my own remarks

Stoned and Drunk and Messing with Tigers
There was an old lion in the Afghanistan zoo that was killed as somebody's mis-guided "political" act. I am not sure why the recent US tiger mauling death of the teenager has captured so much attention except for its being unusual. Teenagers die in significant numbers behind the wheel annually ever since the advent of the automobile, a fact that bio-fuels or other "green" policies will not mitigate. Before the automobile, testosterone took its toll in other ways.I am not willing to indite the whole society, though I think Modern America's love affair with adolescence sends unfortunate signals to the more gullible among young males.It is possible for teenage males to begin assuming something like real manhood, though most people define manhood in sexual terms (sadly). Redefine manhood as responsibility and, who knows, we might even find that "abstinence only" works rather more than now. Such a change would benefit young women as much as young men, taking the sexual pressure off young women of defining their self-esteem in sexual terms.We don't appeal strongly enough to the idealism of the young. Their idealism is by nature strong, but the fashionable factoids and truisms undermine it at every turn. And then, eventually, it's rather too late. posted 01/19/2008 at 12:57:14
When Men Become Primates
What am I even saying, "almost willing," heck I'm totally willing to credit you with Western Civ. Period.From across the pond, Muse posted 01/19/2008 at 18:10:56
Well, knowing that your a Brit I certainly don't want to stir up old arguments, though most of us have gotten past "the British are coming!" When we hear that now, we think it good news indeed. The whole question of old real estate claims is a tough one certainly. Interesting that you include my items as ones among the recent events. Given that modern Israel was formed in 1948, the events of the seventies are ones I'd called "old." But I'll not quibble about terms.Airplanes seem to figure significantly in the Arab imagination as durable symbols and while security measures related to air travel stiffen, terrorists still seems to prefer attacking aviation whenever possible.Your other point was about Communism. That would be an issue about which we agree.Unfortunately, whenever neighbors develop enough culture to have different styles of clothing and different eating habits, they seem to start plotting each others' doom. It's really not good.Could we (now I mean even particularly Americans) have NOT interfered with the Middle East? As soon as we stepped foot on Arab soil we were in some measure interfering.But now that I know you're British, I find it more difficult to argue. Anybody -- however remotely -- associated with Jane Austen and John Cleese is a friend of mine. I'm almost willing to give you Brits credit for "Civilization As We Know It." Best, Muse posted 01/19/2008 at 17:58:49
Woah! Don't mess is HS! posted 01/19/2008 at 17:32:24
You make some delightfully insightful observations! posted 01/19/2008 at 17:14:43
We've have strayed far from the topic, haven't we? We began by arguing whether terrorism could compare with war in terms of destruction.I think the real point is that terrorism leads to war. Each one of many incrementally worsening attacks against the West made the Iraq war more likely. Saddam was not involved in 9/11, but had there been no 9/11, there would have been no Iraq war --at least not on Bush's watch. Indeed, had there been no 9/11, it's questionable whether Bush would have been reelected. (But let's not yank the chain of conspiracy theorists.)Well, I suppose it's your serve. But let's not get carried away. Best wishes, Muse posted 01/19/2008 at 16:49:57
SprinkleI might have implied you were being fashionable in blaming the US. It is fashionable. Of course, this being the internet you could be from any place and my assumption that you're an American was wrong. But does it follow that you haven't benefited from the American Revolution? The US is the oldest modern democracy, and so its health or success does impact the rest of the world. As to terrorism, evidently we're not going to agree on definitions. Yes, terrorism is on the rise. It does however have a much longer history than you allow. I'm thinking about things like the Lockerbie explosion of 1988 killing 270 people, the 1972 killing of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes, the October 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship when terrorists kill a disabled wheelchair bound American tourist, 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, as well as less well publicized events within the Arab world against moderate Arab targets.Ends do not justify means and these attacks were completely unjust. posted 01/19/2008 at 16:41:43
"If it were not for the very real resentment," you do not think Bin Laden would be so influential. The rise of Bin Laden has its own casuality that may have little to do with any of the rest. Had he not been heir to a tremendous fortune, he would not have had the influence he does/did. Had Sayyid Qutb stayed in Egypt, married, been less uptight history might have played out rather differently. Had the Soviets not invaded Afghanistan, and etc. The US (under the Clinton administration) was passionately in pursuit of a peace between Israel and Palestine even while Bin Laden and Co. were plotting their attack on the World Trade Center. They had already destroyed two African embassies and bombed the USS Cole. So obviously peace between Israel and Palestine was not high on their list, though Bin Laden has always used the Palestinian cause to stir his pot.The idea of nationhood does not have validity for him. The earth belongs to Allah, the whole region of the Mediterranean all the way to Spain rightfully belongs to Islam. Even over here we are supposed to learn the Koran, and I don't know about you, but I am supposed to don a veil, a burka, or whatever.However, if Bin Laden's father had not become very rich working for the Saudi royal family things might have been quite, quite different. He has spurned his wealth. But it had to be there first before it could be spurned, didn't it? posted 01/19/2008 at 16:28:01
Sprinkle,I figured I'd get another volley in our tennis match. Your first paragraph:Well, you raise in interesting point, though the "Middle East" is obviously not a problem you and I will solve with our debate.Notably, the European Jews would perhaps not have needed an Israeli state had they not been treated so shabbily in their European countries. So some unjustifiable means and ends can have far reaching consequences -- a point that you were trying to make earlier. However, Israel is historically a Jewish homeland of very ancient pedigree. In any case, it is a democracy and has opened itself to Jews from all over the world. But Isreal would, I think, have possibly welcomed Arabs also if it were not under threat. You cannot realistically expect Israeli Jews to include Muslims into their culture if it means their own destruction. posted 01/19/2008 at 16:16:19
