Skeptico

D’Worst List

From PZ I found The BEAST’s 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2007. I have to say I agree with most of them, but my favorite was # 29, Dinesh D'Souza:

Charges: Wrote a book blaming 9/11 on -- who else? -- liberals, because if we didn't live in a free society, then fundamentalists wouldn't dislike us so. Even conservative nuts blasted D'Souza's empathy for poor al Qaeda. Lately, he's been engaging prominent atheists in debates, revealing himself to be a pseudointellectual ass, and then declaring victory. D'Souza's master plan for attacking atheism is the ridiculous Pascal's wager: Atheists could be wrong, and then they'd go to hell, but if the religious are wrong, then they suffer no ill effect -- aside from living their lives in delusion, of course. And possibly going to someone else's hell for believing the wrong religion. D'Souza seems to think that if he speaks more loudly and rapidly than his opponent, he is winning, but his arguments are weak and idiotic, and he never even attempts to truly debate the existence of any god, which is the ostensible point of these debates. Instead, he likes to compare body counts -- Stalin and Mao killed more than the religious leaders of their time -- rather than actually debate whether there is a God, or for that matter a Jesus. This, of course, is because there is no case to be made.

Exhibit A: "[Atheists] are God-haters... I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion." But what if everyone you met did believe in unicorns, and not only that, but worshiped a unicorn, held a book about unicorns to be the divine truth of the universe, invoked unicorns in political contexts, and speechified about how non-believers were indecent people waging a war on morality, which could only be predicated on the unquestioning belief in unicorns? Then, maybe, D'Souza would think about writing that book. But of course, that's not really true, because if that was the world we lived in, then Dinesh D'Souza would believe in unicorns.

This Should Be Interesting

In an attempt to resolve a property dispute in India, an Indian judge has summoned two Hindu gods to appear in his court:

Sunil Kumar Singh has placed notices in newspapers in the coal mining town of Dhanbad, in the eastern state of Jharkhand, asking gods Ram and Hanuman to appear in his court next week to present their arguments.

"You failed to appear in court despite notices sent by a messenger and later through registered post. You are hereby directed to appear before the court personally," Judge Singh's notice stated.

The newspaper notices were published, in keeping with accepted Indian legal practice, after two summons dispatched to the plaintiff deities were returned because their addresses were "incomplete".

While in the US, a contender to be leader of the free world says, in all seriousness, that his recent poll successes are due to Jesus’ help (quote time: “that’s honestly why it’s happened”), it’s good to know that a supposedly less developed country is going to require their gods to actually show up! Memo to God – put up or shut up. And no men in monkey costumes, please.  You’re going to have to prove you’re the real deal.

Here’s some additional outsourcing we could benefit from – let’s get this judge working in the US right now.

I’m # 12

From Shalini I learned Skeptico is the #12 Atheism Blog. Pretty good, since atheism isn’t the main focus of Skeptico. Shalini is #7. Apparently the ranking changes regularly – daily I think – so by the time you read this I could be anywhere on the list.

What a Strange Thing to Do

I was listening to NPR yesterday, and they had someone talking about how the clocks are going back a week later this year. I missed just who this guy was or why we should care about him, but anyway he was saying how he had this smart clock that was programmed to change when the clocks change. Except it was not that smart since it was programmed a couple of years ago and it put the hour back a week early.

The story was that he and his wife were woken up by the alarm with the clock saying 7.00am, and they thought they were on time for a 7.00am start until they went downstairs and found all the other clocks were saying 8.00am. (Of course they would – they weren’t “smart” clocks. Don’t blame me - that’s what he said.) Anyway they were an hour late, and I imagined them rushing around, being late for work, etc. Then, as best as I can remember it, this is what he said:

So we rushed to get dressed, there was no time for the kids to have their pancake breakfast, and we rushed to church.

Aaaah!. Of course – being lied to by a clergyman for an hour is obviously more important than having a leisurely breakfast with your kids on probably one of the few days in the week when you have the time. These people set their alarm for 7.00am every Sunday so they can get up in time to go to church. And it struck me, what a strange thing this is to do. I know what it’s like. I used to be made to do this by my parents when I was a kid, and so I know what a crushing BORE church is. But that was when I was a kid and I had no choice. Here are two grown ups who do it by choice. And apparently it’s so important they couldn’t miss even one week when the clock made them late. They’d rather miss breakfast. And he seemed so cheerful about it. What a strange thing to do.

Dinesh D'Souza is Not Very Bright

This is funny. Via Pharyngula today I found this piece of very poor reasoning from Dinesh D'Souza. D’Souza is banging on about how the spiritual world is of a completely different order from anything we know, and how we have no way to investigate or comprehend it. PZ has the obvious response: “So how does Dinesh D'Souza know anything about it?” Read D’Souza’s whole piece – it’s all bad.

I just had to laugh at one point he made – and it’s that part I want to comment on. Bereft of any arguments of his own, D’Souza relies on an argument made by the philosopher Kant. Briefly, Kant argued that human knowledge is limited by “the limited sensory apparatus of perception” we possess. That is, we cannot be sure our perception of reality shows us what reality is really like. D’Souza goes on to say this (with my bold):

When I challenged Daniel Dennett to debunk Kant's argument, he posted an angry response on his website in which he said several people had already refuted Kant. But he didn't provide any refutations, and he didn't name any names. Basically Dennett was relying on the argumentum ad ignorantium-the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience.

LOL – argument from ignorance is an argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience? Nooooooo. Can he really believe that’s what argument from ignorance is? No. Argument from ignorance is:

… a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

And here’s the funny bit. You see, super duper ironically, that’s exactly what D’Souza is doing when he says that since no one can refute Kant – Kant must be right. D’Souza’s argument is an argument from ignorance. Add the straw man D’Souza started with, and you have a mish-wash of illogical waffle.

Of course, Kant could be right. There could be another reality we can’t comprehend. But just because there could be a different reality we can’t comprehend, that doesn’t mean there is one. And even if there were, there is no reason to believe that it’s anything like the version D’Souza or any other religious nit wits believe in.

Ex-Homosexual Offended

The religious nutbars are at it again. What’s getting them unglued this time is this poster for San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair:

A predictable response comes from the Christian News Wire reporting on (quote) the Sick Perverts in San Francisco. (Aren’t all perverts sick? Oh never mind.) Here they go:

This year, "Perverts Without Morals" chose to deliberately mock Jesus Christ, Christians and The Last Supper, by depicting half naked homosexuals, leather men and women as the 12 Apostles, and display sex toys in place of the bread and wine.

A bloody fist can be seen in front of the central figure portraying Jesus Christ, possibly representing the vile sex act of "fisting" - where one's fist is fully inserted into another individual's anal cavity.

They seem to know a lot about this kind of thing. More than you’d expect decent Christians to be aware of at any rate.  Wonder how? Wonder no more:

Stephen Bennett, president of SBM and a former homosexual said, "This is the most vile, vulgar and disgusting public display of filth I have ever seen in my life.

A “former homosexual”? Funny, I wasn’t aware you could change. I guess all those “pray me straight” sessions must work after all. Who knew? Anyway, “former homosexuals” are apparently a bit like former smokers – more anti gay (or anti-smoking) than those who never partook in the first place. Repressing your natural tendencies must make you pretty frustrated and angry. Mix that in with religion and we have:

There is no doubt a double standard when Christians and Christianity are mocked by homosexuals and degenerates in such a blatant, vile and sick way. Where is the media outrage over this event? We Christians will no longer tolerate this abuse nor be silent.

Bennett ended, "I call upon the homosexual Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, GLSEN, and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to publicly condemn this blatant mockery of Christians and Christianity by some within their community, and condemn this sick public display of immoral behavior. I call upon the Miller Brewing Company to pull their endorsement of this event. I call for the organizers of this filth to immediately apologize to Christians worldwide and remove this Last Supper mockery. I also call upon every law abiding official and citizen in America who has any morals to do what they can to shut down this Folsom Street 'Filth' Fair once and for all."

