Few things piss me off more than charlatans hawking end-of-days crap. As I've said before, I feel the fact certain people in the New Age and Pagan/Wiccan world support this nonsense is something to be ashamed of. Dark Star has a great post over at DailyKos, "Apocalypse Soonish", about a true villain in this hoax--which happens to be The History Channel:
...Having a channel called the History Channel running a nearly non-stop stream of this lunacy is a true disaster, and one for which we don't even have to wait till 2012. By mixing in these fear fests with actual bits of history, they are doing more make it impossible for people to distinguish between fact and fiction than all the gibbering pundits of AM radio combined. They are, quite simply, the purveyors of the most harmful bullshit on television. If someone does harm themselves out of fear about impending disaster in 2012, I hope that their friends and family look very closely at where they got such ideas....
Good suggestion. But I wonder if family and friends of the whole Hale-Bopp/Heaven's Gate suicide cult (here, and my post here) held some of the radio and Internet conspiracy spinners accountable?
Showing posts with label science and religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science and religion. Show all posts
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sol, Sun, and Son
Religion, science, and the solstice
This a fine editorial about Yule by James Carroll of the Boston Globe, I first saw over at DailyKos:
...Religion and science occupy separate and opposed spheres, no? Not to our distant forebears, from whom all of our illumination festivals derive. They could not afford the facile dichotomy between the sacred and the profane that defines thinking since the Enlightenment, when people of the West sought to free themselves from the bane of superstition. For most of history, though, religion was not taken to be a flight from rationality, but a mode of it...
Is it me, or have there been less articles this season about the phony 'War on Christmas', and more like the one above? I hope so. Carroll wishes for a peaceful resolution between two parties that are often at odds in our society:
When mystical wonder was walled off from measurable observation, science restricted its range, and religion anathematized critical thinking - disasters both. But the festivals this week, sparked by this morning’s dawn, call to mind the age-old spaciousness of informed imagination. Happily, it remains so. Knowledge is holy. Season’s greetings.
Happy Yule, everyone.
This a fine editorial about Yule by James Carroll of the Boston Globe, I first saw over at DailyKos:
...Religion and science occupy separate and opposed spheres, no? Not to our distant forebears, from whom all of our illumination festivals derive. They could not afford the facile dichotomy between the sacred and the profane that defines thinking since the Enlightenment, when people of the West sought to free themselves from the bane of superstition. For most of history, though, religion was not taken to be a flight from rationality, but a mode of it...
Is it me, or have there been less articles this season about the phony 'War on Christmas', and more like the one above? I hope so. Carroll wishes for a peaceful resolution between two parties that are often at odds in our society:
When mystical wonder was walled off from measurable observation, science restricted its range, and religion anathematized critical thinking - disasters both. But the festivals this week, sparked by this morning’s dawn, call to mind the age-old spaciousness of informed imagination. Happily, it remains so. Knowledge is holy. Season’s greetings.
Happy Yule, everyone.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Darwin and the Pythoness
No U.S. distributor for Charles Darwin movie because of fear of fundamentalists
Many of you will remember the Xtian angst that ensued when the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian" was released in the USA. At that time, I was friendly with a married couple who ran the a 'mom & pop' size theater in my college town. They were fans of Python, and dearly wanted to show the film. But they had received a very pointed threat against them on their answering machine, if they decided to show the film. They agonized whether they should show the film. In this case, this threat of terrorism had the desired effect. One of the owners told me that although someone defacing one of their movie screens would be covered by insurance, the loss of revenue would ruin them. (This was before studio owned megaplexes dominated the market). They decided not to show the film.
Well, it looks like the factually challenged have won the day again. The 'good' news is that theater owners will not have to sweat the decision to show the film or not, as the film now has about zero chance of finding a distributor in the US. From Crooks&Liars:
Many of you will remember the Xtian angst that ensued when the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian" was released in the USA. At that time, I was friendly with a married couple who ran the a 'mom & pop' size theater in my college town. They were fans of Python, and dearly wanted to show the film. But they had received a very pointed threat against them on their answering machine, if they decided to show the film. They agonized whether they should show the film. In this case, this threat of terrorism had the desired effect. One of the owners told me that although someone defacing one of their movie screens would be covered by insurance, the loss of revenue would ruin them. (This was before studio owned megaplexes dominated the market). They decided not to show the film.
Well, it looks like the factually challenged have won the day again. The 'good' news is that theater owners will not have to sweat the decision to show the film or not, as the film now has about zero chance of finding a distributor in the US. From Crooks&Liars:
...Good God, what is this country coming to?
It seems the film Creation, a major-production biopic about Charles Darwin starring Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, won't be seen in the United States because no distributor with the guts to stand up to the religious right in this country can be found...
The producer said:
Friday, June 26, 2009
Day at the Museum
Scientists study foes' ways at Creation Museum
Scientists are visiting the 'Creation Museum' in order to learn how they are portrayed:
...The real purpose of the museum visit is to give some of my colleagues an opportunity to sense how they're being portrayed," said Arnold Miller, a professor of paleontology at the University of Cincinnati, which is hosting the conference. "They're being demonized, I feel, in this museum as people who are responsible for all the ills of society...
I'm glad he used the term 'demonized'. That's the way most Dominionists and Eliminationists characterize anyone who does not subscribe to their myopic world view.
Scientists are visiting the 'Creation Museum' in order to learn how they are portrayed:
...The real purpose of the museum visit is to give some of my colleagues an opportunity to sense how they're being portrayed," said Arnold Miller, a professor of paleontology at the University of Cincinnati, which is hosting the conference. "They're being demonized, I feel, in this museum as people who are responsible for all the ills of society...
I'm glad he used the term 'demonized'. That's the way most Dominionists and Eliminationists characterize anyone who does not subscribe to their myopic world view.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Stop tracking mud in here!
Prints Show a Modern Foot in Prehumans
In a recent comment to this blog, in regards to a post about fossils, Riverwolf asked:
"I realize there are exceptions, but i was discussing this with a friend about how some Christians say these "discoveries" are all lies mention to destroy belief in God. What? Like, someone has enough money to go around creating fake bones and burying them??..."
Dammit! He's onto me! Yes, I fess-up. I'm the one who's been doing it. I hope Riverwolf and all you other lost/dammed souls appreciate my last effort:
...Footprints uncovered in Kenya show that as early as 1.5 million years ago an ancestral species, almost certainly Homo erectus, had already evolved the feet and walking gait of modern humans...An international team of scientists, in a report on Friday in the journal Science, said the well-defined prints in an eroding bluff east of Lake Turkana “provided the oldest evidence of an essentially modern humanlike foot anatomy.” They said the find also added to evidence that painted a picture of Homo erectus as the prehumans who took long evolutionary strides — figuratively and, now it seems, also literally...
OK, that's enough stomping around in the Antediluvian mud right now, I gotta go wash my feet...
In a recent comment to this blog, in regards to a post about fossils, Riverwolf asked:
"I realize there are exceptions, but i was discussing this with a friend about how some Christians say these "discoveries" are all lies mention to destroy belief in God. What? Like, someone has enough money to go around creating fake bones and burying them??..."