Religions are not spiritual at all. In the plural, how is "it" anything but an abstraction? And as to what individual believers find of worth in their myriad different dogmas and rituals, how are you in any position to know? Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to judge the spiritual condition of billions of other people that you don't even know. Got to tell you, AlphaDoc, you're sounding a little haughty.The feeling of superiority is very much evident in your own remarks. posted 01/19/2008 at 15:48:55
I'd be curious what aspects of Dawkins's biological statements you think demonstrate anything substantive about religion (or perhaps even about biology). I once began reading "The God Delusion." However I'll admit I didn't get very far into it. His arguments lacked any substance that I could find. He doesn't so much make a weak argument as make no argument at all.I lack information to judge whether his biology is scientific (there's not a lot of biology in his book). His commentary on religion, though, is definitely not scientific. It is rhetorical. And it's rather weak and paltry rhetoric at that.But if you can provide actual quotes that show otherwise, I'd be interested to see them. posted 01/19/2008 at 15:45:40
HeevenStevenSomewhere around here I referred to atheism as one of the religions. And I got caught by Dap.And now he's threatening to feed me to the lions. Yikes.Muse (here kitty, kitty) posted 01/19/2008 at 15:36:17
Nommo and Merlin7I said I don't believe without evidence, however I am not claiming that my evidence would be persuasive for you. Actually my strongest evidence for God is also personal and not something I'm going to publish even under a pseudonym.But I think the question here -- it is the issue you raised Merlin7 -- is how my belief harms you.Living in a free society, I'm permitted my belief in God and you're permitted your opinion that religion is superstition. That's the whole point of a free society being free: that individuals find their own path to truth. posted 01/19/2008 at 15:33:37
Our inference in the Middle East does, I grant, factor into their anger. However our interference is not all negative. Putting McDonalds into Saudi Arabia is something we could have done without. But our support for Isreal, as a democratic country, serves our own national interest. And by far the great threat the West poses to the Middle East is feminism, an ideology which completely undermines the foundation of their present culture.Bin Laden's political, religious philosophy grows out of the writings of Sayyid Qutb who formed his own anti-Western animosity by witnessing church suppers in Colorado in the late 40s.The Middle East does have its own history and not everything that happens there (or elsewhere) is a reaction to US policy. Though al Quida is, oddly, a reaction of sorts to mid-western mores of the innocent Truman era, strange as it may seem. If a "Leave it to Beaver" world was beyond the pale, one can only imagine the reaction to the contemporary chronicles of Brittany and Madonna.In any case, it's helpful to recall that Bin Laden's idea of the well run state was Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. Kind of puts it into perspective. posted 01/19/2008 at 12:15:22
Sprinkle,When a truck bomb that explodes outside a Shite Mosque, a bomb that has been put there by Sunnis, that is not Uncle Sam's fault. Nor is it a credit to Saddam that by killing Shites himself, he kept the rest of Sunni anger at bay. Unfortunately, it's fashionable to blame every bad thing that happens around the planet on the US, but the conflicts between various Muslim groups have long histories going back to before there even was a US. We are seeing the coincidence of very old animosities with 21st century technology.Jihad against the West is fairly novel. Terrorism against Islamic targets is not new. Most terrorism prior to the first al Quida was directed at moderate Arab nations. It wasn't as newsy an item at the time, and terrorism has become progressively more sophisticated and deadly.I won't argue that the US military isn't a very formidable force. But the US military has goals, ones which don't include attacking civilians. posted 01/19/2008 at 12:15:03
DerikApropos: "Let us for sake of arguement, say that god exists. Then, I am now faced with figuring out which one. i.e. Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist (yup, they have a not-god as opposed to no-god), and whatnot'I'm glad you raise this excellent question, however I am wondering how you think the question is answered in regard to science, a discipline where exactly the same problem of multiple theories arises. In physics "super-string" theory there are a whole bag full of theories, different ones dependent upon different numbers of dimensions and different ways of solving equations. [String theory has as yet no coroborating experimental data to support any of its competing theories.]So should the scientists just say, "this is too hard," pack up their cookies and go home?What's the difference? posted 01/19/2008 at 11:06:57
Theses headlines come from today's Washington Post on line:Bush urges fast tax aid to boost economy.Egypt to rule on phone-message divorce.Chess genius Fischer dies.DHS to unveil new disaster response plan.Did it. And I don't see that "belief in the supernatural with no evidence whatsoever to justify such belief" plays any role in the headlines.Merlin7, dear. You haven't provided any evidence yourself. I for one do not believe in the supernatural "with no evidence." I have evidence. So I'm not going to "move beyond religion." I have religion and reason. As I see it, though, you haven't quite got reason yet. If you had, there wouldn't be a blank "tah dah!" between your first paragraph and your last.You still need to do your homework. Lots of homework.posted 01/19/2008 at 11:01:07
You can judge Mother Theresa in her own words if you think judgment is necessary.http://florida.x-to-y.info/video_cbLS-vivKf0.htmlThen compare her with her critic.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5kWhich one do you think exhibits more peace of mind and more integrity? posted 01/19/2008 at 10:43:52
dissolvethecorporationRegarding "inevitability" -- your assertion needs a little evidence to back it up. Inevitably, human beings get into conflict. Human beings are granted the ones who practice religions. But they also play Monopoly. Perhaps we should get rid of board games. It might be that they provoke delusions of grandeur.Bach wrote mountains of some of the world's best music as an outpouring of religious faith. Michelangelo painted the Sistine ceiling. Faith has inspired literature, science (cranky Newton was nonetheless very religious), medicine, and innumerable other great good achievements. Show me the atheist who is writing some great string quartets and get back to me. posted 01/19/2008 at 08:51:29
Third grade teachers use threats of fear and would use Hell also if they had it available as a resource (something that perhaps the NEA should look into). But every major religion has a vision of an ideal that attracts believers. Your idea of a typical church is about 100 years out of date. A lot of people wander into church merely to socialize. It's an impure motive perhaps, but not such a bad one. Curiosity is a motive. Need and loneliness are motives. I think there are as many motives as there are individual people. As for fairy tales, even fairy tales have a deeper meaning for whoever chooses to look more closely into them. What's wrong with creating meaning through stories? posted 01/18/2008 at 21:20:33