And there, once again, we see the religious in their true colors. Calling for immediate censorship of anything they don’t like, and (of course, you knew this was coming), an apology. Because we all have to apologize when someone makes fun of their invisible sky fairy and they get upset.  And Rick Warren thinks atheists are angry.

I think someone needs a hug. But not in a gay way.

The Drivel Driven Life

TechSkeptic sent me a link to this Newsweek article from April - The God Debate – a debate between atheist Sam Harris and “Purpose Driven Life” author, Pastor Rick Warren. Harris did a pretty good job exposing many of the flaws in Warren’s arguments, but I still found the article depressing reading. To understand why, just take a look at this – Warren’s explanation for why he believes in God:

One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer. I have a friend, a Canadian friend, who has an immigration issue. He's an intern at this church, and so I said, "God, I need you to help me with this," as I went out for my evening walk. As I was walking I met a woman. She said, "I'm an immigration attorney; I'd be happy to take this case."

That argument was actually put forward by a grown man – one who sells millions of books and is listened to and taken seriously by millions of people. Harris called it “a classic sampling error”. I’d call it a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc boosted by confirmation bias. All well run studies that control for biases such as those show that prayer doesn’t work. Some studies purportedly show that prayer works, but when examined critically all positive prayer studies turn out to be either flawed or fraudulent. But none of that matters to Pastor Rick. Pastor Rick wanted an immigration attorney, Pastor Rick met an immigration attorney, therefore God exists. It’s the distance this man’s thinking is from any kind of rational argument that’s so depressing.

If that wasn’t enough, Warren actually accuses Harris of being “non-rational”. While this Zen like technique might work for a kung-fu master using his opponent’s strength against him, with Warren it just makes you go “What?” The argument makes no sense.  And at the end of the debate he actually invokes Pascal’s Wager:

[Harris is] betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble.

The flaws of Pascal’s Wager are well known. But this is the lame Pascal’s Wager with a twist of false dilemma thrown in for good measure. He’s saying, either Jesus is a liar or he’s not. And surely you’re not saying Jesus is s liar, are you? Warren is apparently too dumb to see a third option: Jesus didn’t say the things the Bible claims he said. Funny thing – I’m sure that Harris had a reply to this incredibly profound lame ending argument of Warren’s. Probably something along the lines of what I wrote above. Although perhaps a little more polite. But for some reason the Newsweek article ended without Harris’ reply, as if Warren’s dumb argument was the final word. And Warren wonders why some atheists are angry.

Radio Observatory faces closure

I’ve just been reading this Wash Post story about the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, which is apparently the largest and most sensitive radio telescope on Earth:

..among astronomers, Arecibo is an icon of hard science. Its instruments have netted a decades-long string of discoveries about the structure and evolution of the universe. Its high-powered radar has mapped in exquisite detail the surfaces and interiors of neighboring planets.

And it is the only site on the planet able to track asteroids with enough precision to tell which ones might plow into Earth - a disaster that could cause as many as a billion deaths and that experts say is preventable with enough warning.

This is the observatory featured in the movie Contact. If you read the whole article, it describes more of the real science performed there. Unfortunately it faces closure due to a funding shortfall.

The National Science Foundation, which has long funded the dish, has told the Cornell University-operated facility that it will have to close if it cannot find outside sources for half of its already reduced $8 million budget in the next three years - an ultimatum that has sent ripples of despair through the scientific community.

It seems a shame that the only observatory able to warn us of a disastrous asteroid impact (not to mention all the other science it performs), may have to close for the want of only $4 million (that’s million with an “M”). They are looking for other funding, so I’m hopeful it will stay operational.

In other news, federal money given to religious groups is in excess of $2 billion (that’s billion with a “B”) annually. Phew - that’s a relief. Because I’d be concerned if money that could be spent on science was instead being wasted on pointless superstitious nonsense unrelated to anything happening in the real world.

Suck It Jesus

From unscrewing the inscrutable I learn of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’ craven capitulation to the demands of the religious thugs of the Catholic League. This is what got them so mad – comedian Kathy Griffin’s Emmy acceptance speech:

A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Can you believe this shit? Hell has frozen over. Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now.

You just know what came next. The Catholic League’s president Bill Donohue:

The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences reacted responsibly to our criticism of Kathy Griffin’s verbal assault on 85 percent of the U.S. population. The ball is now in Griffin’s court. The self-described ‘complete militant atheist’ needs to make a swift and unequivocal apology to Christians. If she does, she will get this issue behind her. If she does not, she will be remembered as a foul-mouthed bigot for the rest of her life.

Griffin “needs” to make an apology? She “needs” to? Really? Er, no she doesn’t. Not at all.  She doesn’t “need” to do anything. You need her to, Donohue. That’s what you really meant. You “need” it, not her, not any atheists. You need it because your silly fairy tale beliefs are so pathetic, vacuous and delicate they can’t stand three critical words from a comedian. In the above paragraph we see the religious mind in its natural state, demanding obsequiousness, respect, censorship and fearful apology, and they demand all this without a hint of embarrassment or self-awareness. This poor downtrodden 85% of the population (his figure) are too fearful to allow the American TV viewing public to hear three words critical of their invisible sky fairy, and they’re prepared and actually proud that they managed to get Griffin’s acceptance speech on TV censored.

Remember this the next time someone criticizes Richard Dawkins for being “shrill” or whatever. Remember the Catholic League thinks things will be OK just as long as we atheists show respect for these arrogant morons and their delusional beliefs, and as long as we remember what we “need” to do to keep them from censoring our words and thoughts. Just don’t get too uppity. From this we get a glimpse of what the Catholic League would really like to be able to do if they got the chance.

Send any emails of support to Griffin’s Agent. Email the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and tell them what a bunch of cowards they are.

But most of all, Suck It Donohue. Yes, and Suck It Jesus.

Adopting Secular Religions (Or Not)

Reader Rob sent me a link to this TCSDaily article by Karl Reitz – essentially a criticism of recent atheist books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens. Reitz takes on the response to the claim the atheist societies (for example fascists and communists), have done as many evil things as religious ones. He quotes Hitchens saying that such beliefs “were types of secularised religion, and as such do not count." Reitz responds that if people became atheists, they would inevitably adopt such “secular religions” in the place of religion:

A world in which everyone stopped believing in God would likely provide fertile ground for such secular faiths. These secularized religions are what we would really have if we somehow got everyone to stop believing in God. Realistically, atheists […] may only have a choice between living in societies that are traditionally religious or ones that have adopted secularized religions.

So, far from "not counting," secular religions must be taken very seriously, and their implications understood, before we preach the benefits of godless society.

Reitz is presenting us with a false dilemma – humans will either believe in God and religion, or they will adopt false secular faiths such as fascism or communism. But there is a third option – they will adopt critical thinking and the scientific method. I agree that “secular religions” should be taken seriously – that’s why this blog is about skepticism and critical thinking, and not solely about atheism and being anti-religious (although I am both). So yes, of course when and if people stop believing in God, they should adopt critical thinking in its place. Not as any kind of religion (which it isn’t), but as the normal way to evaluate claims. Secular religions are not inevitable.

Reitz goes on to assert that the common factor in both secular and non secular religions, is faith:

I am atheist because I don't believe in faith, which I believe is the common dogma shared by traditional religion and secularized religions.

I agree with him here – the common factor is faith: belief without evidence, and/or in the teeth of contradictory evidence. However, he is missing the important area where most religions differ from secular religions - belief in God. This is important because, although people may feel free to disagree with the tenets of a secular faith, they cannot disagree with God. As I have written before, religion tells us that its rules are the way God says things have to be. You and I can disagree on all sorts of things, but if God is telling us the other person is wrong, ultimately we can’t peacefully disagree. And it’s the certainty that God-belief provides that is the reason religion is so dangerous. Secular leaders such as Stalin or Mao could only stay in power and keep their “faith” alive with an iron fist. Such measures, contrary to the will of the people, are ultimately doomed to fail no matter how brutally they are applied. Contrast that with (for example) Islam. Muslims didn’t have to be forced by their leaders to riot in the streets to protest the Muhammad cartoons and demand an end to free speech; they did it because they believed God wanted them to. That’s why Islam is still going strong after 1,300 years (and Christianity after 2,000 years), while the Soviet Union collapsed in about 70.