Dammit! He's onto me! Yes, I fess-up. I'm the one who's been doing it. I hope Riverwolf and all you other lost/dammed souls appreciate my last effort:
...Footprints uncovered in Kenya show that as early as 1.5 million years ago an ancestral species, almost certainly Homo erectus, had already evolved the feet and walking gait of modern humans...An international team of scientists, in a report on Friday in the journal Science, said the well-defined prints in an eroding bluff east of Lake Turkana “provided the oldest evidence of an essentially modern humanlike foot anatomy.” They said the find also added to evidence that painted a picture of Homo erectus as the prehumans who took long evolutionary strides — figuratively and, now it seems, also literally...
OK, that's enough stomping around in the Antediluvian mud right now, I gotta go wash my feet...
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Happy Birthday, Darwin!
Of Darwin, Dover And (Un)Intelligent Design
In order to honor Darwin's birthday, I'd like to post some snippets from the latest issue of Church & State Magazine, the zine of American's United. Please check out the above article, which is an interview with Kenneth Miller, who was a star witness in the landmark 'Kitzmiller v. Dover' case. Dr. Miller is one of the heroes who helped prove--in court--that 'intelligent design' is nothing but a scam:
Q. Religious Right activists would have us believe that all evolutionists are atheists. Is this true?
A. Of course not. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the great evolutionary geneticists of the 20th century, was a professing Christian, as are scientists like Francis Collins, who directed the Human Genome Project. The tired stereotype of science vs. religion is often used as a weapon against the teaching of evolution in our schools, but it makes no logical sense. A recent survey of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the United States, showed that fully 40 percent believed in a God to whom one could pray, expecting an answer.
Q. As a Christian, do you ever find there is a conflict between your religious beliefs and your scientific work?
A. Certainly not in my own work. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, they should complement each other, not provoke conflict. To a person of faith, science is the activity of applying human reason to explore the work of God, and religion should support it completely.
Q. Are you optimistic that this battle can be won?
A. If I wasn’t an optimist, I wouldn’t be a scientist. Science is built around hope and faith – the hope that new discoveries and new ways of understanding are possible, and the faith that the world will be a better place as a result of that. If we apply those values to politics and popular culture, I am convinced that the American people will choose science every time. The outcomes of recent elections in states like Ohio and Kansas convince me that we can win the contest for public opinion – but only if we take our case directly to the people.
Well said! But it'd be nice if some Pagan scientists would speak up from time to time.
In order to honor Darwin's birthday, I'd like to post some snippets from the latest issue of Church & State Magazine, the zine of American's United. Please check out the above article, which is an interview with Kenneth Miller, who was a star witness in the landmark 'Kitzmiller v. Dover' case. Dr. Miller is one of the heroes who helped prove--in court--that 'intelligent design' is nothing but a scam:
Q. Religious Right activists would have us believe that all evolutionists are atheists. Is this true?
A. Of course not. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the great evolutionary geneticists of the 20th century, was a professing Christian, as are scientists like Francis Collins, who directed the Human Genome Project. The tired stereotype of science vs. religion is often used as a weapon against the teaching of evolution in our schools, but it makes no logical sense. A recent survey of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the United States, showed that fully 40 percent believed in a God to whom one could pray, expecting an answer.
Q. As a Christian, do you ever find there is a conflict between your religious beliefs and your scientific work?
A. Certainly not in my own work. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, they should complement each other, not provoke conflict. To a person of faith, science is the activity of applying human reason to explore the work of God, and religion should support it completely.
Q. Are you optimistic that this battle can be won?
A. If I wasn’t an optimist, I wouldn’t be a scientist. Science is built around hope and faith – the hope that new discoveries and new ways of understanding are possible, and the faith that the world will be a better place as a result of that. If we apply those values to politics and popular culture, I am convinced that the American people will choose science every time. The outcomes of recent elections in states like Ohio and Kansas convince me that we can win the contest for public opinion – but only if we take our case directly to the people.
Well said! But it'd be nice if some Pagan scientists would speak up from time to time.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The hand is quicker than the brain
While a Magician Works, the Mind Does the Tricks
According to some recent research, it appears much of a magician's art relies on gaps in our perception, which they have learned to exploit:
...a team of brain scientists and prominent magicians described how magic tricks, both simple and spectacular, take advantage of glitches in how the brain constructs a model of the outside world from moment to moment, or what we think of as objective reality...For the magicians...the collaboration provided scientific validation, as well as a few new ideas. For the scientists...it raised hope that magic could accelerate research into perception. “Here’s this art form going back perhaps to ancient Egypt, and basically the neuroscience community had been unaware” of its direct application to the study of perception, Dr. Martinez-Conde said...
There those darn Ancient Egyptians go again, figuring everything out thousands of years ago! Heh!
According to some recent research, it appears much of a magician's art relies on gaps in our perception, which they have learned to exploit:
...a team of brain scientists and prominent magicians described how magic tricks, both simple and spectacular, take advantage of glitches in how the brain constructs a model of the outside world from moment to moment, or what we think of as objective reality...For the magicians...the collaboration provided scientific validation, as well as a few new ideas. For the scientists...it raised hope that magic could accelerate research into perception. “Here’s this art form going back perhaps to ancient Egypt, and basically the neuroscience community had been unaware” of its direct application to the study of perception, Dr. Martinez-Conde said...
There those darn Ancient Egyptians go again, figuring everything out thousands of years ago! Heh!
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Burning Times, the Do-over
In the comments section of a post about Knoxville, Riverwolf relates the story of having the windows shot-out of a church he was visiting.
Nothing that frightening has ever happened to me. But coming out of a Goth/S&M club one night with a friend (I use to be active in that community), some character pitched a beer bottle at us from a passing car while yelling 'FAGS'. Certainly not comparable to gunshots, but at least somewhat unnerving.
While attending a horror convention in Denver in the mid-1990's, I remember discussing my fear that the Religious Right would focus on "the BDSM scene". Soon after my quasi prediction, such attacks came to pass. Hotels hosting BDSM events became the targets of boycotts. Cranky letters were published in local papers, "Do our neighbors know the Marriott Hotel is playing host to rapists, wife beaters, and perverts?", that sort of thing. Soon, Dominionist websites invested bandwidth to demonizing the lifestyle. S&M'ers became the poster children for all that's wrong with this country. (For some strange reason, the specifics of fisting and blood play held special fascination for the Religious right. This lead to some unintentionally funny reading, btw.)
Fortunately, the organization the National Organization for Sexual Freedom formed, an organization devoting battling misconceptions and propaganda aimed at the lifestyle. (But that's another story.).
I'm concerned our community (the Wiccan/Pagan one) is going to suffer increased attacks in the coming years. Just look at the recent flood of anti-Harry Potter hysteria. In the film "Jesus Camp" when the lead Dominionist brings up Harry Potter to the youthful crowd, she shouts (I'm paraphrasing), "You know what would happen to Harry Potter if he lived in the days of the Bible...HE'D BE PUT TO DEATH!". Dominionist literature pushes a horror film caricature of our belief systems, in order to scare people into believing we are crazy and dangerous.