Better warn the lions that I'm a vegetarian. They'd get more protein by eating the atheists. Sly Dapper Dap. posted 01/18/2008 at 21:14:16
SprinkleThe uniforms signal to someone that a military operation is in progress. I suppose one could say that it provides a warning and a chance to stay alive to those of good will. But a suicide bomber purposely tries to look like everybody else in order to kill innocent parties.I do not accept that Iraqi deaths are "ultimately" tied to the invasion. Iraq had plenty of death going on before the Marines showed up. Indeed, the Marines are working to restore order.The American Revolutionary War of which I presume you are now a beneficiary lasted 6 years. Too bad you won't allow Iraqis their own shot at freedom.Islamic terrorism has been plenty bloody for a very long time and grows increasingly violent. Maybe you need to do some remedial research. Evidently you weren't paying attention prior to Iraq. Oh, by the way, I wouldn't assume that the Islamic terrorists are "done." posted 01/18/2008 at 21:12:55
Your doing the same thing Hitchens does, applying your ideology to Mother Theresa. Maybe it wasn't poverty she was trying to eradicate. After the Indians are well-off, I suppose they can find meaning in watching television and going shopping. She saw in their poverty something that Hitchens cannot see: an opportunity to offer love, a kind of love that has nothing to do with self. What Mother Theresa chose to perpetuate was a spiritual vision of life that goes beyond the pocket book and the transient moment. posted 01/18/2008 at 21:05:48
I think your indignation is misdirected. One can admire animals and still recognize the fundamental dis-similarity between human beings and other primates, unless of course your primates have developed the string quartet. At best your comments pay tribute to the beauty of nature. At worst they ignore science, history, art, mathematics and all the ways that humans are very un-animal-like and somewhat "God" like. posted 01/18/2008 at 21:02:19
I think he's trying to show that human failings are not the fault of any one group, that everybody shares some blame. And every faith (I'll include atheism as one of the faiths, hoping my atheist friends will forgive the analogy) -- every faith has its core truths too.It's a glass half empty, half full, kind of thing. The point is that religions need to continually renew themselves, make sure they are doing all that they can do to make the glass's contents something that is healthy to drink. posted 01/17/2008 at 20:20:11
You are conveniently conflating numbers here. Many of Iraqi deaths in the fighting are the result of terrorism. Huge numbers of Iraqi deaths are the result inter-Arab terrorism. Also, there is enormous difference between a soldier wearing a uniform and a combattant who looks just like everybody else and who strikes without warning. And the danger is chiefly felt by a civilian population.You seriously need to rethink this. Your bias makes your mathematics meaningless. posted 01/17/2008 at 20:14:14
That's unfair. These are just labels. To put an equal sign between Bush, who you don't like, and every Christian is ridiculous. I voted for Bush and respect the role his faith has played in his decision making. But we are not clones. (See Alec Baldwin today for the whole clone thing. And Bon Apetite!)PS, eat local, support sustainable agriculture and small, diverse farming, check out the farmer's markets and learn how you can make a difference in your own community. Plant a garden! Befriend wild animals. Sometimes to make "progress" means rediscovering the beauty of the past. posted 01/17/2008 at 19:31:15
Amen posted 01/17/2008 at 19:23:15
Pride goeth before a fall. The other primates aren't destroying the planetary habitat. What's so superior about our present situation, post-Descartes? I'd say, "It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into." Though I'm not sure the other primates will be laughing after we've driven them into extinction. posted 01/17/2008 at 19:20:14
ForwardtoYesterdaySeeing humans as "just animals" completely ignores, by what one takes to be almost a willful blindness, what animals are and what human beings are while we're discussing being and essence....Human beings are the only creatures that are paving planet earth, going to war,killing their offspring before birth, polluting the air, constantly dissing each other and gradually eliminating biodiversity. In fairness they are also the only ones doing the cha cha, studying black holes, curing diseases,and planting gardens.I cannot even imagine by what means you wisk all this aside in favor of the song of evolution. Are we randomly fated to write poetry or wreck havoc with the planet?Unlike the animals, human beings are purposeful, purpose-creating creatures. We don't "have" to do anything that we do. We choose. And what we have chosen, we can unchoose.Ever seen a detour sign? That's one of man's remarkable creations: the sign that tells you to turn around when the path ahead is not working.posted 01/17/2008 at 19:15:43
These are your definitions of religion. What makes you suppose they have any relevance for religious people. I don't observe my fellow Christians being motivated by fear of punishment, unless by that you mean their own wounded sense of integrity when they act wrongly. And what makes that so different from the motivations of non-religious people, who also have ethical motives and a sense of conscience?posted 01/17/2008 at 19:01:24
I wouldn't assume so readily that the "flaws" that Hitchens used to slander Mother Theresa were ever true at all. Certainly Hitchens is incapable of, for instance, understanding that money has a completely different meaning for someone like Mother Theresa. Take her accepting money from disreputable sources -- perhaps Mother Theresa was not concerned about Hitchenian categories of worthiness. Seeing the God can sanctify life changes the worth and meaning of everything. She not only saw the worth of India's most desperate poor, she saw the worth of corrupt rulers and believed that God could redeem them both. posted 01/17/2008 at 18:57:48
New Menu in Capitol Cafeterias Ruffles Conservative Feathers
I wish people on both sides would stop trying to politicize things like food, clean air, morality, kindness.There are, believe it or not, some things that most people agree on, if you seek agreement. [Well, except for people who LIVE to disagree.]If the diners at the cafeteria like the food, they'll buy it and that's great. If the cafeteria encourages recycling and wise energy policy, so much the better. If the conservative talking heads are trying to politicize this, shame on them. To the extent that you are doing the same thing, shame on you.It's time to seek the moderate center in American politics. It's past time. All this arguing is bad for the national digestion. posted 01/19/2008 at 12:28:17
Oh, No! Are Biofuels Just Garbage?