Having missed the important difference between secular and non-secular religions, Reitz goes on to highlight an irrelevant one:

The fundamental difference between traditional religions and these secular religions is that secular religions promise us that perfection (heaven) is possible here, on earth, in present times.

So what? If they both promote a false reality they’re both bad. But isn’t religious anti-science worse? The Soviets (and later the Communist Chinese) promoted the anti-science Lysenkoism which resulted in crop failures and famine, as well as the execution of numerous geneticists. But Lysenkoism eventually collapsed under the weight of contradictory evidence. Compare that with the anti-science creationists who want to get their ignorance taught in schools as though it were science, or Christians who reject condom use in Africa as a means of preventing the spread of AIDS. The religious are driven by God-belief to take us back to the dark ages. Unlike with Lysenkoism, we can be sure that such religious anti-scientific beliefs will never be influenced by contradictory evidence. Contradictory evidence only makes God-believers fight harder.

I think that in his penultimate paragraph, Reitz reveals the real source of his disagreement with Hitchens, and shows us the origin of his confusion about religion:

For the same reasons that I don't want religion taught to my [theoretical future] children in public schools, I don't want Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to be a requirement for graduation. If the First Amendment prohibits the teaching of religion in public schools, shouldn't it prohibit showing that movie? After all, what's the difference between that movie and one that presented a traditional religion in the same way?

What’s the difference? Wow - it’s obvious! Al Gore’s movie was based on actual current scientific research and for the most part, Gore gets the science right. Both it, and the scientific research it is based upon, can be questioned and will be revised as better evidence presents itself in future. Religion is immune to such reality checks. Still, I think the fact that Reitz thinks “An Inconvenient Truth” is a religion, gives us a window into his secular religion – global warming denial. I guess he really did “adopt a secular religion” in the place of religion, when he became an atheist.

Act of God?

God is angry again, and he’s a vengeful God. Via Pharyngula and Effect Measure I learn of God’s apparent displeasure at graven images:

The nuns at Mother Cabrini Shrine in Golden were thanking God on Sunday that no one was hurt when a bolt of lightning shot out of the sky and struck their 33-foot statue of Jesus.

The lightning bolt broke off one of Jesus' arms and a hand and damaged one of his feet, sending marble plummeting to the ground during a Saturday afternoon storm.

The message couldn’t be clearer. God is taking time off from sending hurricanes to punish America for tolerating gays, so he can punish these nuns for breaking the second commandment. The faithful though, still don’t get it:

Thousands of people visit the shrine each year to pray and pay homage to Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini […]

Visitors climb the 373 stairs to the sacred heart statue, "praying as they go,"

Not hard enough, apparently.

Seems armless enough.

Hitchens – God Not Great

I generally like Christopher Hitchens. I don’t  agree with everything says – his strange view on the Iraq war (he was in favor of it) being one area I disagree. But I like most of what he writes, especially when he writes about religion. He has a new book out - God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, with excerpts this week in Slate:

…there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to "respect" their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.

On how Islam is based on the same shaky grounds as most other religions:

… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require. Thus, far from being "born in the clear light of history," as Ernest Renan so generously phrased it, Islam in its origins is just as shady and approximate as those from which it took its borrowings. It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or "surrender" as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing—absolutely nothing—in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.

Hitchens then goes into more detail about how the Koran was written many years after the death of the prophet, with the problems of its provenance this raises. I hope he has good bodyguards.

And then, hilariously, on the problems with Joseph Smith and the Mormons.

The actual story of the imposture is almost embarrassing to read, and almost embarrassingly easy to uncover. […] In brief, Joseph Smith announced that he had been visited (three times, as is customary) by an angel named Moroni. The said angel informed him of a book, "written upon gold plates," which explained the origins of those living on the North American continent as well as the truths of the gospel. There were, further, two magic stones, set in the twin breastplates Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament, that would enable Smith himself to translate the aforesaid book.

[…]

A scribe was therefore necessary to take his inspired dictation. This scribe was at first his wife Emma and then, when more hands were necessary, a luckless neighbor named Martin Harris. Hearing Smith cite the words of Isaiah 29, verses 11–12, concerning the repeated injunction to "Read," Harris mortgaged his farm to help in the task and moved in with the Smiths. He sat on one side of a blanket hung across the kitchen, and Smith sat on the other with his translation stones, intoning through the blanket. As if to make this an even happier scene, Harris was warned that if he tried to glimpse the plates, or look at the prophet, he would be struck dead.

Mrs. Harris was having none of this, and was already furious with the fecklessness of her husband. She stole the first hundred and sixteen pages and challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could. (Determined women like this appear far too seldom in the history of religion.) After a very bad few weeks, the ingenious Smith countered with another revelation. He could not replicate the original, which might be in the devil's hands by now and open to a "satanic verses" interpretation. But the all-foreseeing Lord had meanwhile furnished some smaller plates, indeed the very plates of Nephi, which told a fairly similar tale. With infinite labor, the translation was resumed, with new scriveners behind the blanket as occasion demanded, and when it was completed all the original golden plates were transported to heaven, where apparently they remain to this day.

And grown people believe in this.

Hitchens' book sounds like it would be a good read.

Pope Ratzo – back to the good old days

Pope Ratzinger spoke out against evolution yesterday in a new book that harkens back to the good old days – you know, when the Catholic Church denied Galileo’s heliocentric theory.

Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation.

In a new book, "Creation and Evolution," published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

Yes, science perhaps cannot answer some of the philosophical questions, but neither can religion. Religion thinks it answers those questions, but in reality it just makes stuff up and pretends these are the answers. This is just another lame appeal to other ways of knowing.

Think the comparison to Galileo’s day is excessive? Check out how Catholic Answers justifies how they treated Galileo, and compare the wording with Ratzo’s yesterday:

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

[…]

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. […]

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day.

Of course, science doesn’t “prove” theories, but where the evidence is overwhelming, a theory is given pretty strong provisional acceptance. The evidence for the heliocentric theory was good, the Catholic Church just didn’t want to hear it since it conflicted with what was written in their magic book. Make no mistake, if they could suppress evolution the way they were able to censor Galileo – they would. Ratzinger has shown where he would like to take his church if he could – back to the dark ages.

Act of God?

God has such a sense of humor:

Crowds lined the pews and aisles, the incense and choir voices filled the air, but a distinct voice was missing on Easter Sunday in Chicago's Holy Name Catholic Cathedral. Cardinal Francis George, who has presided over the holiday masses each year since 1997, was home nursing an injury suffered in a fall Saturday.

[snip]

On Saturday, while blessing Easter baskets at a Northwest Side church, the cardinal slipped on holy water that he had sprinkled on the church's marble floor, falling on his hip and fracturing the top of his right femur. [My bold.]

And winning the week’s irony award.

Right Decision Wrong Reason

A French cartoons editor has been acquitted of insulting Muslims by reprinting cartoons of the prophet Muhammad:

A French court has ruled in favour of weekly Charlie Hebdo, rejecting accusations by Islamic groups who said it incited hatred against Muslims.

The cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws and were not an attack on Islam, but fundamentalists, it said.

The case was seen as an important test for freedom of expression in France.

Except this wasn’t a victory for free speech. According to the article, the editor was acquitted because the cartoons criticized only fundamentalists, not Muslims or Islam in general. So presumably criticizing Islam would still be a crime. The accused editor (perhaps unknowingly), summarized the situation correctly:

… the ruling was a victory for secular French Muslims.

