoculate oneself against crises of faith entirely. But dealing with the intellectual routes into them seems to be a tractable task.)

A piece of trivia: A prof informs me that the original Danish title is better translated as "Philosophical Crumbs". That is an awesome title. Why the hell someone would choose to go with "Fragments" instead is beyond me. Bloody fuddy duddy philosophical translators.... (The Danish, Smuler, even sounds like a crumby word.)

Chuck Norris adds new Facts

The man himself has responded to the "Chuck Norris Facts". For example:

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live."

It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures.

So, it's not quite as funny as him having a third fist hidden under his beard, but it's a fact that Chuck Norris is a creationist.

There's this curious trend where the tough guys of my youth have grown up to be conservative Christians (Mr. T and Hulk Hogan also come to mind). What's up with that? If he'd lived, would Bruce Lee have gone that way also? It boggles the mind.

Some words from Kierkegaard

From the Journals and Papers:

The more the phenomenon, the appearance, expresses that here God cannot possibly be present, the closer he is. This is the case with Christ. The very moment the appearance expressed that this man could not possibly be the God-man—no, when the appearance expressed that, men even refused to recognize him as a man (See, what a man!), then God was the closest to actuality he had ever been.

The law for God's remoteness (and the history of this is the history of Christendom) is as follows: Everything that strengthens the appearance distances God. At the time when there were no churches and the few Christians gathered together in catacombs as refugees and persecutees, God was closer to actuality. Then came churches, so many churches, such great, splended churches—to the same degree God was distanced. For God's nearness is inversely related to phenomenon, and this ascending scale (churches, many churches, splendid churches) is an increase in the sphere of appearance. When Christianity was not doctrine, when it was one or two affirmations expressed in one's life, God was closer to actuality than when Christianity became doctrine. And with every increase and embellishment of doctrine etc., to the same degree God was distanced. For doctrine and its dissemination is an increase in appearance, and God relates himself inversely. —When there were no clergy but the Christians were all brothers, God was closer to actuality than when there came to be clergymen, maybe clergymen, a powerful ecclesiastical order. For clergymen are an increase in appearance, and God relates inversely to phenomenon.

And this is how it happened that Christendom has step by step become just about the farthest distance possible from God, all under the claim that Christianity is perfectible, that it progresses. Christendom's history is one of alienation from God through the strengthening of appearance, or (as in certain situations we speak of removing someone tactfully and politely) Christendom's history is one of progressively removing God tactfully and politely by building churchs and monumental buildings, by a monstrous doctrinal system with an incalculable host of preachers.

Thus Christendom is just about the greatest distance possible from God.

This is probably too strong, and Kierkegaard says as much elsewhere in more measured moments. It is not that these external circumstances could suffice to automatically cut the individual believer off from God (nothing has that power). But as the edifice of Christendom is raised higher and higher, it becomes less and less likely that the average person will ever face the genuine question of becoming a Christian.

Blessed are you when you are given pizza and a nice toilet

Via the NY Times, some striking examples of church-state-conflating faith-based-nonsense, such as this one:

Life was different in Unit E at the state prison outside Newton, Iowa.

The toilets and sinks — white porcelain ones, like at home — were in a separate bathroom with partitions for privacy. In many Iowa prisons, metal toilet-and-sink combinations squat beside the bunks, to be used without privacy, a few feet from cellmates.

The cells in Unit E had real wooden doors and doorknobs, with locks. More books and computers were available, and inmates were kept busy with classes, chores, music practice and discussions. There were occasional movies and events with live bands and real-world food, like pizza or sandwiches from Subway. Best of all, there were opportunities to see loved ones in an environment quieter and more intimate than the typical visiting rooms.

But the only way an inmate could qualify for this kinder mutation of prison life was to enter an intensely religious rehabilitation program and satisfy the evangelical Christians running it that he was making acceptable spiritual progress.

I suppose the "E" in "Unit E" stood for "Evangelical".

"Unit E" was run on tax dollars, and was of course clearly unconstitutional. So much so that, when it was brought to court, the judge not only cut off its funding, but also ordered that the ministry repay the $1.5 million it had already received, on the grounds that "the constitutional violations were serious and clearly foreseeable".