RTIIII am not aware that anybody "runs" Christianity, except God -- and he's not the one with the asphalt. Sorry the Christian brand is a turn off for you, but you aren't giving other religions much credit if you are suggesting that they don't also have ideas of proper stewardship, since I'm quite sure they do.Meanwhile, ecology is a problem in countries that have barely heard of Christianity. It's pretty much of an equal opportunity problem and it requires an equal sharing of responsibility. posted 01/18/2008 at 20:39:12
The fuel question misses a much larger problem. Energy policy in this country is the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees (well, except for the fact that we're cutting all the trees down ....)Friends, no matter what you use for fuel, I don't care if the most pristine oxygen/nitrogen mixture perfect for breathing is the bi-product of the combustion, it still doesn't solve the problem of roads. We are paving every square foot of the planet because of our notion that every man, woman and child (think kid's ATVs) has to have wheels. Where do the animals live (or are animals permitted to live?) when we eliminate all their habitats? People are worried about polar bears ... where I live "ordinary" North American mammals like deer, possom, foxes, racoons, beavers are finding fewer and fewer places to live. Soon "bio-diversity" in the mid-Atlantic will consist of cats, dogs and squirrels.This could be the bi-partisan issue that it once was if Democrats and Republicans could ever stop loathing each other long enough to ask some really deep "quality of life" questions, such as: how much shopping can human beings really do?Some people need to stay home, walk, enjoy nature. But walking can be as hazardous to humans as it is to animals.We hear a lot on Huff Po about casualities in Iraq, but all the death in Iraq hardly compares to the mortality figures from highway deaths in any typical year. Why aren't people stirred up about that? posted 01/17/2008 at 18:19:36
The FDA's Dangerous Cloned Beef Decision
This sounds good, but you're over-looking something very basic: real food doesn't come with labels. We're so used to food coming in a package that we've forgotten this.Fruits and vegetables don't grow with labels. And cows, chickens and pigs aren't born with labels. But the farther we are from where food is produced, the more we need the label. Get closer to the farm and you reduce your reliance on the labels. Yes, of course, we need them! But do you see my point?Gardening is still a satisfying thing. Even if it's just one potted something in a kitchen window. I guess I'm talking about a relationship to things. Our food economy can change. It won't happen over night. But the more we rethink the whole question of what food is, how it connects us in society, what it means to share a meal around a table, to pick up some soil and realize that we depend upon the health of this dirt for our health -- well all that kind of thing moves us in a better direction. posted 01/19/2008 at 14:18:53
I'm a vegetarian, but you could not pick me out of a carnivore lineup. Don't know who your ghosts are, but I'm eating a very delicious and varied diet. And I'm very sturdy.It's not just for rabbits anymore! posted 01/19/2008 at 14:08:03
Great! But it still affects you whether you eat it or not. The mass production of beef takes land away from other kinds of farming. Chicken excrement (sorry to have to bring this up) from chicken farms has been polluting the Chesapeake Bay (my region) and hurting the natural species of animals who call the Bay their home throughout the Bay watershed.The effects of these things branch out. But wisdom is wisdom. Whenever we do things smart, the smart effects fan out too.So, everybody needs to look at this regardless how they eat and realize that the way we feed ourselves affects other aspects of our lives -- and affects the animals too! posted 01/19/2008 at 14:03:54
What makes you think we are not worried about genetically alterred veggies. We are worried. And we should be worried. posted 01/19/2008 at 13:57:42
dsgeorge, You put the word "engineered" into quotes. And wisely, you did. Shaping breeds of corn by polination is not the same thing as alterring its basic genetic structure. In contrast, the genetic modification of species is an entirely new endeavor whose long-term consequences are completely unknown. Many are the old fashioned man-made intrusions into Nature that have gone awry. What makes you think that the most radical interference in natural processes won't be expontially worse? However by the time we know why we should not be tampering with life, we will be already suffering the unfortunate consequences.posted 01/19/2008 at 13:56:31
And if I did resume eating meat, it would be nice to know that the animals were healthy without being fed hormones, were living in a clean natural environment, and that they got a chance to just be themselves before they were slaughtered. A chicken needs to be a chicken if human beings are going to really be human beings. posted 01/19/2008 at 13:44:02
Michie62 I hope people are heeding your advice. When they do buy foods closer to the farm, they benefit themselves and the farmer both in numerous ways: in more nutritious, better tasting food, in economic benefit to their region, in better land use policies, and in the satifaction of living a more ethical life. Organic meat from small farms costs more than its factory-produced alternative, but you get what you pay for. What's more, the fact is that people eat too much meat: they eat more protein than their bodies are designed to metabolize. Having to pay more for meat can translate into healthier eating habits: into eating less meat and eating meat in a more "natural" diet of moderation and balance.Obesity is going to be one of the number one killers of the present generation if folks don't start changing their habits fast. The price tag for obesity-related deaths in adults and children is going to affect health care costs for everybody, fat or slim. And the hidden costs of having a huge segment of our population hopelessly "out of shape" is going to catch up with us in more ways than we can imagine. This is one issue where making progress involves taking a U-turn, relearning our natural relationship to the land. How we eat reveals a lot about our relatedness to the rest of the planet. Fixing our eating habits can be a first step toward fixing our estrangement from Nature. We don't have to live life in a "shop until you drop" kind of way. It's possible to find meaning in small things. And it can begin right at the dinner table! We need a more Spartan life -- one of eating lean and eating smart. I'll confess that I'm a vegetarian, but the meat eating habits of others impacts me, too, since the monoculture approach to modern food has a ripple affect through the whole economy. posted 01/19/2008 at 13:43:45
People do have a say. You can vote. And you can support farmers who produce organic, natural products and boycott those who don't. posted 01/18/2008 at 20:50:57
Splashy, It's another reason for people to support local farmers and the growing movement toward smaller scale, sustainable, closer to the consumer farming. When you are getting food from local suppliers you can ask them up front what they do and don't put into foods. I recommend everybody look into the "Edible" communities, regionally published magazines that are leading the way toward making food natural again! posted 01/18/2008 at 20:49:25
Mr. Fitz,I respectfully disagree. Decisions to smoke, engage in drunken debachery, or to eat oneself into obesity, etc., might seem like "personal behaviors," but each one leads to public health consequences. And everybody, particularly those who made other choices, end up footing the bill.Similarly, one beef producer's decision to use clones is not an isolated decision. Taking the scenerio already mentioned as one instance, a herd of clones having the same vulnerability to a particular disease organism could by virtue of their numbers alone impact how non-cloned animals come into contact with disease, or could provide a vector for a particular organism to develop heightened virulence.I'm asking myself what are the perceived benefits of this technology? The inherent dangers of monoculture are fairly obvious.It looks to me like a move similar to the one that created mad cow disease, a virtually man-made disease caused by feeding herbivores to each other -- something that would never have occured in nature!Buyer beware. Diners beware!posted 01/17/2008 at 18:01:22
Ignoring Iraq: Why Has it Become the Forgotten Issue of the '08 Race?