But the Religious Right is not entirely alone in this. Atheist blogs often stereotype our beliefs, but fortunately they usually portray us as just harmless cranks. Many Atheists and skeptics are focused on the shortcomings of organized religion, so they reserve the balance of their angst for main stream faiths. (In fairness, I have to say I concur with most of their criticisms.) On the other hand, some others (termed Atheist Supremacists) hold a darker view, that being religion is like a disease which needs to be wiped out.
This brings me to the shooting at Knoxville. There's a fantastic piece at CrooksandLiars posted by Nicole Belle, guest blogged by NonnyMouse (a UUA member). I strongly encourage everyone to read it. NonnyMouse describes her church as noteworthy for its pacifism, compassion, tolerance, and welcoming nature towards any race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation. She intelligently acknowledges the man who perpetrated the Knoxville crime as ill and in need of help. He is not the focus of her anger. She finds a more deserving target:
...My anger instead is concentrated on those people who callously use such vulnerable people, stirring up their bigotry and discontent, egging them to acts of violence. People like Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh who have made lucrative careers out of liberal-bashing. People who write things like "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder", "Let Freedom Ring," and "The O'Reilly Factor," - all literature found in Adkisson's home after the shooting. People like Ann Coulter who advocated attacking liberals with baseball bats. The hate-filled spewage from the right-wing media mavens is and should be held accountable for inciting such acts of violence and murder, those heartless, soulless, conscienceless opportunists who have gleefully participated in encouraging the Adkissons of America to take out their anger and hatred and frustration on liberals...
Many of us were struck by the outpouring of support for the Unitarians coming from diverse spiritual circles. We have reason to be proud of our communities. As NonneMouse points out, the Unitarians are models for us all:
...I have never before been so proud to be a Unitarian, as well as a liberal. Those liberals the rightwing continue to denigrate as weak-kneed cowards proved to be anything but...
She describes the heroic actions of those that subdued the attacker, and how the very best qualities of humanity were on display. One victims wife, Amy, described Adkisson as:
...a man who was hurt in the world and feeling nothing was going his way. He turned the gun on people who were mostly likely to treat him lovingly and compassionately and be the ones to help someone in that situation...' How is it, that someone who needs so much help, would turn his hatred on the very sort of people most inclined to help him?
Over at Jeffrey Feldman's Framshop, there is "Taking a Stand against Rhetoric". Feldman is concerned with what he views as tolerance of violent rhetoric by traditional media, and even some left leaning new media. But:
...When female bloggers get an email from a right-winger threatening to rape them...the reaction is to take it seriously and call for it to stop--always...
Feldman then reminds us how everyone takes it seriously when others are targeted, such as African Americans or lesbians and gays. But he ask why is it that threats against liberals, or people expressing liberal views, are somehow taken less seriously? Feldman has a suggests what we can do about this:
...Now is the time for influential progressive bloggers who have not done so to put up a post that is 100% and clearly against violent rhetoric, and to state emphatically that it is an intolerable threat against women, gays, lesbians, people of color, and anyone else who voices their political views...
I agree. But that begs a question: Why is it that so many in the media seem to be downplaying the facts surrounding Knoxville? Why has his killer's choice of reading material been seemingly ignored. When Columbine and other school shootings happened, the media obsesses over what computer games the kids play or what music they listen too.
PZ Myers recently thrust himself into the controversy involving the desecration of a Catholic ritual. Fortunately, a number of people (from across the spiritual and skeptic spectrum) recognized these actions as bordering on hate speech. However, there also was some troubling rationalization (or downright encouragement) evident across much of the Atheist/Skeptic blogsphere. As discussed in Feldman's article, a raging double standard took hold on some upper tier blogs. For example Majikthise, who rightfully went to bat when a female blogger came under attack, came off as too eager to nullify the feelings of others. She decided to frame the episode (rather pedantically, in my opinion) as an exercise in free speech. Over at DailyKos, Darksyde also waxed poetic about PZ's right to free speech and the inanity of anyone taking offense. I guess religious or spiritual people don't deserve a base-line demonstration of human empathy.
We must speak out against violent rhetoric. Wiccans and Pagans are used to being targets of Dominionists. But I fear there is also a problem arising in the 'Atheist Supremacists'. Some seem to revel in an evangelizing Spock-like omniscience and hold everyone and everything to an absolutist philosophy. (Of course, I must point out that many Atheist/Skeptics are not like this. Many "A" bloggers did not post about the PZ Myers incident and seemed to wish the whole thing would go away.)
We need to be proactive. Of course, none of us wants to see more Knoxvilles, or be the target of a hate crime. But I fear--as the election nears--things will get worse. It's frightening to realize there's a big chunk of the US population that's threatened by people who are open and tolerant. But we can't allow our religion to be stereotyped or framed. Speak up if you see someone misrepresenting our views. Post a comment. Provide reference and links.
On a mailing list a number of years ago, I got into a bit of a flame war. The details are irrelevant, but I was told: "How dare you subject us to your open minded views!" How dare I! Well, I do dare. We all should.
Nothing that frightening has ever happened to me. But coming out of a Goth/S&M club one night with a friend (I use to be active in that community), some character pitched a beer bottle at us from a passing car while yelling 'FAGS'. Certainly not comparable to gunshots, but at least somewhat unnerving.
While attending a horror convention in Denver in the mid-1990's, I remember discussing my fear that the Religious Right would focus on "the BDSM scene". Soon after my quasi prediction, such attacks came to pass. Hotels hosting BDSM events became the targets of boycotts. Cranky letters were published in local papers, "Do our neighbors know the Marriott Hotel is playing host to rapists, wife beaters, and perverts?", that sort of thing. Soon, Dominionist websites invested bandwidth to demonizing the lifestyle. S&M'ers became the poster children for all that's wrong with this country. (For some strange reason, the specifics of fisting and blood play held special fascination for the Religious right. This lead to some unintentionally funny reading, btw.)
Fortunately, the organization the National Organization for Sexual Freedom formed, an organization devoting battling misconceptions and propaganda aimed at the lifestyle. (But that's another story.).
I'm concerned our community (the Wiccan/Pagan one) is going to suffer increased attacks in the coming years. Just look at the recent flood of anti-Harry Potter hysteria. In the film "Jesus Camp" when the lead Dominionist brings up Harry Potter to the youthful crowd, she shouts (I'm paraphrasing), "You know what would happen to Harry Potter if he lived in the days of the Bible...HE'D BE PUT TO DEATH!". Dominionist literature pushes a horror film caricature of our belief systems, in order to scare people into believing we are crazy and dangerous.
But the Religious Right is not entirely alone in this. Atheist blogs often stereotype our beliefs, but fortunately they usually portray us as just harmless cranks. Many Atheists and skeptics are focused on the shortcomings of organized religion, so they reserve the balance of their angst for main stream faiths. (In fairness, I have to say I concur with most of their criticisms.) On the other hand, some others (termed Atheist Supremacists) hold a darker view, that being religion is like a disease which needs to be wiped out.