Yes – this was a victory for religious apologists of all stripes. Implicit in the judgment is that it is not OK to make fun of a religion; it is only OK to make fun those who use religion to justify terrorism. If he had been found guilty merely of making fun of Islam he could have faced a maximum fine of nearly 30,000 euros ($40K) and a jail sentence of up to six months. Just for criticizing a religion.

As I’ve written before, religions should be the first thing we are allowed to criticize. Religious beliefs are not generally backed by evidence, and are frequently contradicted by overwhelming evidence and common sense, and yet they expect special privileges, they expect to be accorded a special level of respect they haven't earned.

And don’t think that even this lame acquittal on these narrow grounds (still acquiescing to the need to respect religion), will keep the theocrats happy. Lhaj Thami Breze of the fundamentalist Union of Islamic Organizations of France, one of the groups that brought the suit, said he would appeal the decision. That’s how much these religious nuts respect the free speech and rights of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their invisible sky fairy story as written in their magic book. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

It’s good that the editor was acquitted. It’s a pity the acquittal wasn’t because it’s OK to make fun of religion.

Still no evidence prayer works

You may have read recently about a new meta analysis that purportedly shows that intercessory prayer works. If you had read my posts on intercessory prayer you might have been surprised by this since other good studies have shown that prayer doesn’t work, and prayer still doesn’t work.

Steven Novella at NeuroLogica Blog explains why this prayer meta analysis is bogus:

But meta-analysis is tricky business. First, it should be pointed out that it does not represent new data – it is just taking a fresh look at old data. It can be useful but only when it is very carefully applied. For example, the studies that are lumped together should have very similar design, they should be looking at the same type of subjects and should use similar outcome measures. The results of a meta-analysis are only meaningful if data from the different studies can be reasonably combined.

Also, a meta-analysis does nothing to address the quality of the studies being looked at. The old adage of “garbage in-garbage out” still applies. If you lump together 10 bad studies, you don’t get one good study, you get a useless meta-analysis. For these reasons meta-analyses have a poor track record of predicting the ultimate outcome of a question, once definitive studies are done, failing over a third of the time.

A meta-analysis is not always the best method for coming to an overall conclusion about an area of research. There are aspects to the pattern of results that are important to consider, and are white-washed in a meta-analysis. For example, what is the trend between study quality and size of the effect? If we see a real tendency for the better studies to have a smaller effect (which we do, in my opinion, in the intercessory prayer literature), that strongly suggests that the effect is not real. By combining these studies, however, these differences are erased. In effect, the good data is diluted in bad data.

More at the link.

Unfortunately, as Novella laments, this study has already produced headlines of the “new study finds prayer works” kind, while the later retractions, as the data is analyzed properly, will get little airtime.

Ironically, Paul Kurtz of the skeptical Center for Inquiry will be undergoing cardiac surgery today. I wish him well, and I won’t be praying for him.

Worst. Creationist. Post. Ever.

Via Sandwalk I came upon this piece of (words fail me – but I’ll try) creationist garbage.  I tried but couldn’t find one sentence that did not contain errors. The stupidity will make your brain hurt.

I wanted to quote a representative sample, but you really have to read the whole thing to get the full benefit. Good luck.

God a little slow – helped by science

I couldn’t help rolling my eyes at this story (with my bold):

Daniel Walker was on his final lap jogging in his high school gym class when he collapsed, his flawed heart giving out on him.

More than four days later, his heart at a standstill, kept alive by a bypass machine, it began beating again. The 17-year-old's parents called it divine intervention. His physicians were no less amazed.

[…]

Walker's father described his son's recovery in spiritual terms. "God turned around, put His hand on my son, and recharged him," said William Walker, 58, a retired sanitation worker.

[…]

Two days after it began to beat on its own, surgeons were able to fix the flaw in Walker's heart, increasing its capacity to 60 percent.

Let’s review. God allows this kid to have a faulty heart, and the kid collapses. And the kid would have died but for the bypass machine. After four days of indifference, God decides to step in and start the kid’s heart. Lucky about the bypass machine, or God would have been too late – kid would have died. Even then, God can’t be bothered to actually fix the heart, he leaves that to the surgeons. And the parents credit God, not modern medicine, for the recovery.

Seems it would have been easier all round if God had just fixed the kid’s heart at the outset. Ah - he was probably too busy fixing a football match, or something.

God comes from a broken home

He broke most of it himself.

Perhaps he was angry because there were too many gays in the congregation or something. Yeah, that must be it.

(Yeah I know – fish in a barrel.)

The Alister McGrath Delusion

Some drivel today from theologian Alister McGrath about Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. It’s the same old vapid nonsense, refuted numerous times in the reality-based blogs such as Pharyngula, so I’m not going to bother to deconstruct the silly arguments again. (And you’ll see numerous people in the comments to the post, making the points anyway.) But one sentence stood out, which is saying something considering the dopey arguments presented throughout the article. It was this piece in the final paragraph, where he criticized Dawkins for “saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence”. He followed that with:

For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support.

Well yeah! But that describes exactly how religious fairy tales have been presented throughout the ages, and the sheep who believe them without a shred of evidence.

Mr. McGrath, I present two characters you should be familiar with:

Who you calling gullible and credulous?

Religions don’t deserve no respect!

Rodney Dangerfield said “I don’t get no respect”. Religions demand respect and they usually get it, but they don’t deserve it.

From Butterflies and Wheels I learned of this article in the Guardian:

It is time to reverse the prevailing notion that religious commitment is intrinsically deserving of respect, and that it should be handled with kid gloves and protected by custom and in some cases law against criticism and ridicule.

It is time to refuse to tip-toe around people who claim respect, consideration, special treatment, or any other kind of immunity, on the grounds that they have a religious faith, as if having faith were a privilege-endowing virtue, as if it were noble to believe in unsupported claims and ancient superstitions. It is neither. [Snip].

On the contrary: to believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect. It is time to say so.

It is time to demand of believers that they take their personal choices and preferences in these non-rational and too often dangerous matters into the private sphere, like their sexual proclivities. Everyone is free to believe what they want, providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others; but no-one is entitled to claim privileges merely on the grounds that they are votaries of one or another of the world's many religions.

And as this last point implies, it is time to demand and apply a right for the rest of us to non-interference by religious persons and organisations - a right to be free of proselytisation and the efforts of self-selected minority groups to impose their own choice of morality and practice on those who do not share their outlook.

Read the comments to the Guardian article – overwhelmingly favorable. Richard Dawkins seems to have started something.

Someone gets it

There was a great letter in today’s Economist magazine (subscription needed). Replying to the lame argument that Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union were atheist states, and so atheism has as much bad stuff to answer for as religion, someone called Mark Eaton from Vancouver replied:

The Marqués de Tamarón used an old and easily refuted argument in his attempt to defend religious faith against atheism by pointing to the godless regimes of communism and National Socialism (Letters, October 7th). He should have considered that Stalin's regime (like that of China under Mao) was based on a personality cult, and that Nazism was underpinned by a warped Nordic mythology and ideology centred on an Aryan master race. These cultish, quasi-religious qualities have little in common with atheism. Atheists believe that rationality and critical thinking serve humanity better than blind faith and religious dogma. The regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not come into being in order to defend atheism. And the horrors of communism and Nazism occurred not because these societies applied too much reason and critical thinking, rather because they did not apply enough.

(My bold.)

Precisely.

Iran Punked

From Hit and Run I learned of the cartoon on the right – an entry in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust cartoon contest. This was the contest to see who could produce a cartoon questioning the Holocaust (actually, most of them were just straight anti-Semitic), that was supposed to “get back” at the west for the Muhammad cartoons. (Remember the rioting in the streets demanding these “holocaust” cartoons be removed? Me neither.) Anyway, the above cartoon didn’t make the finals, but it wasn’t sent back either.

Funny thing – if you invert the cartoon (below), you get an image of Ahmadinejad. I await the protests, demands for an apology, demands to remove the cartoon, demands…. (etc etc).