The democrats should ignore the Iraq war since they have already eliminated from their contest the only candidates with any genuine experience in foreign policy. posted 01/19/2008 at 11:11:43
Atheism as a Stealth Religion III: Four Questions and Six Possible Answers
But the Christian assertion is that God cares about the whole of creation ... knows when the sparrow falls. posted 01/17/2008 at 20:03:47
Dapper Dap,What a lovely, thoughtful ... essay... I guess that's what it is really. You raise so many ideas that I'm really quite at a loss to comment. I would need to "muse" over them quite a bit more than I can just now, writing with one foot out the door. Perhaps some of the others will. I'll post this also at the top of the page hoping they'll scroll down and find your remarks.People are affected certainly by which door they enter ideas. I was not raised a Christian, which no doubt alters the ways I see it.Anyway I have been very intrigued, at times moved, by the comments of the atheists even while not sharing their perspective.As to science, I think Dr. Wilson would get more mileage from his ideas by narrowing the focus a lot. But then I don't know what his purpose was in creating the blog, perhaps to gauge the reactions of this audience to the topic in its most general terms.I think each person has to find his own way with honest inquiry and so perhaps the atheists have to be atheists and I have to be a Christian. It is certainly enlightening -- there's a word we all like -- to hear these various ideas batted back and forth.Agape. Muse posted 01/17/2008 at 11:09:46
Dapper Dap,What a lovely, thoughtful ... essay... I guess that's what it is really. You raise so many ideas that I'm really quite at a loss to comment. I would need to "muse" over them quite a bit more than I can just now, writing with one foot out the door. Perhaps some of the others will. I'll post this also at the top of the page hoping they'll scroll down and find your remarks.People are affected certainly by which door they enter ideas. I was not raised a Christian, which no doubt alters the ways I see it.Anyway I have been very intrigued, at times moved, by the comments of the atheists even while not sharing their perspective.As to science, I think Dr. Wilson would get more mileage from his ideas by narrowing the focus a lot. But then I don't know what his purpose was in creating the blog, perhaps to gauge the reactions of this audience to the topic in its most general terms.I think each person has to find his own way with honest inquiry and so perhaps the atheists have to be atheists and I have to be a Christian. It is certainly enlightening -- there's a word we all like -- to hear these various ideas batted back and forth.Agape. Muse posted 01/17/2008 at 11:09:19
If God exists and created the humans, believe me, he has a sense of humor. posted 01/16/2008 at 17:51:11
I have a sneaking feeling that the idea of there being no god is actually quite old. The Ancient-Greek-And-Romans were very clever. They seemed to anticipate, in various ways, lots of "modern" notions.But I would just add (long-winded woman that I am) I still argue that even supposing Milton were WRONG, that one gets more out of one page of Milton than of a whole library of the law firm of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens even if the latter were etched into galactic stone tablets somewhere.Milton has a great mind, a roving and sensitive eye (until he goes blind), a great ear and a pocket full of intense questions. Give me Milton any day. Though as Karen Armstrong points out, Milton has his moments of tedium. Hey, even Homer nods from time to time. posted 01/16/2008 at 17:48:00
And the human "mind" is not much easier to deal with than "God," by the way.posted 01/16/2008 at 17:33:53
I'm throwing out another question along the lines of "intelligent design." I am inspired by Wondering's comment: "One of the problems with positing a supernatural is that the supernatural, if it existed, would be totally unknowable."Again, let's remove God from the equation for the sake of blogger harmony. In fact science has already done this for us. Anybody have a serious problem with the idea of intelligent other species, space aliens, etc.? How would we recognize "intelligence" coming from some interstellar radiation source? Could it be possible that a signal created by another life form is already within in the range of our technology but we do not recognize the pattern, the design, the architecture of it? In such a case the signal would not be "knowable" -- to echo Wondering's question. Yet no one here would argue that our inability to recognize the signal would mean that the intelligent civilization that created it doesn't exist. They would still exist. We just wouldn't know that they existed even though we had some access to their signal.The religious assertion is that evidence of God exists, but it's interpretation is in various ways limited. Of course, different religions offer different interpretations of this idea. And this idea that I have just expressed would like wise read a little differently in put into different languages. However, some common ground among religions (and languages) is there.As to the flip side, the atheist explaination needs to find causes for the visible order of systems. Why does science uncover various kinds of order and how does this order arise? Like prime numbers, how does this idea come about? Is the notion of primes a human creation? And even if it somehow were, how does it appear in even the human mind? We're part of the universe, too, after all.The question of subjectivity trips up science, with or without "God." Indeed, if you remove the monotheistic notion (or various other notions) of "God," "the mind" quickly rushes in to fill the vacumn. posted 01/16/2008 at 17:33:09
Strauss asks lots of questions even when he makes assertions. What he is saying is difficult to figure out, particularly as he makes a big thing of "esoteric" verses "exoteric" writing.By the way, some of Strauss's students [followers, disciples, critics, etc.] claim that Strauss was an atheist. But that also is unclear. posted 01/16/2008 at 17:09:07
Yes, Wondering, I would love Milton even if you persuade me to let go the idea of God. But, that does not let anybody off the hook here. Remove God from the equation and we still face huge problems trying to understand the universe. Subjectivity is, in the main, the problem. Explaining subjectivity.Best, Muse posted 01/16/2008 at 11:22:39
Brother Dap, You still mistake my meaning. I believe in God and so far no one has dissuaded me so I'm quite secure. But others are making arguments as though the God question was settled. I don't agree, but fine -- I can play along. Without God, one still has lots of questions to answer. I do not see that "nature" is even being defined. Wilson's implied definition of nature is completely inadequate and his comments about religion are one of the bits of evidence that reveal the inadequacy (though the problem is certainly not limited to "explaining" religion).The problem I see here is actually a scientific one. That Wilson's questions are too broad and consequently lack any meaningful focus. Take religion alone and people spend whole careers studying Thomas Aquinas. Trying to throw together serious intellects like Aquinas, with the Pentacostal Holiness church around the corner, with all the Hindus in India and God (pun intended) knows what little obscure religion deep in the forrests of someplace -- what does all this tell us? Biologically, it's like trying to understand warthogs by studying the life cycles of alligators and mosquitos. Pick one. But even picking one, you can easily get lost by the complexity of the one.You see, dear Dap, it's the science that I'm taking issue with here. Where's the science? Give me a replicable experiment.Muse posted 01/16/2008 at 11:18:05
I do think the books are wrong. I also think they are too light weight to even possibly be correct, that they make all the silly straw man arguments. The serious argument for atheism is what one wants to see and grapple with. Who do you see making the serious argument, Wondering? posted 01/16/2008 at 11:08:49