Given that the program was so blatantly unconstitutional, why would anyone have tried it in the first place? I can't help wondering if it occurred to some clever soul that they should give this a shot, so that, in the likely event that it got shot down in the courts, then at least pastors of a certain politicized stripe would have something to get the flock riled up about. After all, it was helping inmates, and wasn't doing any harm.

Well, no harm apart from, say, this:

One Roman Catholic inmate, Michael A. Bauer, left the program after a year, mostly because he felt the program staff and volunteers were hostile toward his faith.

“My No. 1 reason for leaving the program was that I personally felt spiritually crushed,” he testified at a court hearing last year. “I just didn’t feel good about where I was and what was going on.”

This isn't too surprising, given the attitude that many evangelical Christians seem to have towards Catholics. (Are they even Christians? They seem to worship an awful lot of idols. Even so, they still might not deserve to be "spiritually crushed".) Presumably someone who didn't lay claim to any form of Christian faith at all wouldn't have made it into the program in the first place.

Setting aside the political point of view, I'm wondering what, from a religious point of view, could make anyone think this program was a good idea. Are the privileges of "Unit E" supposed to prod the inmates along a path of "spiritual progress" (as judged by the people who run the program, naturally)? Are these material comforts meant to help convince these inmates to love God? I'm not sure how that could work, but maybe they're operating on the logic of Pascal's Wager - except instead of the infinite reward of heaven, they dangle the carrot of private toilets, live music, and food from Subway.

Every second of the night, I live another life

A dream.

This was a long dream, and I only remember this bit of it, which happened at about the half-way mark. I was walking up to my car (a mini landrover?), and I noticed some weirdo loitering nearby, who then started to walk after me as I approached the car. I got in and sat down in the passenger seat; shortly thereafter the weirdo walked up, and I locked the door. He pawed at it for a while, in weirdoish fashion, and then walked over to the driver's side. I then realized that the door was unlocked, but it was too late: he'd already opened it. There was a Club on the steering wheel, so I took it off and brandished it at the weirdo, trying to keep him at bay. Some stressful moments follow, as I fail to get the weirdo to go away. But then, help arrives: a kind man comes up and gets the guy to go away.

And that kind man was William H. Macy.

I forget what happened after that exactly, but he got in the car and we went for a drive. Somewhere along the line we drove the car up a slope until the slope went perpendicular and the car fell off. We didn't get hurt, though. I think it was indoors, in a structure shaped like a halfpipe, except it totally wasn't a halfpipe.

And this reminds me of another dream I had a while back.

This also involved a car and a celebrity. As I recall, I was in a car with Christopher Walken. We were on a terribly important mission of some sort. We didn't complete the mission, because along the way the driver (not me, not Walken) drove us off a cliff. Just when things seemed doomed, I somehow escaped the car, and found myself sitting alive but stranded on a ledge of the cliff. (I dunno what happened to the others.) I had a cell phone, so I called for help. And I guess the person I called was my mom, because shortly thereafter she appeared on the ledge with me. But instead of helping me, she criticized me for getting stuck on the ledge. So I remained stranded, but I must have been OK with that, because after the conversation I curled up with a blanket and pillow (I remember briefly wondering where those came from), and went to sleep.

Motifs: male celebrities, cars, being in cars with male celebrities, being in falling cars with male celebrities. Really cool and talented, but pretty weird looking male celebrities. Plus a hint of maternal beratement concerning things that aren't my fault. I wonder what it all could mean.

All your praises they shall ring

A while back I saw "I'm Your Man", a recent doc about Leonard Cohen. The movie is based on various singers doing covers of Cohen's music, which turns out to be a recipe for general mediocrity, since only Leonard Cohen can really do Leonard Cohen.

There are a couple of nice exceptions, which are available on YouTube.

First, Antony doing a cover of "If It Be Your Will". (At first I was actually a little unsettled by how very weird-looking he is. But he has a great voice, so I got over it.)



Second, the final performance from the movie, with Leonard doing the singing, at last. When I saw this in the theatre, there were audible gasps when the camera zooms out after the first verse (you'll see what I mean; it's a nice touch).

A long post about The Gay

Gay marriage is now legally recognized in South Africa.

The law was approved by MPs two weeks ago despite objections from religious groups and traditional leaders.

The Constitutional Court ruled last year that the existing laws discriminated against homosexuals.