This brings me to the shooting at Knoxville. There's a fantastic piece at CrooksandLiars posted by Nicole Belle, guest blogged by NonnyMouse (a UUA member). I strongly encourage everyone to read it. NonnyMouse describes her church as noteworthy for its pacifism, compassion, tolerance, and welcoming nature towards any race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation. She intelligently acknowledges the man who perpetrated the Knoxville crime as ill and in need of help. He is not the focus of her anger. She finds a more deserving target:
...My anger instead is concentrated on those people who callously use such vulnerable people, stirring up their bigotry and discontent, egging them to acts of violence. People like Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh who have made lucrative careers out of liberal-bashing. People who write things like "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder", "Let Freedom Ring," and "The O'Reilly Factor," - all literature found in Adkisson's home after the shooting. People like Ann Coulter who advocated attacking liberals with baseball bats. The hate-filled spewage from the right-wing media mavens is and should be held accountable for inciting such acts of violence and murder, those heartless, soulless, conscienceless opportunists who have gleefully participated in encouraging the Adkissons of America to take out their anger and hatred and frustration on liberals...
Many of us were struck by the outpouring of support for the Unitarians coming from diverse spiritual circles. We have reason to be proud of our communities. As NonneMouse points out, the Unitarians are models for us all:
...I have never before been so proud to be a Unitarian, as well as a liberal. Those liberals the rightwing continue to denigrate as weak-kneed cowards proved to be anything but...
She describes the heroic actions of those that subdued the attacker, and how the very best qualities of humanity were on display. One victims wife, Amy, described Adkisson as:
...a man who was hurt in the world and feeling nothing was going his way. He turned the gun on people who were mostly likely to treat him lovingly and compassionately and be the ones to help someone in that situation...' How is it, that someone who needs so much help, would turn his hatred on the very sort of people most inclined to help him?
Over at Jeffrey Feldman's Framshop, there is "Taking a Stand against Rhetoric". Feldman is concerned with what he views as tolerance of violent rhetoric by traditional media, and even some left leaning new media. But:
...When female bloggers get an email from a right-winger threatening to rape them...the reaction is to take it seriously and call for it to stop--always...
Feldman then reminds us how everyone takes it seriously when others are targeted, such as African Americans or lesbians and gays. But he ask why is it that threats against liberals, or people expressing liberal views, are somehow taken less seriously? Feldman has a suggests what we can do about this:
...Now is the time for influential progressive bloggers who have not done so to put up a post that is 100% and clearly against violent rhetoric, and to state emphatically that it is an intolerable threat against women, gays, lesbians, people of color, and anyone else who voices their political views...
I agree. But that begs a question: Why is it that so many in the media seem to be downplaying the facts surrounding Knoxville? Why has his killer's choice of reading material been seemingly ignored. When Columbine and other school shootings happened, the media obsesses over what computer games the kids play or what music they listen too.
PZ Myers recently thrust himself into the controversy involving the desecration of a Catholic ritual. Fortunately, a number of people (from across the spiritual and skeptic spectrum) recognized these actions as bordering on hate speech. However, there also was some troubling rationalization (or downright encouragement) evident across much of the Atheist/Skeptic blogsphere. As discussed in Feldman's article, a raging double standard took hold on some upper tier blogs. For example Majikthise, who rightfully went to bat when a female blogger came under attack, came off as too eager to nullify the feelings of others. She decided to frame the episode (rather pedantically, in my opinion) as an exercise in free speech. Over at DailyKos, Darksyde also waxed poetic about PZ's right to free speech and the inanity of anyone taking offense. I guess religious or spiritual people don't deserve a base-line demonstration of human empathy.
We must speak out against violent rhetoric. Wiccans and Pagans are used to being targets of Dominionists. But I fear there is also a problem arising in the 'Atheist Supremacists'. Some seem to revel in an evangelizing Spock-like omniscience and hold everyone and everything to an absolutist philosophy. (Of course, I must point out that many Atheist/Skeptics are not like this. Many "A" bloggers did not post about the PZ Myers incident and seemed to wish the whole thing would go away.)
We need to be proactive. Of course, none of us wants to see more Knoxvilles, or be the target of a hate crime. But I fear--as the election nears--things will get worse. It's frightening to realize there's a big chunk of the US population that's threatened by people who are open and tolerant. But we can't allow our religion to be stereotyped or framed. Speak up if you see someone misrepresenting our views. Post a comment. Provide reference and links.
On a mailing list a number of years ago, I got into a bit of a flame war. The details are irrelevant, but I was told: "How dare you subject us to your open minded views!" How dare I! Well, I do dare. We all should.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Antkythera Mechanism keeps rocking
Discovering How Greeks Computed In 100 B.C.
More and more is being deciphered about the amazing 'Antkythera Mechanism':
...After a closer examination of a surviving marvel of ancient Greek technology known as the Antikythera Mechanism, scientists have found that the device not only predicted solar eclipses but also organized the calendar in the four-year cycles of the Olympiad, forerunner of the modern Olympic Games...Only now, applying high-resolution imaging systems and three-dimensional X-ray tomography, have experts been able to decipher inscriptions and reconstruct functions of the bronze gears on the mechanism. The latest research has revealed details of dials on the instrument’s back side, including the names of all 12 months of an ancient calendar...
More and more is being deciphered about the amazing 'Antkythera Mechanism':
...After a closer examination of a surviving marvel of ancient Greek technology known as the Antikythera Mechanism, scientists have found that the device not only predicted solar eclipses but also organized the calendar in the four-year cycles of the Olympiad, forerunner of the modern Olympic Games...Only now, applying high-resolution imaging systems and three-dimensional X-ray tomography, have experts been able to decipher inscriptions and reconstruct functions of the bronze gears on the mechanism. The latest research has revealed details of dials on the instrument’s back side, including the names of all 12 months of an ancient calendar...
Friday, July 11, 2008
Name calling and Bullying II: PZ Myers channels Soupy Sales
It's a Frackin Cracker
Years ago, the TV comedian Soupy Sales cluelessly begged his young audience to search the pockets of their parents for "green paper", and to mail that green paper into him. It got him suspended for two weeks. It appears biologist PZ Myers is channeling Soupy Sales.
PZ Myers, scientist and outspoken critic of religion and all things spiritual, has composed a blog entry that many feel constitutes "Hate Speech". If you are familiar with some of Myer's anti-religious screeds, you knew this was coming. I'm not going to go over his post in detail, but it's the story of a prank-like theft of communion wafers from a University church, and the subsequent brew-ha-ha that ensued. The post is chuck full of Myer's normal rant against religion, using familiar snark and self-important snickering so endearing to his regular readers.
The portion of his screed which many feel crosses the line follows:
...So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out here score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address...
So this is the sparkling truth of Atheism! Now we understand more fully. This incident will certainly help the "A" cause. But I wish some of PZ Myer's ardent defenders would cut out the "he's just being funny" excuse, which is such a favorite of right wing ideologues like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Can I ask a question of Myers and all his fans? If you miraculously found yourself in Alexandria, at the moment of Hypatia's martyrdom, would you proudly display the bloody abalone shell you hold in your hands?
Sarcasm aside, I wish to assure my NeoPagan friends that PZ Myer's comments in no way represents the behavior of the majority of Atheists.