Ironic when true, but Strauss had lots of students and the students do different things. That some went on to roles in government doesn't necessarily lead to any conclusions about what Strauss taught them. I don't think I would hold Strauss responsible for the ideas of his students, particularly without knowing what Strauss taught. Returning to his comment, he suggests that the notion of "evolution" or "randomness" (considered in mathematical terms) leaves human decisions without foundation. He is not necessarily arguing that this is so, just that it follows from what others are saying. I think that bringing neoconservatism into this is like having the dog eat your homework!posted 01/16/2008 at 11:05:30
Wondering, God does not do funny walks. posted 01/15/2008 at 19:20:09
Wonderful question, Muse! But, gee whiz, not being a scientist, I just don't know how to answer this!!Is there a scientist in the house! HELLO! posted 01/15/2008 at 19:09:21
That said, the possiblity of God existing certainly merits a bit of jumping up and down and waving of the arms. And a "wow" or two. Afterwards a smart Heeven is looking around for the deep thinkers in the realm of religion. Perhaps science and the humanities must always look sideways at each other.But another question: is there an arch-discipline that embraces both? This, I think, is where the Straussians enter with the dialectic between "Jerusalem" and "Athens" or the argument of the Ancients verses the Moderns. Leo Strauss has a wonderful comment about evolution in particular, Dr. Wilson's baby, that I believe is found in the book "Natural Right and History":"Such a science [social science] is instrumental and nothing but instrumental: it is born to be the handmaid of any powers or any interest that be .... According to our social science, we can be or become wise in matters of secondary importance, but we have to be resigned to utter ignorance in the most important respect: we cannot have any knowledge regarding the ultimate principles of our choices, i.e., regarding their soundness or unsoundness; our ultimate principles have no other support than our arbitrary and hence blind preferences." [This is his set up][And this is his punch line:] "Present day American social science, as far as it is not Roman Catholic social science, is dedicated to the proposition that all men are endowed by the evolutionary process or by a mysterious fate with many kinds of urges and aspirations, but certainly with no natural right."I'm definitely awarding a gold star to whoever can rebut Leo Strauss in this!Oy vey! posted 01/15/2008 at 18:49:51
Absolutely. The idea of God was a useful foil for Hawkins, for instance, in Brief History and for Einstein, "God doesn't play dice." And a sense of religious awe appears to have provided a deep, inner motivation for Newton. But from a practical stance, if God is unprovable then God cannot appear in practical scientific inquiry or the peer reviewed results. God can have an occasional walk on role in thought experiments (a deus ex machina!) but that's it. posted 01/15/2008 at 18:33:06
Oops. Forgot the reference, Augustine "On Christian Doctrine." posted 01/15/2008 at 16:29:30
I also love your question! God as Cecile B. DeMille! Fantastic. I think Augustine more reverently alludes to a similar idea: that natural events can be symbols in "God's book" which is nature. Just as an author uses imagery to express mood, idea, meaning just so might God shape reality to create meaning, which is why the Christian story is historical in nature (Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, et al). posted 01/15/2008 at 16:28:29
Wondering, I love your question. I've been raving about Milton (b. 1608) who, fans and detractors alike, are still discussing 400 years later or Augustine (354-430 AD), my hero, your foe, and you ask if these books will have a shelf life of even 10 years.Excellent question.posted 01/15/2008 at 15:56:26
As a corollary, I'll offer an unprovable of my own since I particularly do not accept that question One has been settled. The assertion that there is no God cannot be accepted a priori. Sorry.Thought experiment: Imagine we are at MIT wandering the campus. Nearby are all kinds of leading theoreticians conversing about science's hot topics. They talk, exchange ideas, push the envelope, and boldly go where no one has gone before. Some of them wander outdoors to enjoy the weather while they share bold ideas.Meanwhile, we find a leaf with some ants on it. The ants are doing ant stuff, communicating via pheremones. Question: are the ants aware of the sciences? Probably not.Scale up: I posit that notwithstanding having Milton, Shakespeare, Newton, Einstein and Reimann in our midst, we are like ants in God's rose bush. Our being able to detect God would be completely impossible except that God has made it possible on his [hers,its] terms.The Christian idea of God is very very big.The ants cannot demonstrate that the scientists exist, and we cannot demonstrate that God exists either. posted 01/15/2008 at 15:47:16
My problem with Dr Wilson's bullet items is that, and I say this coming back from 4th grade science fair, I see nothing measurable. No assertion that can be disproved. In short, I don't see the "science." Where's the beef? posted 01/15/2008 at 15:36:44
Dap, I don't follow. Assume there's no god. Then nature is "it." The question then becomes what is "nature"? And that's a more difficult thing to answer than is being allowed. Science as such is not able to deal with vast chunks of "nature" when nature is just "everything." It gets back to something Wondering raised in the earlier post when he alludes to Santa Clause. How does Santa Clause become part of "nature," though clearly Santa is part of the whole. Are human beings part of "nature" or do they stand outside it. In either case, how are fictions a part of the great "everything"? In a Christian cosmology, something which no one here is addressing, there is "nature" and there's the "super-natural" (e.g., all that which is literally "above" nature and somehow outside of it) and man -- in the Christian cosmoslogy -- stands uniquely between worlds, participating in both. Humans are creatures like the animals and yet have a spirtual consciousness "like" God. In a framework that removes the idea of God, some accounting still needs to be made for ideas, for fictionality, for mathematics, for subjective consciousness, and for lots of other similar things that are not physical and whose appearance hence cannot be measured. posted 01/15/2008 at 15:34:16
Muse will have to drop out of the remaining conversation temporarily. It's 4th grade science fair time. Sorry. posted 01/14/2008 at 18:45:01
There's a long list here. I'm only choosing for the moment to point to one: "Q2) If not, how can we explain the phenomenon of religion in naturalistic terms?" Defining "nature" will cause you the same problem as defining "God." And speaking as a Christian, I'll say that the reason why nature will resist definition is "man's" being made in the "image of God." You want to define nature as something along the lines of "empirically verifiable" reality. And that definition omits entirely all that Leo Strauss liked to call "the most needful things." Your definition is not going to permit the inclusion of anything subjective, and therefore it eliminates all of anyone's own personal, existential life. Moreover it will have little of interest to say about singularities, like what makes two twins separate people. Science has predictive power with generalities. It is not predictive for specific manifestations of things. Yet any cat owner can tell you (whether cats or psychic or not, aside) that every cat is different. But why and in what ways this is so, even our naturalistic explanations are not helpful. Maybe, of course, with cats it matters little. They do not talk or write books or compose symphonies. But it matters hugely with humans. And science doesn't deal with the "humanities" at all.Bestposted 01/14/2008 at 18:41:48
"I Know I'm Right, So Why Be Fair?"
