Live Free Or Die Getting There
There was a pretty view or two along the way.
But, otherwise, it was a pretty hellish two-part trip from L.A., through O'Fat and Hare'y, to Manchester, New Hampshire.
That's where I am now, to attend NEEPS, the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society conference. Pinker is keynoting here tomorrow. Should be interesting.
As I was waiting for my plane at LAX, I ran into Christopher Hitchens, who said he was in town to debate Dinesh D'Souza in Long Beach. He said D'Souza is the best of them he goes up against, so it should be well-worth a listen -- as is just about any forum Hitchens participates in. If anyone finds video of it, please e-mail me the link and I'll post it.
Meanwhile, here's an old one of Hitchens and D'Souza.
Unfortunately, whoever taped it cut it off before Hitchens really responded to D'Souza's silliness about "atheist regimes." There really is no such thing as an "atheist regime." Atheism is, simply, requiring evidence before believing in something. Since, to borrow from Sam Harris, there's no evidence that frozen yogurt can fly, nor is there evidence god exists, I don't believe my frozen yogurt will levitate, and I don't believe in god.
It may not levitate, but let me tell you, you can definitely make yogurt fly.
Enjoy your conference. At the keynote, listen carefully. That sound you hear will be thousands of radical feminists crying out in pain since they hate woman-hating evo-psychos and prefer their patriarchy conspiracy theory.
jerry at May 1, 2008 11:19 PM
If anyone doubts my power, just note that I posted my comment more than 24 hours before Amy posted the entire post. I am more powerful than General Zod!
jerry at May 1, 2008 11:25 PM
I remember when I became an atheist. I was sound asleep in my bed, woke up suddenly and decided I didnt believe in God. I felt a sudden relief, and fell promptly back to sleep. That's my story, wouldnt a religious person label this as a spiritual experience if instead I said "I woke up and suddenly believed in God, and felt relief and happiness" and use this to prove there is a God? What about me whose story is in reverse?
PurplePen at May 1, 2008 11:31 PM
If anyone has deets for the Hitchens D'Souza event, please tell us where and when. I can't find anything about it on the web.
Crid at May 1, 2008 11:41 PM
Can anyone ever give an example of an athiest regime? How about any type of athiest based government?
I can understand how some people are comforted by the notion of a god, and I'll admit there might indeed be one.
But I have to say if there is a god it is cannot be anything like the gods described by any religion to day.
Islam was founded by a child rapist, anyone who thinks a god would condone that is fucked in the head.
Nearly ever single christina sect in existance either gaurentees you will go to hell, or simply ignores the very rules set for by thier god.
Lutherans belive their faith is wrong, just better than catholocism.
Catholics, in addition to violating the ten commandments by praying to idols(icons, saints, virgin mary, etc), aid and abet the catholic church in finacing the removal of child molesters from public prosecution.
The Church of England is based soley on the whim of a serial killer wanting a divorce.
Protestism was founded on the basis of protesting the catholic churchs actions of selling indulgences and tourturing people to death for heresy. Unfrotunatly the edited the bible which carries a penalty of eternal damnation.
According to the bible jesus denied being god, so any church subscribing to the doctrine of trinity holds jesus not only to be god, but a liar. Tell me how can a liar be a god of all that is good and holy?
Ten minutes of rational thought applied to any religion whould show that they are ALL false. They either ignore their very sorce material or garuntee that you will never go to heaven.
What kind of all loving all powerful deity condems everyone to hell?
And suppose you do get into heaven, what is your reward?
It is an eternity of sitting around praiseing god telling him how great he is.
How fucking narcissistic is that?
You have supreme power, and you use it to create a testing ground rigged where everyone fails, and the special few you allow in get to sit around forever and tell you how swell you are?
I'll ask again How fucking narcissistic is that?
lujlp at May 1, 2008 11:50 PM
Great post, lujlp.
And here's all I could find about the event, from D'Souza's website:
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/events/calendar.html
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2008 1:26 AM
Welcome to the cold and dreary Northeast...shit weather this week.
Let me know if you're passing through Boston and I'll email some restaurant recommendations!
Lujlp - ditto.
Gretchen at May 2, 2008 4:39 AM
Thanks, Gretchen. And I'm only passing through Manchester for a few days, and apparently, we're all staying near some fish restaurant that's supposed to be the best in the state.
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2008 5:00 AM
Well, heck, Amy. If I had known you were making this trip, I would have waved at you when you flew over Wisconsin.
Axman at May 2, 2008 5:14 AM
Amy, I know you and your supporters are very sensitive to criticism, but I can't resist two small points: 1) it should read "whoever taped it" and 2) I think "you do protest too much" re your atheism. I do believe in God but I don't have to mention it every time I put pen to paper the way you seem to have to do. It makes me wonder why.