Myers asks for help from his community, asking his supports to inundate the dean of his college with notes of support, as he's feeling the heat right now. It's ironic that he asks people writing in to "Be polite and rational, too!" The polite and rational thing would be for PZ Myers to apologize.
Years ago, the TV comedian Soupy Sales cluelessly begged his young audience to search the pockets of their parents for "green paper", and to mail that green paper into him. It got him suspended for two weeks. It appears biologist PZ Myers is channeling Soupy Sales.
PZ Myers, scientist and outspoken critic of religion and all things spiritual, has composed a blog entry that many feel constitutes "Hate Speech". If you are familiar with some of Myer's anti-religious screeds, you knew this was coming. I'm not going to go over his post in detail, but it's the story of a prank-like theft of communion wafers from a University church, and the subsequent brew-ha-ha that ensued. The post is chuck full of Myer's normal rant against religion, using familiar snark and self-important snickering so endearing to his regular readers.
The portion of his screed which many feel crosses the line follows:
...So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out here score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address...
So this is the sparkling truth of Atheism! Now we understand more fully. This incident will certainly help the "A" cause. But I wish some of PZ Myer's ardent defenders would cut out the "he's just being funny" excuse, which is such a favorite of right wing ideologues like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Can I ask a question of Myers and all his fans? If you miraculously found yourself in Alexandria, at the moment of Hypatia's martyrdom, would you proudly display the bloody abalone shell you hold in your hands?
Sarcasm aside, I wish to assure my NeoPagan friends that PZ Myer's comments in no way represents the behavior of the majority of Atheists.
Myers asks for help from his community, asking his supports to inundate the dean of his college with notes of support, as he's feeling the heat right now. It's ironic that he asks people writing in to "Be polite and rational, too!" The polite and rational thing would be for PZ Myers to apologize.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Spiritual Scientists are speaking up
Science Finds God
Sharon Begley wrote an well researched article, illuminating the debate between science and religion:
...But now "theology and science are entering into a new relationship," says physicist turned theologian Robert John Russell, who in 1981 founded the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Rather than undercutting faith and a sense of the spiritual, scientific discoveries are offering support for them, at least in the minds of people of faith...
I've discussed before the inappropriateness, on display on many "A" and "ScienceBlogs" (who won't be linked here), of labeling anyone expressing even an inkling of spirituality or agnosticism 'crazy' or 'retarded'. The article addresses that concern:
...Today the scientific community so scorns faith, says Sandage, that "there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe...
So, some scientists are spiritually closeted! Wonderful! Grrr... But getting back to the article, it's only a matter of time before evolution raises its head:
...Evolution, say some scientist-theologians, provides clues to the very nature of God. And chaos theory...is being interpreted as opening a door for God to act in the world...
I think I have a better grasp of Chaos Theory, now that I know of the Machine Elves. The fact that Sharon's article appeared in the traditional media (Newsweek) indicates a hunger for the war between science and religion to end, or at least reach a truce.
Sharon Begley wrote an well researched article, illuminating the debate between science and religion:
...But now "theology and science are entering into a new relationship," says physicist turned theologian Robert John Russell, who in 1981 founded the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Rather than undercutting faith and a sense of the spiritual, scientific discoveries are offering support for them, at least in the minds of people of faith...
I've discussed before the inappropriateness, on display on many "A" and "ScienceBlogs" (who won't be linked here), of labeling anyone expressing even an inkling of spirituality or agnosticism 'crazy' or 'retarded'. The article addresses that concern:
...Today the scientific community so scorns faith, says Sandage, that "there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe...
So, some scientists are spiritually closeted! Wonderful! Grrr... But getting back to the article, it's only a matter of time before evolution raises its head:
...Evolution, say some scientist-theologians, provides clues to the very nature of God. And chaos theory...is being interpreted as opening a door for God to act in the world...
I think I have a better grasp of Chaos Theory, now that I know of the Machine Elves. The fact that Sharon's article appeared in the traditional media (Newsweek) indicates a hunger for the war between science and religion to end, or at least reach a truce.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
We are tolerant, dammit!
Survey Shows U.S. Religious Tolerance
I posted just the other day about misconceptions about Americans' beliefs. Here's another survey showing that Americans are not the religious dogmatists we are often portrayed as by the traditional media. Pew just came out with a survey contradicting many long held beliefs regarding religions and spiritual attitudes. From the NYTimes article:
"...The report, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, reveals a broad trend toward tolerance and an ability among many Americans to hold beliefs that might contradict the doctrines of their professed faiths..."
So people have a healthy attitude when confronting contradictions in their one faiths. But it gets better:
...70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life,” including majorities among Protestants and Catholics...
Now wait a second! Next they're going to claim that vast majority of us are not breathers of fire and brimstone...
...The findings seem to undercut the conventional wisdom that the more religiously committed people are, the more intolerant they are, scholars who reviewed the survey said...
I wonder who is responsible for shoving that 'conventional wisdom' down our throats for the last couple of decades? Could it be...the traditional media!
“...It’s not that Americans don’t believe in anything,” said Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University. “It’s that we believe in everything. We aren’t religious purists or dogmatists...”
Wow, that's a truly refreshing factoid. It's hard for me to believe that this is something new. I know that the last George Bush presidency has been a hard lesson in proving the titanic mistake of letting theo-cons run this country. Yet, changes in religious attitudes tend to morph slowly. I just have the strong suspicion, that whenever the traditional media has claimed to be surveying our religious and spiritual attitudes--everything from Creationism to 'separation of church-state' issues--what they have really been doing is 'push polling'. No! The traditional media pushing a dominionist right-wing agenda! Who'd a thunk?
Now here's a part that might have some bearing on all us Wiccans, Pagans, Atheists, and Scientists out there:
...According to that report, more than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion. The survey indicated that the group that had the greatest net gain was the unaffiliated, accounting for 16 percent of American adults...Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, 70 percent of the unaffiliated said they believed in God, including one of every five people who identified themselves as atheist and more than half of those who identified as agnostic.
So, 1 in 5 people who call themselves 'Atheist' believes in God! OK, now I'm confused! Maybe I need a refresher course in what being an Atheist means:
“..What does atheist mean? It may mean they don’t believe in God, or it could be that they are hostile to organized religion,” Mr. Green said. “A lot of these unaffiliated people, by some measures, are fairly religious, and then there are those who are affiliated with a religion but don’t believe in God and identify instead with history or holidays or communities...”
It's fascinating how Atheism is evolving. It may not necessarily imply (or require) a disbelief in God. A healthy "hostility to organized religion" is all it takes. I think that's something that many Wiccan's and Pagans can get behind.
Here's the direct Pew link: US Religious Landscape Survey.
I posted just the other day about misconceptions about Americans' beliefs. Here's another survey showing that Americans are not the religious dogmatists we are often portrayed as by the traditional media. Pew just came out with a survey contradicting many long held beliefs regarding religions and spiritual attitudes. From the NYTimes article:
"...The report, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, reveals a broad trend toward tolerance and an ability among many Americans to hold beliefs that might contradict the doctrines of their professed faiths..."
So people have a healthy attitude when confronting contradictions in their one faiths. But it gets better:
...70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life,” including majorities among Protestants and Catholics...