HeevenStever,If you see this, I don't know if parrots are psychic. But I'm asking the family cat right now.Muse posted 01/11/2008 at 20:09:34
Atheism as a Stealth Religion II: Let's Get Real
I heard that! HeevenSteven.To Dr. Wilson, The jazz analogy is a lovely one. Will look forward to the future post. And we can debate some more.Best wishes to all,Muse posted 01/14/2008 at 15:31:45
Dear Dap,I hope Dr. Sacks can help. If he's not precisely the guy himself, he most probably knows "the guys" who are expert in this area. I hope you find the information you need.Agape,Muse posted 01/14/2008 at 15:28:28
Ooo Ooo Ooo(I have my hand raised because I know the correct spelling!): Deja vue, French for "already seen."Dap, do you ever read any of Oliver Sacks? He's a neurologist and his books are wonderful, e.g. "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat," "Anthropologist on Mars" and "Island of the Colored Blind," "A Leg to Stand On" and other books. I think you'd like them.Museposted 01/13/2008 at 15:29:12
If you could encapsulate that eureka moment, that would be neat. To say the least. And if I could encapsulate anything, that would be finer still, would it not.I really thought we were getting paid by the word here. Aren't we?We are getting paid, right?ooh la la posted 01/11/2008 at 19:52:46
To the best atheists ever, I'll be away from my computer tomorrow so I'll miss what happens next. But I'm sure that whatever it is, whether here in "God's country" or out there in the land of politics, well, .... it will be really, really, really something.Meanwhile, echoing the immortal words of Rodney King, try to get along.Muse posted 01/11/2008 at 19:28:16
Dap, I knew who you meant. Joseph Campbell is wonderful. I've read a little about Jung, though I only read one book by Jung himself, his memoire: "Memories, dreams, reflections." Fantastic book.Muse posted 01/11/2008 at 19:22:16
HS, I think I had minus two semesters of physics. Or what is minus five? Muse posted 01/11/2008 at 19:10:02
Of course, get some more women over here and we could have a cat fight. Where is ScienceLady? posted 01/11/2008 at 19:09:02
I did, however, take St Paul seriously in his saying that various churches should not argue and should act charitably toward each other (advice that modern denominations would do well to heed).As an art student, I found Christian themes everywhere in Western art. The view of Christianity that comes through the different periods and styles of art is complex. Different artists shape Christian ideas in different ways. As an artist I could happily live in the Renaissance or the Middle Ages. To cite just one example think about their maps (ESPECIALLY the "flat earth" maps)! Falling off the earth! Oh the romance. And you've got to love the monsters. Pictorially, it was a great time for an artist to be alive! So much more interesting than "just" reality (not that there's anything wrong with that). Reality is great too. Jan van Eyck. But the imagination is wonderful as well: Bosch, Jardin des delices.At times I have been very active in church and presently am not (except for being an "evangelist" at Huff Po).As for people making absolute assertions, I'm afraid it goes with the badge. It's something people do. My views are very much minority views here at Huff. I voted for Bush twice, which I hope doesn't upset anyone. However, I've learned tons from listening to the many views that are so radically different from my own.This particular conversation about God has struck me as very amazing. I wish all the guys here could know how much it has helped me in matters that might seem very unrelated. You've all been great. Try not to fuss so much, guys.Muse posted 01/11/2008 at 19:00:55
ZantiYou are duly recorded as believing in God the Unproven.Your interest in the original blogger is admirable, but off topic is okay. I feel quite certain Mr. Wilson doesn't mind and can feel pleased to have his comments lead down the complex path we've taken.My own faith in God probably originates from something that could loosely be called "sensibility." For a long time in my youth it just always seemed to me, seemed reasonable even, that God should exist. Later I became curious about Christianity and read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity," a very beautiful book. I also began reading the Bible, and I attended some churches. I never felt that learning about the Christian idea of God, whether in books or in churches, should take the place of reason and I certainly did not agree with every idea I encountered. posted 01/11/2008 at 19:00:36
DapIn one of my arguments, HeevenSteven (wisely) noted that I was "dancing." But that's what Muses do -- especially when they get together, Cleo, Terpsichore, Euterpe, Urania, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy ... oops, sorry -- some of those are Dwarves (I get them mixed up).Anyway, I suppose Zanti and his interlocuters are learning something that will only arise from argument. This beginning to look like football with paragraphs. Who's the goalie?Dancing is fun, though. Really, guys.posted 01/11/2008 at 18:29:45
PS -- GO MILTON! posted 01/11/2008 at 18:18:11
Zanti and Dap,I don't know what a "lazy eye" is but the coincidence of personal experiences here is interesting. Blindness/sight references are metaphors for knowledge/ignorance/insight etc. but -- if God is real -- possibly actual events are metaphors too?Anyway, I have a personal interest here too because I'm an artist (I paint) and seeing plays a very significant role in how I think. One's ideas about God, willingness to entertain or to dismiss particular ideas, the whole God thing has much to do with subjectivity. So, all these fine nuances matter.For which reason, also, we learn most by listening well and considering carefully. (Though we all have our moments. I've been known to shoot first and inquire later -- isn't that right, HeevenStevens?) posted 01/11/2008 at 18:16:59
I will note the page reference. I like Armstrong, but in sections where I was familiar with her materials, I would just caution that hers is an interpretation. But of course you know that. For instance she infers that Mark takes Jesus's birth as "ordinary," (no angel announcements, special stars, wisemen or plush toys), but Mark is completely silent on the subject. Mark's gospel begins with adult Jesus's baptism, which Armstrong later acknowledges but careful reading can put any number of constructions as to why one gospel begins one way and another begins differently. Some of the textual criticism she cites for dating the material is similarly open to question, especially when reading the material interpretively rather than "historically." Anyway, I will look at 338 in eagerness. Have been browsing around in her book rather than reading straight through. Lots of very interesting stuff there. posted 01/11/2008 at 18:04:04