The Civil Union Act gives gay people the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The ruling was based on the constitution, which was the first in the world specifically to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference.

This is unusual in Africa where homosexuality is largely taboo - notably in its neighbour Zimbabwe.

Whodathunk that South Africa would have beat America to this bit of political progress. But I'm confident America's time will come, because the political stance against legal recognition of gay marriage is just so weak.

It's true that specifically religious arguments based on scripture are relatively difficult to attack (though I think that ultimately the politically most important version--the Christian one--doesn't really work), but these purely parochial arguments can't carry the full weight of anti-gay politics, and need to be supplemented by non-parochial political arguments. So we see the development of arguments based on concepts like "the sanctity of marriage", and these arguments are so thoroughly specious that I think they will certainly collapse in the face of the cruel onslaught of reality.

The American political community is genuinely responsive to reasons--it just takes a while sometimes. I'm going to go out on a limb, and give this process 20 years. This might sound overly optimistic in the current political climate, but back in the day one might well have thought the same thing about mixed-race marriages. (Today's arguments against gay marriage show remarkable parallels with yesterday's arguments against miscegenation, which carried the day in at least some American courtrooms until the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967.)

So much for optimism. Against that, I see that the South African debate got caught up in a rather disquieting trend on the liberal side of the gay rights debate:

During the parliamentary debate earlier this month, Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told MPs: "In breaking with our past... we need to fight and resist all forms of discrimination and prejudice, including homophobia."

What we see here is the common liberal assumption--or, let's say, the fantasy--that all moral/political opposition to gay rights is rooted in the psychological phenomenon of homophobia. And, to be clear, let's understand homophobia in the strict sense of an excessive emotional aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals. (The Wikipedia article on homophobia lists "discrimination" as part of the definition of "homophobia". This is a distortion of the psychological concept of phobia, but it's also commonly accepted, and often facilitates intellectually dishonest ad hominem attacks on the part of liberals.)

This liberal fantasy has a number of problems.

Most straightforwardly: it's empirically false. Homophobia is present in some cases, but it's simply false that all the opponents of gay rights are homophobic. There are people who make the moral/political judgment that homosexuality is immoral and needs to be legally distinguished from heterosexuality, and do this as a matter of principle, without any excessive emotional reactions to homosexuality, one way or the other.

And there are also moral problems with this liberal fantasy. For one thing, it at least partially removes people's responsibility for opposing gay rights--after all, it's generally unreasonable to hold people responsible for phobias, and the same ought to hold for homophobia. On a similar note: if the fantasy were true, then it would rule out the possibility of genuine conversation, because you can't reason with a phobia.

And, in any case, the fantasy is a form of insult and condescension towards opponents of gay rights, which makes it less likely that they'll enter into a reasonable discussion with liberals, which in turn reduces the prospects of political campaigns which attempt to further gay rights.

I'm not sure why this liberal fantasy has so much currency, but here's the naughtiest hypothesis that comes to mind. Probably the most common version of the liberal fantasy claims that the homophobia in question is the result of repressed homosexuality on the part of the opponents of gay rights. This is especially problematic, in that it exempts heterosexuals from responsibility for anti-gay attitudes: "heterosexuals don't hate homosexuals; repressed homosexuals hate homosexuals". And I strongly suspect that at least some liberals who hold to this view are themselves repressed homosexuals.

Here's how this would work. Our hypothetical repressed-homosexual liberal is a liberal only as a matter of abstract principle: as a matter of purely abstract principle, he supports equal rights for gays. But he doesn't want to have anything to do with gays in his personal life--his repressed homosexuality makes him homophobic. The way he covers up his repressed homosexual urges is by supporting gay rights in the abstract, and then imagining that all opposition to gay rights can be identified with repressed homosexuality--because if this is the correct theory of the psychological roots of opposition to gay rights, it follows that, as a proponent of gay rights, he himself can't possibly be gay. Thus his liberal attitudes, combined with the fantasy that all his ideological opponents are repressed homosexuals, amount to a very sophisticated strategy for coping with his own repressed homosexuality. "Heterosexuals don't hate homosexuals; only repressed homosexuals hate homosexuals; so as a supporter of gay rights I can't possibly be a homosexual"--he thinks such thoughts, and thus protects his shaky sexual identity.

I doubt this is a particularly common phenomenon, but I'm pretty sure it happens.