How DARE you make fun of me making fun of the Jews?

Limbo mumbo jumbo

Richard Dawkins’ site says what I wish I had written:

While the rest of the world has been wrestling with the current situation in the Middle East, North Korea setting off more nuclear bombs, and the frightening effects of Global Warming, the Vatican has been concerned with one of the great issues of humanity: whether or not Limbo exists.

[snip]

It is amazing any of us can sleep at night when the fate of millions of souls hangs in the balance.

I couldn’t have expressed better than that, the utter irrelevance and vacuousness of religion. And how does this proposed change gel with the Pope’s supposed infallibility? Have popes been wrong all these centuries when they said Limbo exists (were they fallible?  Surely not), or has God just decided this week to do away with it? And how do they know? With Galileo’s claim that the Earth orbits the Sun, there was at least scientific evidence that eventually even the church couldn't ignore. But how will they decide if limbo exists or not? As Ophelia puts it:

Okay - you've got your Vatican commission of theologians, thirty of them, and they have been 'examining' limbo. They've been what? What does that mean? How have they been examining limbo? They've been looking at it through a telescope? Through a microscope? Both at once? Both in alternation? Fifteen theologians on the tele and fifteen on the micro, and they combine their findings? Or they X-ray it? Run it through an MRI scan? Shave off bits of it for radio-carbon dating? Or is it that they sit limbo down and ask it a lot of questions? Or do they give it a written exam, with two hours to complete it and proctors walking up and down to prevent cheating? Or what?

Well, apparently none of those, since the pope is going to abolish the concept itself, which would seem to hint that there's nothing physical or material to examine. But then what? What does it mean for theologians to examine limbo? To talk about it, apparently, and decide whether they feel like believing in it or not.

And there you have, in a nutshell, the difference between science and religion. In science, the evidence is there for all to see, examine and find any faults that exist. Contrary evidence means your theory has to change. In religion, knowledge is revealed by authority figures, based on what they decide to make up that day. Theists who claim that trust in the scientific method is the same as their faith in made-up nonsense such as Limbo (its existence or otherwise), need to explain how the infallible Pope (or his “commission of theologians”) arrives at decisions such as this.

Still, at least the church is considering a change. It took them nearly 400 years to admit that Galileo was right, remember? Maybe in another 400 years – condoms?

You can come out now – this place doesn’t exist!

Speech free of thought

I turned on CBS News last night and was treated to the idiot on the right saying this:

I'm saddened and shaken by the shooting at an Amish school today, and last week’s school murders.

When my son Dan was murdered on the sidewalk at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, I hoped that would be the last school shooting. Since that day, I’ve tried to answer the question, "Why did this happen?"

This country is in a moral free-fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value.

We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children.

This was followed by some supportive words from Katie Couric. I remind you this was all on primetime network news. Turns out this is CBS’ “free speech” segment where they are apparently going to allow any random moron with a viewpoint a soapbox.

I won’t go into the ways Rohrbough’s comments are wrong. OK, I’ll list a couple. Evolution doesn’t necessarily say the strong kill the weak – it often favors cooperation in groups, especially groups of primates. More to the point, Rohrbough gives not one shred of evidence that any of these killings were due to teaching evolution, or “expelling God from the school”. In fact, the killer in the Amish school reportedly:

wrote in suicide notes that he was mad at God for how his baby, Elise, died…

Sounds like he had too much God, not too little.

Still, I can sympathize with a guy whose son had been killed in a similar incident. I can’t sympathize with the network morons who decided it would be a good idea to have a daily soapbox section on a national news network. Of course Rohrbough should be allowed free speech to express his ideas, no matter how dumb. But that means he can write a blog, write letters to the paper, stand on the street corner with a bullhorn if he so chooses; it doesn’t mean he gets a section on a national news network where his nonsense is presented as fact, with no one calling him on it. The news networks are already “presenting both sides” of issues where one side is clearly wrong, on the basis of “fairness”. In this section they’ve abrogated all pretence of journalism. And I would say this no matter what the views being expressed. CBS should cancel this segment if they want to retain any credibility.

Jesus is an ass?

Via Pharyngula I learn of the latest case of pareidolia. You should be laughing all day.  I know I will be.  Toooo funny.

Religious nut banned from flying

A woman was recently banned from a commercial flight after she asked airline staff to "stop blaspheming". She was taken off the flight and barred from flying with the airline for 24 hours, according to this item in The Telegraph:

Fiz Thomson, 55, was returning from a trip to Israel where she had been helping war victims, when she heard boarding staff at Stansted airport repeatedly exclaiming "Oh, my God" after a child fell and hurt herself.

She said she politely asked them to stop taking God's name in vain.

The woman explained:

I was very polite and non aggressive, but one of the ladies angrily asked me if I expected everyone to follow my religion and do as I did.

Finally – someone speaks some sense to one of these religious nuts. Blasphemy indeed. Oh sure, let them believe whatever ridiculous nonsense they want, just don’t let them expect everyone else to follow their fairy-tale rules too.

Admittedly there may be a little more to this story than just the blasphemy angle: there is a suggestion the woman was also racist. (She may have made some racist remarks to an Indian employee, although she denies this.) Still, the idea that someone could be called out for expecting everyone else to subscribe to their “don’t make fun of my invisible sky-fairy” requirement, is a positive thing. Of course, this happened in the UK. When something like this happens in the US it really will be time to celebrate.

Religious leaders forget their differences

Here’s a heartwarming story. Amongst the age-old strife in Israel, religious officials from the Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities have buried their differences and come together in a never before seen union, for a common purpose.  What could that be, you ask, what common cause could have brought these diverse people together?  Well obviously – to ban a gay parade. Get a load of the peace and love that is the united voice of religions:

"I promise there's going to be bloodshed - not just on that day, but for months afterward," declared New York Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a representative of the Rabbinical Alliance of America.

…

"If gays will dare approach the Temple Mount during the parade, they will do so over our dead bodies," said MK Ibrahim Sarsur (United Arab List- Ta'al).

…

"Go send them to parade somewhere else," said one Sufi cleric. "That place can become Sodom, and God can smite them there."

And God bless you too. Isn’t it great that all the usual hatred and violence for each other, inspired by their different sky-fairies, can just this once be put aside to focus on what is really important – stopping queers from marching. God must be proud.

More on whether prayer works

In the World Cup, Ghanaians pray for victory:

I am listening to a gospel track on a local radio station. The lyrics are as follows: "This year is ours and in faith we will claim whatever belongs to us Ghanaians."

…

There is a lot of praying. Last night there were all night prayer services and radio phone-ins are asking people from all religious backgrounds to offer prayers for our team's success.

Result: Brazil 3, Ghana 0.

Carnival of the Godless

I haven’t plugged this carnival for a while, but I can recommend this week’s 40^th Carnival of the Godless.

My favorite – Brent at unscrewing the Inscrutable’s Angry Atheists – a reply to a Rabbi who wonders why atheists are angry. Of course, most atheists are not angry, we’re just sick of listening to you banging on about your silly fairy tale as though it were true. Or as Brent concludes:

The problem is that you theists keep hammering us with your incessant god-talk, trying to get us to listen to your wild flights of imagination, and trying to get your fantasies enacted into law and such. It makes it very difficult to get anything done while you natter on about invisible, impossible, irrational, irrelevant crap - while we are trying to get some work done. We end up like parents quieting an excited child who wants to talk about his imaginary friend. We're not angry at our child, but they just won't quiet down.

Daddy's working right now, sweetheart. You go play in your room and let the grown ups get something done.

Ouch!

A British judge has just rejected the claim that the author of "The Da Vinci Code" stole the idea for his book from “Holy Blood Holy Grail” (HBHG):

It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC (Da Vinci Code) has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright

Pretend historical books? That’s got to hurt. Still, it’s good to see the Judge wasn’t fooled by the Priory-de-Sion hoax that apparently fooled the authors of HBHG. (Or, at least, the hoax they wrote about as though they believed it.)