Now wait a second! Next they're going to claim that vast majority of us are not breathers of fire and brimstone...
...The findings seem to undercut the conventional wisdom that the more religiously committed people are, the more intolerant they are, scholars who reviewed the survey said...
I wonder who is responsible for shoving that 'conventional wisdom' down our throats for the last couple of decades? Could it be...the traditional media!
“...It’s not that Americans don’t believe in anything,” said Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University. “It’s that we believe in everything. We aren’t religious purists or dogmatists...”
Wow, that's a truly refreshing factoid. It's hard for me to believe that this is something new. I know that the last George Bush presidency has been a hard lesson in proving the titanic mistake of letting theo-cons run this country. Yet, changes in religious attitudes tend to morph slowly. I just have the strong suspicion, that whenever the traditional media has claimed to be surveying our religious and spiritual attitudes--everything from Creationism to 'separation of church-state' issues--what they have really been doing is 'push polling'. No! The traditional media pushing a dominionist right-wing agenda! Who'd a thunk?
Now here's a part that might have some bearing on all us Wiccans, Pagans, Atheists, and Scientists out there:
...According to that report, more than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion. The survey indicated that the group that had the greatest net gain was the unaffiliated, accounting for 16 percent of American adults...Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, 70 percent of the unaffiliated said they believed in God, including one of every five people who identified themselves as atheist and more than half of those who identified as agnostic.
So, 1 in 5 people who call themselves 'Atheist' believes in God! OK, now I'm confused! Maybe I need a refresher course in what being an Atheist means:
“..What does atheist mean? It may mean they don’t believe in God, or it could be that they are hostile to organized religion,” Mr. Green said. “A lot of these unaffiliated people, by some measures, are fairly religious, and then there are those who are affiliated with a religion but don’t believe in God and identify instead with history or holidays or communities...”
It's fascinating how Atheism is evolving. It may not necessarily imply (or require) a disbelief in God. A healthy "hostility to organized religion" is all it takes. I think that's something that many Wiccan's and Pagans can get behind.
Here's the direct Pew link: US Religious Landscape Survey.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Big win for Cosmologist-Priest
Priest-Cosmologist Wins $1.6 Million Templeton Prize
Here's something that must be pissing off the "A" crowd:
...The $1.6 million Templeton Prize, the richest award made to an individual by a philanthropic organization, was given Wednesday to Michael Heller, 72, a Roman Catholic priest, cosmologist and philosopher who has spent his life asking, and perhaps more impressively answering, questions like “Does the universe need to have a cause?”
I hear a collective grown over at Sciencblogs, heh:
...Michael Heller, 72, winner of this year’s prize. He says science and religion “are prerequisites of the decent existence...”
Well said. I like the concept of 'decent existence'. That's something to live up to. I wish more people were like this man. He is one of a growing number of science positive thinkers who are also deeply spiritual:
...Much of Professor Heller’s career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God. Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.” In a telephone interview, Professor Heller explained his affinity for the two fields: “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence...”
Here's something that must be pissing off the "A" crowd:
...The $1.6 million Templeton Prize, the richest award made to an individual by a philanthropic organization, was given Wednesday to Michael Heller, 72, a Roman Catholic priest, cosmologist and philosopher who has spent his life asking, and perhaps more impressively answering, questions like “Does the universe need to have a cause?”
I hear a collective grown over at Sciencblogs, heh:
...Michael Heller, 72, winner of this year’s prize. He says science and religion “are prerequisites of the decent existence...”
Well said. I like the concept of 'decent existence'. That's something to live up to. I wish more people were like this man. He is one of a growing number of science positive thinkers who are also deeply spiritual:
...Much of Professor Heller’s career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God. Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.” In a telephone interview, Professor Heller explained his affinity for the two fields: “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence...”
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Religion in America
Poll Finds a Fluid Religious Life in U.S.
Amazing survey of the religious attitudes of Americans, conducted by Pew. According to Michael Lindsay, of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University:
“...Religion is the single most important factor that drives American belief attitudes and behaviors...It is a powerful indicator of where America will end up on politics, culture, family life. If you want to understand America, you have to understand religion in America...”
That's a remarkable statement. One interesting fact is the rise of people who consider themselves 'unaffiliated'. However:
...The rise of the unaffiliated does not, however, mean that Americans are becoming less religious. Contrary to assumptions that most of the unaffiliated are atheists or agnostics, most described their religion “as nothing in particular...”
Amazing survey of the religious attitudes of Americans, conducted by Pew. According to Michael Lindsay, of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University:
“...Religion is the single most important factor that drives American belief attitudes and behaviors...It is a powerful indicator of where America will end up on politics, culture, family life. If you want to understand America, you have to understand religion in America...”
That's a remarkable statement. One interesting fact is the rise of people who consider themselves 'unaffiliated'. However:
...The rise of the unaffiliated does not, however, mean that Americans are becoming less religious. Contrary to assumptions that most of the unaffiliated are atheists or agnostics, most described their religion “as nothing in particular...”
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Spiritual Atheists
Andrew: When science and faith find common ground
Many of us are familiar with the great scientific writing of 'DarkSyde' over at DailyKos. DarkSyde has come out of the blogger closet with an article attacking the media driven dichotomy of Science Vs. Religion:
...Some of the most popular forms of Creationism attack not just biology, but geology, astronomy and physics with an endless array of recycled talking points, most of which were refuted before most of us were born...
That's a profound difference between science and religion. In science, bad ideas eventually die. It may take time, but eventually the truth comes out. But in religion (and politics), bad ideas take on a life of their own. Many of us who have been battling the Creationist for years keep seeing the same arguments rise from the dead, again and again, like zombies in some cheesie horror movie. But soon Andrew (aka: Darksyde)really hits his stride:
..But Creationism in all its many forms ignores that there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who have found find great comfort in the idea of a Creator that is consistent with science...
Of course, for striking this accommodating and fair tone, Andrew gets flamed by Movement Atheists. Most of it's a waste of bandwidth, except near the end there's and interesting post by someone named 'JanKees'.
Many of us are familiar with the great scientific writing of 'DarkSyde' over at DailyKos. DarkSyde has come out of the blogger closet with an article attacking the media driven dichotomy of Science Vs. Religion:
...Some of the most popular forms of Creationism attack not just biology, but geology, astronomy and physics with an endless array of recycled talking points, most of which were refuted before most of us were born...
That's a profound difference between science and religion. In science, bad ideas eventually die. It may take time, but eventually the truth comes out. But in religion (and politics), bad ideas take on a life of their own. Many of us who have been battling the Creationist for years keep seeing the same arguments rise from the dead, again and again, like zombies in some cheesie horror movie. But soon Andrew (aka: Darksyde)really hits his stride:
..But Creationism in all its many forms ignores that there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who have found find great comfort in the idea of a Creator that is consistent with science...