HeevenSteven,What generous remarks. The muse will try to continue living up to your kind expectations.Being "studied" by Dap, hmmm. That certainly sounds interesting. Would enjoy hearing the results of that research, regarding us all...Good, your encouraging Zanti to seek humor. Meanwhile this has got to be the sweetest bunch of atheists one could ever hope for. Yes, and thanks go to the original blogger Mr. Wilson for a fruitful topic.Muse posted 01/11/2008 at 17:53:00
Zanti, Perhaps in fairness to Mr. Wilson, we should revisit his remarks. So many things on one's "to do" list. But he can take some pride in the conversation he provoked. So will share credit with him. How about that? Muse posted 01/11/2008 at 17:46:46
Amen to that, Dap. posted 01/11/2008 at 17:44:55
UGH!! posted 01/11/2008 at 17:44:32
Somebody says they're psychic? I don't know about that... hmmm. Will have to get back to you, after I ask the cat.Muse posted 01/11/2008 at 17:44:09
Following your directions, HS, I respond in new thread:Wow. I am glad someone is keeping score. Looks like we did pretty good by our metaphysics. Intelligent design as valid scientific theory: as a non-scientist, I cannot weigh in. Ask me after I have mastered the multiplication tables and check book balancing.My -- what shall I call it? -- "hunch" (?) is that the universe is intelligently, if somewhat inscrutably, designed. Whether that will ever be demonstrable? Don't know. Design however suggests a telos, which can provoke one's curiosity along the lines of "why are we here?" Not "here" at Huff Po, of course, but "here" on planet Earth during this moment of Hawkins' Brief History. If I read Plato correctly, I think he (and/or his character/person) Socrates see the universe as designed and purposeful -- and that hence humankind's role in the universe becomes a provocative and wonderful question. posted 01/10/2008 at 19:01:28
Wow. I am glad someone is keeping score. Looks like we did pretty good by our metaphysics. Intelligent design as valid scientific theory: as a non-scientist, I cannot weigh in. Ask me after I have mastered the multiplication tables and check book balancing.My -- what shall I call it? -- "hunch" (?) is that the universe is intelligently, if somewhat inscrutably, designed. Whether that will ever be demonstrable? Don't know. Design however suggests a telos, which can provoke one's curiosity along the lines of "why are we here?" Not "here" at Huff Po, of course, but "here" on planet Earth during this moment of Hawkins' Brief History. If I read Plato correctly, I think he (and/or his character/person) Socrates see the universe as designed and purposeful -- and that hence humankind's role in the universe becomes a provocative and wonderful question. posted 01/10/2008 at 19:00:21
Heeven,Scientists are supposed to doubt. Doubting is good. Goes with the whole proof thing. Doubting only became bad when science goes political. muse posted 01/10/2008 at 18:47:22
Hello Lemeritus. Well, quite soon I predict we will have recapitulated just about everything. So stand by!Best, Muse posted 01/10/2008 at 18:40:57
Zanti, It's fun to be quoted, but just for clarification: I believe God is very real, quite seriously real. Metaphor is a way of thinking about God, but not adequate as a definition. As the French 19th century artist Edgas Degas said: "Drawing is not form but a way of seeing form." Metaphor is like a "drawing" that we make of God. But, meanwhile, God is God. God would be that which rather seriously defies definition.So regarding your comment: "But, as Muse notes, not only does religion survive the absence of God ...." -- actually, Muse isn't noting that at all. Others here say God is absent. Not I. Put me down as believing in God the Real.Best, Muse posted 01/10/2008 at 18:36:36
Clever Muse. (Only my hairdresser knows for sure!) posted 01/10/2008 at 18:26:17
Maybe our brains are working overtime and we're starting to get grumpy. I'm still reading to see whether you realize I checked Armstrong's book from the library .... And what a thick book. Ooo la la! Well, not only will I become more erudite, I can get in some bicep presses too.Anyway, all you can do is be nice. Everyone will calm down after a bit. (I hope!)Perhaps Muse can try that which sometimes works with kids: "Now, boys! Stop fighting!"We'll see if that helps. posted 01/10/2008 at 18:25:20
We found some common ground. Agape to you also. Muse posted 01/09/2008 at 20:25:02
Wondering,I will miss your contribution to this debate. Don't know if you'll read this, but I wish I could persuade you that fiction has great value. Some of religion must be fiction, that much seems certain. The problem is discerning which aspects of religion are the fictions. A second question is whether fictional ideas pose a problem. Sometimes half truths lead to further and more sure assertions, in science as well as in other realms of life.If I can answer some of the questions you pose to Zanti ... speaking for myself ... I do not pray to a metaphor, though I understand God in terms of metaphor because no other avenue of understanding is presently available. The Apostle Paul described it metaphorically like this, in life we "see in a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face," "now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known." [1 Corinthian 13:12]The mirror image that Paul uses comes back again and again in art and literature -- not simply with its Christian connotations, because obviously it's a richly compact image -- evocative of self-knowledge, particularly hidden knowledge, but there are, for example, lots of "mirrors of princes," political treatises that historically (especially in the Renaissance, Machievelli's is one) were intended to influence the powerful. Even in mathematics, the "mirror" has application in regard to symmetry. Isn't it true that some problems that could not be solved in one discipline, say, algebra, were first solved in geometry and it was later determined that the proof could be converted into the other form?Anyway, you certainly put a lot on HeevenSteven's shoulders. Those of us on the other side of the issue will have to temper our arguments if HS is expected to carry the charge with fewer troops.I was hoping I'd learn a little math here, but you are too modest.Best, Muse posted 01/09/2008 at 19:32:38
Where does Socrates say that? In Plato's Apology he brags about his ignorance, since it qualifies him as being the only person making true statements. Because he claims to be ignorant and the others are claiming knowledge that they don't possess, he's the only one who's speaking correctly. Muse