In my view the lawsuit had to be a publicity stunt. After all, the DVC was nothing but good publicity for HBHG, the sales of which apparently soared on interest from DVC believers. And they’re still cashing in: Michael Baigent – one of the authors of HBHG - has a new book out called “The Jesus Papers”. And from what I can discern from this interview this book just a re-hash the crucifixion portions of HBHG anyway. And it’s not the first time they’ve pulled this one: in 1986 the authors of HBHG published “The Messianic Legacy” – another book that as far as I could tell added nothing but padding to what they had already covered in HBHG.

Perhaps Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln should sue themselves for copyright infringement. Hell, they might even win that one.

Prayer still useless this year too

OK I’m a bit late in commenting on this one:

In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

But then I did comment in detail on a similar study last year that also showed no benefits, and I summarized the errors and fraudulent practices in some other supposedly positive (ie not positive) prayer studies.

No real additional comments to be made except to highlight this gem from the director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center:

There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either.

Science is not designed to study the supernatural.

Really?  Well, it is true that science can only study things that have a measurable effect, so if this “supernatural” he talks about has no measurable effect then I suppose he is correct in saying science can’t measure it. The only question I have would be: what is the difference between something that has no measurable effect and something that does not exist?

Please discuss.

Another redundant book title!

The voice of Islamic moderation

Islamic cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate, had this to say regarding the Afghani Muslim who converted to Christianity:

Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die

…

Cut off his head! … We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left.

Well thanks for clearing that up. Good job the extremists aren’t in charge then.

Aarrr, it’s a pirate in a pancake

It’s happened again – this time someone has seen Jesus in a pancake, according to this report by KTVU TV:

Mike Thompson was making pancakes last weekend for his family when the pattern on one of the flapjacks caught his eye.

Upon closer inspection, he saw what he thought was the face of Jesus. He showed his wife, and she agreed.

That's when the couple decided to do what anyone who discovers such an edible artifact does these days -- they put it up for sale on eBay.

I don’t know. To me it looks more like Captain Pugwash:

But then I guess Captain Pugwash wouldn’t sell too well on eBay. Even if they really did have the characters Master Bates, Seaman Staines, and Roger the Cabin Boy (which they didn’t).

At least they didn’t say it looked like Mohammad!

Feb 12 – Edited to add:

Currently bidding at $16K on eBay:

Feb 15 – Edited to add:

It has now been removed by eBay.

Islam for dummies

If you need another reason why we shouldn’t appease these Muslim thugs, read the Salon interview (translated from a Der Spiegel article) of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch MP whose film "Submission" led to the assassination of film director Theo van Gogh in 2004.  Ali knows a thing or two about Muslim threats, living as she does under 24 hour police protection because of her anti-Islam views. A couple of snippets:

Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?

Once again, the West pursued the principle of first turning one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when [Dutch comedian] Rudi Carrell derided [the Iranian leader] Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit. In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was canceled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch.

What should the appropriate European response look like?

There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.

Sadly, the western press did no such thing, they caved. It’s worth repeating Ali again: “Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch”. Of course they didn’t. They have the religion virus.

Just for the hell of it, another cartoon - my favorite:

Loony toons

And by that title I refer to the demonstrators as well as the cartoons they are demonstrating against.

The picture on the right is apparently one of the most offensive of the cartoons. (See the rest here btw, in the unlikely event you haven’t already.) Not only does it portray a forbidden picture of the prophet (peace be upon him – just not upon anyone else), but also it suggests that Muslims might sometimes be connected with planting bombs and terrorism and stuff. What a thought. Everyone knows Islam is a peaceful religion, and if you want proof just look at this crowd peacefully protesting:

So they’re offensive to Muslims. And the State Department agrees this is bad, according to Reuters:

These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims,… We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.

Well you know what – I’m offended too. I’m offended that the government presumes to suggest that ridiculous fairy tale religious beliefs should be protected from criticism. Religious beliefs, remember, are the ones not backed by any reliable evidence. And these are the beliefs we are not supposed to criticize? But why not? Surely, those beliefs not backed by evidence should be the first in the line for criticism? Of course, I can see why the religious would want their religious fairy tales protected from ridicule. They are, ridiculous. The major tenets of most religions are so utterly and inherently ludicrous you would not under normal circumstances expect a ten year old to believe them. However, I rather see that as their problem, not mine.

Ophelia at Butterflies and Wheels puts it more eloquently. Read this piece on the idea that these cartoons represent a battle between religious extremism and freedom of speech:

That's not how I would draw them, actually. That is a little too predictable, and it's also not quite the point. It seems to me the battle is between the idea that religion should be immune from criticism and the idea that it should not be. Or, perhaps, it's between the idea that 'sensitivities' and feelings of being 'offended' and desires for 'respect' should receive great deference and attention and loving concern and the idea that grownups are supposed to have learned how to take being 'offended' in stride and move on. Or it's between the idea that 'the sacred' should be inviolate and the idea that it should be subject to scrutiny. Or it's between the idea that 'blasphemy' is strictly forbidden and the idea that 'blasphemy' is a meaningless word referring to an empty category and should be drummed out of our vocabulary, let alone our laws. Or all those, and a few more.

She follows this with a reply to this idea that images of Muhammad are not allowed:

Not allowed to whom? Interesting that she neglects to include the necessary qualifier. Interesting and revealing, and of course she's not the only one who's been using that trick. There's an authoritarian little move going on by which people try to pretend that taboos apply universally as opposed to only the people who accept them. We can all draw pictures of Muhammad if we want to, and the Sarah Josephs don't get to tell us it's not allowed.

Right. That is exactly the point. I don’t mind if religious people want to practice their silly beliefs on their own, just as long as they don’t bother me and as long as they don’t tell me their silly made-up rules apply to me as well. But that’s never enough for these people. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Religious nuts everywhere, if they could get away with it, would make damn sure their rules applied to all of us.

Don’t believe me? Check out this report from the Bad Astronomer. A religious twit appointed by President Bush to work at NASA as a public affairs officer used his position to instruct a NASA web designer to make changes on the NASA web page about the Big Bang, because:

The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion… It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

This is how the government, if we let them, will meddle in the scientific process. It’s hardly surprising that the administration supports the view that the Mohammad cartoons are “not acceptable” – they are fellow travelers. This is why it is important not to buckle to the pressure from these Islamic thugs, but to criticize religion wherever it tries to get out of its box. Or as Ophelia writes:

Religion is in need of constant vigilance and interrogation and steady unrelenting pressure, so that maybe someday in some other happier time, it will stop being a source of misery and deprivation and oppression for so damn many people, especially women. So bring on criticism, mockery, cartoons, robust discussion, and whatever else it takes.

Right again. And for an even more extreme view, read Morpheus’ Millitant Atheist Declaration. Also right.

Make no mistake, these cartoons are not “racist” as some have claimed, nor do they compare to comments made by the Nazis about the Jews in the 1930s (this is just Orac’s Hitler Zombie again). This line of reasoning is a false analogy. Racism is the belief that a whole race of people is inferior to another race, despite evidence to the contrary, and actual discrimination based on this belief. Cartoons making fun of religion are just making fun of a belief – a belief that is not backed by any evidence, is patently absurd, and that adults are free to choose or reject. (In free countries anyway.)

The reaction to these cartoons are an eloquent example of the basic problem with religion. If I disagree with someone on, say, what is the best make of car, or on whether psychics are real or not, for the most part we can agree to disagree and get on with our lives. If I disagree with someone about what God wants, no compromise is possible. How can you disagree with what some fundamentalist thinks God revealed to him? The logical conclusion is the firing of newspaper editors, torching of embassies and death threats to bloggers and others. Agreeing with them that their religious beliefs should not be mocked will lead to self-censorship and will only embolden them to demand more next time. If we don’t stand up against religious intolerance now, it will only get worse.