Of course, for striking this accommodating and fair tone, Andrew gets flamed by Movement Atheists. Most of it's a waste of bandwidth, except near the end there's and interesting post by someone named 'JanKees'.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
John Haught Vs The Movement Atheists
The Atheist Delusion
Can hope exist in a Godless universe? Is Darwinian evolution a boon to religion--not the final nail in the coffin, as Fundamentalists would have you believe? There's an excellent interview in Salon with John Haught, author of "God after Darwin", "Is Nature Enough?" and the forthcoming "God and the New Atheism". This man has the bone fides to adequately address both sides of the science verses religion argument:
...He was the only theologian to testify as an expert witness in the landmark 2005 Dover trial... Haught testified against intelligent design, arguing that it's both phony science and bad theology. But Haught is also a fierce critic of hard-core atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, who claim that evolution leads logically to atheism. He says both sides place too much faith in science. "Ironically," Haught writes, "ID advocates share with their ideological enemies, the evolutionary materialists, the assumption that science itself can provide ultimate explanations..."
I have good friends who are Atheists. But I think some should be mindful of the expression, "When you hunt dragons for too long, you become one yourself". One of Haught's peeves is the sloppy theology expressed in certain Atheist bestsellers:
...My chief objection to the new atheists is that they are almost completely ignorant of what's going on in the world of theology. They talk about the most fundamentalist and extremist versions of faith, and they hold these up as though they're the normative, central core of faith...They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christianity -- the theme of social justice, which takes those who are marginalized and brings them to the center of society. They give us an extreme caricature of faith and religion...
I would add that it's dangerous for people to define themselves primarily by what they are against. You risk the danger of becoming reverse image of your own straw man. Haught continues:
...The only thing new in the so-called new atheism is the sense that we should not tolerate faith because, by doing so, we open people's minds to any crazy idea -- including dangerous ideas like those that led to 9/11. In every other respect, this atheism is similar to the secular humanism of the modern period, which said that faith is incompatible with science, that religion and belief in God are bad for morality, and that theology should be purged from culture and academic life. These are not new ideas...
If I understand Haught correctly, he advocates a "layered" understanding of the universe. He gives this fun example:
...if a pot of tea is boiling on the stove, and someone asks you why it's boiling, one answer is to say it's boiling because H2O molecules are moving around excitedly, making a transition from the liquid state to the gaseous state. And that's a very good answer. But you could also say it's boiling because my wife turned the gas on. Or you could say it's boiling because I want tea. Here you have three levels of explanation which are approaching phenomena from different points of view. This is how I see the relationship of theology to science...
In the case of the boiling tea pot, all three "levels of explanation" enrich the answer as to why it's boiling. I guess this means that everyone should behave, and if anyone insists their explanation is the only reason the water is boiling--they don't get any tea! OUCH--I just burned my hand on the kettle! Heh!
Haught testified against Intelligent Design in the Dover Case. He makes a compelling case for spiritual people to embrace Darwin:
...Darwin's thought seems to be more important intellectually and culturally than it's ever been. My view is that theology, instead of ignoring or closing its eyes to it, should look it squarely in the face. It has everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. In my view, Darwin's thought is a gift to theology...
Haught address the issue of Gov. Mike Huckabee and his creationist comments:
...To admit that he "personally" rejects evolution may sound harmless enough at first sight. But when any Christians reject evolution these days, one may presume that they usually, though not always, do so on the basis of a literalist style of biblical interpretation. It's this that concerns me. Combined with the principle of private interpretation of Scripture, biblical literalism can end up short-circuiting the process of public debate, justifying almost any domestic and international policies one finds convenient. I don't know for sure that this is the case with Huckabee, but I'm still worried...
We all should be worried. I don't buy this "it's my personal" belief nonsense. That's like saying 'we hate the sin, not the sinner'. Thinking like that was a excuse to persecute witches: 'Oh, you are guilty of witchcraft, so we are going to burn you alive--but don't take it personally. We don't have anything against you--personally--it's the sin of witchcraft we are trying to eliminate. Hey, cheer up! Your body may be burnt up, but your soul will be saved in Heaven. So you should really look at it like we are doing you a favor.' Someone who is willing to discard heaps of evidence for something (in this case, evolution), and go with their personal views--is a dangerous person. They should not inhabit the highest office of the USA.
But I've already quoted too much from this wide ranging and informative interview. Please check it out yourself.
Can hope exist in a Godless universe? Is Darwinian evolution a boon to religion--not the final nail in the coffin, as Fundamentalists would have you believe? There's an excellent interview in Salon with John Haught, author of "God after Darwin", "Is Nature Enough?" and the forthcoming "God and the New Atheism". This man has the bone fides to adequately address both sides of the science verses religion argument:
...He was the only theologian to testify as an expert witness in the landmark 2005 Dover trial... Haught testified against intelligent design, arguing that it's both phony science and bad theology. But Haught is also a fierce critic of hard-core atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, who claim that evolution leads logically to atheism. He says both sides place too much faith in science. "Ironically," Haught writes, "ID advocates share with their ideological enemies, the evolutionary materialists, the assumption that science itself can provide ultimate explanations..."
I have good friends who are Atheists. But I think some should be mindful of the expression, "When you hunt dragons for too long, you become one yourself". One of Haught's peeves is the sloppy theology expressed in certain Atheist bestsellers:
...My chief objection to the new atheists is that they are almost completely ignorant of what's going on in the world of theology. They talk about the most fundamentalist and extremist versions of faith, and they hold these up as though they're the normative, central core of faith...They miss the moral core of Judaism and Christianity -- the theme of social justice, which takes those who are marginalized and brings them to the center of society. They give us an extreme caricature of faith and religion...
I would add that it's dangerous for people to define themselves primarily by what they are against. You risk the danger of becoming reverse image of your own straw man. Haught continues:
...The only thing new in the so-called new atheism is the sense that we should not tolerate faith because, by doing so, we open people's minds to any crazy idea -- including dangerous ideas like those that led to 9/11. In every other respect, this atheism is similar to the secular humanism of the modern period, which said that faith is incompatible with science, that religion and belief in God are bad for morality, and that theology should be purged from culture and academic life. These are not new ideas...
If I understand Haught correctly, he advocates a "layered" understanding of the universe. He gives this fun example:
...if a pot of tea is boiling on the stove, and someone asks you why it's boiling, one answer is to say it's boiling because H2O molecules are moving around excitedly, making a transition from the liquid state to the gaseous state. And that's a very good answer. But you could also say it's boiling because my wife turned the gas on. Or you could say it's boiling because I want tea. Here you have three levels of explanation which are approaching phenomena from different points of view. This is how I see the relationship of theology to science...
In the case of the boiling tea pot, all three "levels of explanation" enrich the answer as to why it's boiling. I guess this means that everyone should behave, and if anyone insists their explanation is the only reason the water is boiling--they don't get any tea! OUCH--I just burned my hand on the kettle! Heh!
Haught testified against Intelligent Design in the Dover Case. He makes a compelling case for spiritual people to embrace Darwin:
...Darwin's thought seems to be more important intellectually and culturally than it's ever been. My view is that theology, instead of ignoring or closing its eyes to it, should look it squarely in the face. It has everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. In my view, Darwin's thought is a gift to theology...