More good reading on this subject:

The Two Percent Company’s Welcome to the Asylum. Population: Way Too Many

Christopher Hitchins’ Cartoon Debate

Orac’s reply to a Moslem mass emailer

PZ Myers with a slightly more sympathetic view of the Moslems themselves

Robertson apologizes

But doesn’t recant:

My zeal, my love of Israel and my concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father's illness

So he’s sorry he said it. Presumably still thinks what he actually said was correct.

I’m still a little puzzled by one thing. If God didn’t want Israel to cede Gaza to the Palestinians, with all his omniscience and omnipotence and everything why didn’t he just strike Sharon down before Israel withdrew? Seems like bad planning to me.

God smites Sharon

Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. That’s according to our good old friend, Pat Robertson (who else):

He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America… God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone.

There you have it. Goddidit. It couldn’t be because Sharon was 77 years old (the risk doubles with each decade after age 35), and not exactly a picture of health, oh no it wasn’t that. It was God’s punishment. Well, thanks for clearing that up Pat.

Alternative nativity vandalized

A house in Manhattan had apparently been decorated with a nativity scene picturing a blood-spattered Santa Claus holding a severed head, according to this report:

Joel Krupnik and Mildred Castellanos decked the front of their Manhattan mansion this year with a scene that includes a knife-wielding 5-foot-tall St. Nick and a tree full of decapitated Barbie dolls. Hidden partly behind a tree, the merry old elf grasps a disembodied doll's head with fake blood streaming from its eye sockets.

Sounds like my kind of tree. I asked a NYC-based friend of mine to get some pictures but apparently it has been vandalized. And they say the spirit of Christmas is dying.

Atheists cross at memorial

American Atheists have filed a lawsuit to remove the 12 foot high steel crosses that memorialize Utah Highway Patrol troopers who have died in the line of duty. The crosses are on public land and the atheists claim this is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The suit seeks $1 in damages, and a ruling from the U.S. District Court that the use of the Utah Highway Patrol logo on the crosses and their presence on government property is illegal.

Many family members and colleagues of the fallen officers are angry:

"As a trooper, it makes me feel bad that it's even an issue. I know a couple of these troopers that have fallen and it's personal to us. We would hope the memorial of these troopers wouldn't be tarnished by any means."

Now, the atheists may be technically correct, and I understand the issue is the protection of the non-Christian minority, but I’m afraid I am going to have to disagree with the class on this one. Don’t get me wrong. I like to point and laugh at Christians with their silly rituals and beliefs as much as the next atheist. But I would suggest this action is going to get very little support among the public, will make atheists look mean and foolish, and is likely to provoke a backlash. (Already a rally is being planned.) More importantly, we should have compassion for the relatives of the fallen officers and their colleagues who drive these streets every day. These people have apparently all decided that they want the crosses to honor their dead, and who are we to say they can’t have them?

Look at this:

This is the Arlington National Cemetery. Look closely: you’ll see crosses on all the headstones. The government uses a uniform headstone that can be inscribed with any symbol representing the deceased's religious beliefs. Along with a generic cross are symbols for other groups, including Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists. Surely the authorities could be persuaded to allow future families to have different symbols if they want them? Wouldn’t this be a better way than filing a lawsuit?

I think this action is likely to be counter productive. This lawsuit gives the appearance of atheists picking on the bereaving families of fallen heroes.  We should let this one go, and focus instead on more important issues.

Putting the fun in fundamentalism

Check out the hilarious Fundies Say the Darndest Things! Website. It’s a round-up of the nuttiest of the nutty posts on fundamentalist discussion boards such as Christian Forums, Christian Message Board and of course Rapture Ready. It also includes posts by fundamentalists on atheist forums such as Internet Infidels. You would think from reading them that these are made-up quotes, but they are all actual posts made by real people during online debates. They are funny for the reason that they were all obviously written with such serious intent.

They are fascinating. My favorite has to be this November’s post of the month:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

(Emphasis added.)

A powerful argument. Still, I’m confident that sooner or later scientists, working diligently, will locate and identify this external source of energy that provides light and heat to planet Earth. Quite a day that will be.

The site owner suggests memorizing a few favorite quotes to tell to your friends, to instantly become the life of the party. (If you don’t know where to start, just use the search page and the keywords "babies" or "gravity": more than enough comedic gold to last all night.) This practice comes with a warning though: once you start this it’s hard to stop. Before you know it you have spent a whole evening reading this stuff. You have been warned.

As an aside, if you’ve ever wondered why these people are called fundamentalists, here’s the reason: it’s because they speak out of their fundament. You heard it first here.

Boy probably not reincarnated Buddha

There have been reports that a 15 year old Nepalese boy is the reincarnation of Buddha.

Ram Bahadur Banjan, 15, sits cross-legged and motionless with eyes closed among the roots of a tree in the jungle of Bara, about 100 miles south of the capital, Katmandu.

…

Many visitors believe Banjan is a reincarnation of Gautama Siddhartha, who was born not far away in southwestern Nepal around 500 B.C. and later became revered as the Buddha, which means Enlightened One.

It’s quite a show, with 10,000 people reported to be visiting the site to view the boy each day. One of the things that has people excited is the claim he has gone six months without food or drink – miraculous if true. The Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology has even been asked to send scientists to look into it.

Actually I don’t think they need to go to all that trouble. I think the answer to how he apparently manages without food or drink can be found in this snippet:

Mahat said visitors can catch a glimpse of Banjan from a roped-off area about 80 feet away from him between dawn and dusk.

Followers then place a screen in front of him, blocking the view and making it impossible to know what he is doing at night, Mahat said.

"We could not say what happens after dark," Mahat said.

Ah-So - he goes without food during the day. Unusual perhaps, but not especially enlightened.

What me, miss meals?

With deepest sympathies

Science education in Kansas.

Terrell Owens – what’s God trying to say now?

Back in February I reported how pro footballer Terrell Owens, who broke his leg in December, was OK to play in the Super Bowl only seven weeks after surgery. Owens claimed his recovery was part of God’s plan to give him an even bigger platform during Super Bowl week than he otherwise would have had, thus proving God's greatness:

If you believe in miracles, just wait until Sunday… Do you believe in God? Read John, Chapter 11. That's all about believing.

Hum, John doesn’t have a Chapter 11. Never mind.

(Correction: yes it does - my error.)

Anyway, Owens is in the news again.

He was suspended Saturday, two days after he said the Eagles showed "a lack of class" for not publicly recognizing his 100th career touchdown catch in a game on Oct. 23. In the same interview with ESPN.com on Thursday, Owens said the Eagles would be better off with Green Bay's Brett Favre at quarterback instead of McNabb.

Surely not? How can God have allowed this to happen?  And  how did Owens explain being deserted by God?

Wait – Owens apologized:

A contrite Terrell Owens, hoping to overturn his dismissal from the Philadelphia Eagles, on Tuesday apologized to coach Andy Reid, quarterback Donovan McNabb, the team's owner and president, and fans.

So did God slip up in allowing his protégé to be suspended? Or was his whole purpose all along to show Owens apologizing? Yes, that must be it.  God wanted us to see Owens apologize – I believe!

Terrell Owens with his mouth shut – IT’S A MIRACLE!

Jesus’s love alive in Mexico

But only if you follow the right Jesus. Following the wrong Jesus will get you thrown out of your home:

About 150 evangelicals – 40 families – will be expelled from their homes in San Nicolas, Hidalgo state, at the end of October, according to a town council vote on Saturday, October 1.

…

“Of the population of 8,000 inhabitants, 70 percent consider themselves Catholics and have decided to end the evangelical religion.” A local Catholic priest has tried to persuade the town to practice religious freedom, once announcing through a loudspeaker, “We are all children of God,” but townspeople cut off the amplification as he spoke, according to the report.

Catholic town leader Noe Gerardo threatened reporters who were present that they would be burned and no longer allowed into San Nicolas if they repeated the priest’s message.