Haught address the issue of Gov. Mike Huckabee and his creationist comments:
...To admit that he "personally" rejects evolution may sound harmless enough at first sight. But when any Christians reject evolution these days, one may presume that they usually, though not always, do so on the basis of a literalist style of biblical interpretation. It's this that concerns me. Combined with the principle of private interpretation of Scripture, biblical literalism can end up short-circuiting the process of public debate, justifying almost any domestic and international policies one finds convenient. I don't know for sure that this is the case with Huckabee, but I'm still worried...
We all should be worried. I don't buy this "it's my personal" belief nonsense. That's like saying 'we hate the sin, not the sinner'. Thinking like that was a excuse to persecute witches: 'Oh, you are guilty of witchcraft, so we are going to burn you alive--but don't take it personally. We don't have anything against you--personally--it's the sin of witchcraft we are trying to eliminate. Hey, cheer up! Your body may be burnt up, but your soul will be saved in Heaven. So you should really look at it like we are doing you a favor.' Someone who is willing to discard heaps of evidence for something (in this case, evolution), and go with their personal views--is a dangerous person. They should not inhabit the highest office of the USA.
But I've already quoted too much from this wide ranging and informative interview. Please check it out yourself.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Presidential Debate: Science and Technology
A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology
After sitting through the recent disgraceful and Xtain pandering Republican candidate debate on CNN, this strikes me as a very good idea--actually asking candidates about issues of vital importance:
...As you watched the scores of U.S. Presidential debates, did you ever wonder why there has been no debate devoted to policy surrounding what may be the most important social issue of our time: Science and Technology...?
Yeah. I have wondered. It was really jaw-dropping watching Anderson Cooper lob softball "what would Jesus do" questions to preachers and Dominionists:
...We have noticed that science and technology lie at the center of a very large number of the policy issues facing our nation and the world - issues that profoundly affect our national and economic security...
And I might add 'our survival as a species', yet:
...as science and technology continue to transform our lives...We believe a debate on these issues would be the ideal opportunity for America and the candidates to explore our national priorities on the issues, and it is hard to imagine any candidate not wishing to be involved in such an occasion. Please join us and make Science Debate 2008 a reality...
(via Josh at TFK)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Evolutionary Conversion
Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin
Fun (and short) interview from Wired News with former Evangelical preacher Micheal Dowd, who now embraces Darwin. There's a number of interesting comments. When asked if 'evolutionary theology' might trump scriptural truths, Dowd answers:
...God didn't stop communicating truth vital to human well-being thousands of years ago, when people preserved insights on animal skins. God communicates through science. Facts are God's native tongue. Who of us would let a first-century dentist fix our children's teeth? Yet every day we let first-century theologians fill our children's brains...
Heh, that one's a keeper! I have to admit I'd like to see a 'fire and brimstone' pro-evolution revival meeting. If the spirit called me, I'd start knuckle walking around the tent! :)
Fun (and short) interview from Wired News with former Evangelical preacher Micheal Dowd, who now embraces Darwin. There's a number of interesting comments. When asked if 'evolutionary theology' might trump scriptural truths, Dowd answers:
...God didn't stop communicating truth vital to human well-being thousands of years ago, when people preserved insights on animal skins. God communicates through science. Facts are God's native tongue. Who of us would let a first-century dentist fix our children's teeth? Yet every day we let first-century theologians fill our children's brains...
Heh, that one's a keeper! I have to admit I'd like to see a 'fire and brimstone' pro-evolution revival meeting. If the spirit called me, I'd start knuckle walking around the tent! :)
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Peking Man, Science, and God
Faith, science, censorship, and the search for Peking Man
Excellent review of the book "The Jesuit and the Skull", about the man who discovered 'Peking Man':
...Teilhard De Chardin (1881-1955) helped uncover one of the most important scientific finds of the 20th century: Peking Man. The French scientist was working in China alongside an international team of anthropologists, geologists, and paleontologists in December 1929...
But Teilhard was a Jesuit priest, so his findings were subject to review and censorship by the Vatican:
...Not only did the Vatican censor Teilhard's groundbreaking scientific work in his own life, it continues to limit it...in 2006...documents containing the Vatican's decision to censor the French priest's work remained unavailable for review...
The book combines biography, the history of evolutionary thought, and the conflict between science and religion:
...Teilhard himself saw no contradiction between his role as a scientist and man of God. Indeed, he viewed evolution as bolstering his faith. In his "The Phenomenon of Man," censored during his lifetime, Teilhard wrote that "Man is not the centre of the universe as was naively believed in the past, but something much more beautiful - Man the ascending arrow of the great biological synthesis...
This book sounds like a must read.
Excellent review of the book "The Jesuit and the Skull", about the man who discovered 'Peking Man':
...Teilhard De Chardin (1881-1955) helped uncover one of the most important scientific finds of the 20th century: Peking Man. The French scientist was working in China alongside an international team of anthropologists, geologists, and paleontologists in December 1929...
But Teilhard was a Jesuit priest, so his findings were subject to review and censorship by the Vatican:
...Not only did the Vatican censor Teilhard's groundbreaking scientific work in his own life, it continues to limit it...in 2006...documents containing the Vatican's decision to censor the French priest's work remained unavailable for review...
The book combines biography, the history of evolutionary thought, and the conflict between science and religion:
...Teilhard himself saw no contradiction between his role as a scientist and man of God. Indeed, he viewed evolution as bolstering his faith. In his "The Phenomenon of Man," censored during his lifetime, Teilhard wrote that "Man is not the centre of the universe as was naively believed in the past, but something much more beautiful - Man the ascending arrow of the great biological synthesis...
This book sounds like a must read.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Deep in the Heart of...
Questioning “Intelligent Design” in Texas? You’re Fired.
Science bloggers let out a collective scream today. It seems Dominionists are up to their old tricks trying to subvert the education system of the USA (In Texas, no less! Who'd of thunk? Heh!): Bluegal at CrooksandLiars covers it well:
...Comer was put on 30 days paid administrative leave shortly after she forwarded an e-mail...announcing a presentation being given by Barbara Forrest, author of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” a book that says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Forrest was also a key witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case concerning the introduction of intelligent design in a Pennsylvania school district...
Of course, the person responsible for this latest stink is a Bush crony:
...The call to fire Comer came from Lizzette Reynolds, who previously worked in the U.S. Department of Education. She also served as deputy legislative director for Gov. George W. Bush. She joined the Texas Education Agency as the senior adviser on statewide initiatives in January...
Josh over at Thoughts from Kansas says it best:
...Horrors! The state's science curriculum supervisor supports … science!
Indeed, Comer was fired for exactly that radical interpretation of her job responsibilities...
Do check out Josh's post above, as he's posted Comer's original email.
Bluegal makes an interesting side observation:
...Update: Some commenters are taking offense that this post is anti-Christian. I wrote it. I’m a Christian (believing Quaker). A great many members of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State believe as I do that intelligent design is a specific attempt by Fundamentalists to inject religion into the public schools, and some of us also believe that if the State teaches the Bible they will misinterpret it for our children. Religious freedom requires freedom from anyone’s individual religious beliefs being force taught in the public schools as scientific fact...
Bravo Bluegal! As a fellow member of Americans United, I fully embrace the fact one can be spiritual yet support science. It's funny, but I sometimes get flack coming in the opposite direction, as some of my deep science geek friends can't fathom how I can be Wiccan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)