Don’t you just feel Christ’s love? Hat tip to Reason Online.

Aliens are irrational too!

ET is likely to be Christian, according to a new booklet published by the ironically entitled “Catholic Truth Society”

Is original sin something that affected all intelligent beings? Is Jesus Christ's redemptive sacrifice sufficient for the whole Universe? Would there be a parallel history of salvation on other planets?

They missed a question: do aliens believe in nonsensical made-up bullshit too? According to The TimesOnline, the publication answers in the affirmative.

To back up his hunch that the aliens will have been subject to Christ’s saving grace, he cites the verses from John’s Gospel known as the Good Shepherd passage. In John x, 14-16, Jesus says: “I am the Good Shepherd . . . I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. So there will be one flock, one Shepherd.”

Huh? A little earlier in that same book, John III 16 to be precise, we are told:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son

(My bold.)

So which is it? Are there little groups of Jebus worshipping aliens scattered throughout the universe, or are we special? I think we should be told.

Maher not that smart

I like Bill Maher, (despite his rather dumb opinions on vaccinations), because he comments on current events from a different, perceptive and funny angle. I also agree with him a lot more than I disagree (vaccinations notwithstanding). Recently though it seems he’s been bested by people with inferior arguments. A prime example came on last Friday’s show (HBO – US TV), where his guests were Salman Rushdie, Ben Affleck and blogger Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan is that rare person, a gay conservative Catholic. (Rare in being openly so, anyway.) He’s also very smart and always a good guest on Maher’s show. He gave Maher a pretty good smacking on Friday, as the Transcript for Oct 7 shows, although I think Maher missed the rather obvious comeback. See what you think (all added bold is mine):

 

MAHER: And I have to tell you, what offends me the most about this nomination is that there is no diversity of religion in this country. George Bush does have a diverse Cabinet when it comes to race. They've done a pretty good job: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, so forth. But, you know, I don't think race makes someone as diverse nowadays as how you think about religion. And there's no secular voice. There's no voice of me in this Cabinet. Everyone who gets appointed has to be not just Christ-y, but “Super-Christ-y,” [laughter] “Double-Dog-Christ-y,” “Twice-Born Christ-y.” [laughter] And you know what? That – people of faith – and when I hear “people of faith,” I think, well, those are people who suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe. Where is the – where is the diversity of the people who think like myself and perhaps you. [applause]
(Snipped comments mainly from Affleck)

SULLIVAN: Bill, I'm a person of faith, and I rather resent being called stupid.

MAHER: I'm not calling you stupid. I'm saying—

SULLIVAN: Yes, you did. [laughter]

MAHER: No, I'm saying it's a mental block. Because I know intelligent—[laughter]

SULLIVAN: I'm saying you have a mental block when it comes to people of faith.

MAHER: No, I had a mental block when I was a child when they taught me this nonsense. And when I got to be an adult, I got over it. [applause]

(Snipped comments mainly from Rushdie)

SULLIVAN: But…people of faith are not talking about what is known; they're talking about what is not known and what we cannot know… And genuine people of faith are not going to make these asinine statements like Franklin Graham or these nut cases that you point out. They're going to be humble in front of God. They're going to recognize that there are some things that science cannot tell you: the meaning of the universe, the point of our lives, what morality is, what happens to us after death, how we should treat our fellow human beings; those questions, I think, in true people of faith who don't seek to impose on other people, are just trying to find a way to live their own lives in a good way. And by demonizing all people of faith … what you do, is you play into the hands of these fundamentalists.

The first obvious point is that Maher never said people of faith are stupid. He said their beliefs are nonsensical (or stupid, to stretch a point). That is a crucial distinction, because smart people can believe in stupid things, as Michael Shermer has explained.

More importantly, Maher didn’t call Sullivan on his main fallacy, namely his claim that that science can’t answer the questions of the meaning of the universe etc, but that religion can. No it can’t. It thinks it can. And it’s sure its explanations are correct. But there is absolutely no good reason to suppose they are correct. They’re just made up. And so they’re probably wrong.

Third, Sullivan’s claim that people of faith “don't seek to impose on other people” is, frankly, bullshit. Religious people have made it their life’s work to impose on other people, from before the days of the inquisition right up to the modern intelligent design movement that seeks to replace science and rationality with made-up nonsense. Or as PZ Myers wrote on Wednesday:

It is not enough to let (people of faith) be, you must also acknowledge the vast and weighty import of their history, their rituals, their majestic all-powerful Tooth Fairy. And since their god is infinitely malleable, they can attach him to anything to add his incalculable mass to whatever end they want. Little kids get told to say their prayers before bedtime—a meaningless ritual backed by the Lord of the Entire Universe. People are killed en masse in wars because they address same Lord by a different name or title than other people.

Sullivan threw Maher off his main point with a phony martyr-act, drivel about religion answering questions science can’t, and innocent “we just want to be left alone” bullshit. In case you forgot, Maher’s original point was that this administration does not have a representative for the secular voice. And it doesn’t. Sullivan didn’t refute this point, didn’t even attempt to refute it, he just red-herringed it away. Maher is good on prepared monologues but not so good on a comeback when challenged by someone smart who disagrees with him. And Sullivan’s challenge really wasn’t that hard to refute.

Maher is on again tonight (8.00pm Pacific, HBO).

Leno gets it right

You’ve probably read how Madonna has upset some Kabbalist rabbi by using the name of a holy mystic in one of her songs. The BBC reports the rabbi saying:

"Jewish law forbids the use of the name of the holy rabbi for profit," said Cohen, who runs a seminary named after Luria in the northern Israel town of Safed.

"Her act is just simply unacceptable and I can only sympathise for her because of the punishment that she is going to receive from the heavens."

Ho hum. She’s only got herself to blame. When you embrace a load of mystical nonsense you can hardly complain when a mystical leader heaps a load of mystical nonsense on you for breaking their silly made-up rules. Anyway, the complaint was that Madonna had used Luria’s name for profit, in one of her songs. Jay Leno (US TV comedian) last night had the solution – Madonna should in future only use Luria’s name in her films.

Swept straight to video

Kaz he doesn’t believe her story

What would you think about a woman who claims she was in the World Trade Center when the plane hit on 9/11, sustained multiple injuries, died, went to heaven, and met God and Jesus who told her to return to life and travel the world to spread his message to all mankind? What if this woman was soliciting collections of up to $20,000 each time she told this story at a church meeting? What if she also dabbled in faith healing at these meetings? What if she made several other outlandish claims? You’d be suspicious, right? Or at least, ask for evidence to support her claims.

You would be thinking of “Dr. Kaz deMille” Jacobsen – in inverted commas because it is by no means certain she is a doctor. And because although she claims to be the illegitimate granddaughter of film director Cecil B. DeMille, the DeMille family deny any such connection.

It is a very strange story indeed, and one that Robert Lancaster has made into a quest to investigate and debunk through his Stop Kaz website.

Why focus on this woman when there are so many other frauds equally worthy of attention? As Lancaster says:

…she takes money from people. And since she does it by telling them a pack of lies, she is taking it from them under false pretenses.

And, in my opinion, she does it by desecrating the memory of everyone who died on 9/11.

Good points. Checkout his Stop Kaz website. And if you have any information on this woman, please contact Robert Lancaster: he will be interested to learn what you have.

Belief in God is harmful

From God is for Suckers I learn of a new study published in the Journal of Religion & Society (summarized in the Times online), that religious belief can be harmful to a society:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.

Furthermore:

…rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates

Now, this is interesting, and certainly amusing to those of us who don’t worship the invisible daddy in the sky. But in reality, the study only reports a correlation, and as we critical thinkers know, correlation is not causation. The study specifically states:

… it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions.

So as much as I’d like to, I don’t think I can claim the (hyperbolic) title of my thread is proven by this study. However, it would seem to be evidence against the idea that religion is a good thing, necessary for a moral or good society. I’ll take that.