Kerry at May 2, 2008 7:11 AM
Because the inanities of faith are warping the human enterprise.
Crid at May 2, 2008 7:21 AM
"It makes me wonder why."
Because she makes a living off telling people what she thinks. And what she thinks has a lot to do with her atheist (non)belief system.
Just a thought. I am certainly not claiming I can speak on her behalf.
Gretchen at May 2, 2008 7:39 AM
You're right on "whoever" -- changed that, thanks -- and that's what I get for blogging at 2 am after a long plane flight. ("Whoever" would be answered by "he" taped it.)
As for why I mention god, if people who believed in god were just off doing rain dances and didn't try to legislate their religious beliefs on others, or worse, in the case of Muslims, try to murder, convert, or tax and humiliate infidels, well, I wouldn't have a problem with believers. Well, I'd find it sad and immoral that they raise their children to believe instead of to think. But, you don't see me blogging about astrology buffs, do you? They believe, without evidence, in some silly crap. But, they don't endanger my life or freedoms. So, I just laugh at them and don't devote much wordspace to them.
Kerry, why do you believe in god when there's no evidence god exists?
Oh, and I just looked at what Crid said. Yeah, that. I was too tired to write it shorter, to borrow from somebody or other.
And now, I'm going back to bed.
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2008 7:39 AM
Have you heard that they call Manchester ManchVegas? :) Enjoy!
Mary at May 2, 2008 8:05 AM
There's a great public Gun range 5 minutes from the Manchester airport if you're bored and have an urge to shoot an Uzi or an MP5.
Not that you'd be bored in Manchester ...
Sean at May 2, 2008 8:05 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/05/02/live_free_or_di.html#comment-1543887">comment from SeanPinker and David Sloan Wilson and all sorts of interesting people will be presenting their research here. What I do need is not target practice but three hours of sleep.
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2008 8:19 AM
Avowedly atheist societies have not proved more benevolent or more rational than religious societies. Quite the opposite. It's paradoxical.
Well that's one conception of atheism. There are strong and weak versions of atheism. The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake. Atheists often err by assuming all religions are fundamentalist, but most aren't. So saying a religion is "false" is like saying that moral tales, like Flaubert's Madame Bovary, are false. Most religions conceive of religious texts as the shared stories of a common culture. Indeed, culture is probably nothing more or less than shared stories.This turns out to be the value of religion. Religious societies have proved more resilient, more cohesive, less abusive of human rights, and more economically prosperous than non-religious societies. Most of the modern liberal ideas of human rights derive from religious beliefs about human flourishing.
For very good, if inconclusive, discussion of the issues involved, I recommend Rameau's Nephew. The Enlightenment thinkers were unsure about how society would develop without religion. The terrors of the 20th century seem to confirm their concerns.
Religion has a social value. It's still here because it has been very useful.
Jeff at May 2, 2008 9:22 AM
I agree that religion is very useful.
Being condemned to hell is a whole lot scarier than 25-life.
Gretchen at May 2, 2008 9:33 AM
It's still here because it has been very useful.
That's the question: has it been useful. If it had been useful, then it should still be here. It does not follow that since it's still here it must have been very useful. Otherwise, we'd have to say that the common cold must have been useful too, to mention just one thing. It's a logic error. (P implies Q) does not imply (Q implies P).
I'd accept that religion is not all bad - it does offer some benefits. But how can you weigh them up against the drawbacks? And it looks as if the balance is shifting on a worldwide scale.
Norman at May 2, 2008 9:43 AM
Atheist regimes: Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, North Korea. D'souza's point is that if we are to hold religions responsible for the actions of governments, then also we have to hold atheism responsible for the actions of governments.
Ugh...this is so ridiculous, I was hoping I wouldn't have to get into this.
Hitler was a Christian, first of all, and the others weren't "atheist" regimes, because there's no atheist playbook like there is a Bible or a Koran. Atheism is not believing in god. It doesn't tell you to go kill people who believe differently, as do the Bible AND the Koran. Luckily, Jews and Christians have moved on from that advice. Too many Muslims have not.
As for the so-called success of "religious societies," societies saw real success when they practiced and practice Enlightenment values.
Religion is useful for keeping the sheep in line. But, guess what: Humans have evolved morality, and don't kill each other or cheat each other because it isn't in their self-interest. They cooperate because it is in their self-interest. And when our group size gets above the Dunbar 150 (which he speculates is the maximum human group size that can be self-policing) we have police forces to keep us in line.
I'm on deadline now, plus I have this conference. Norman and the rest of you, can you please take over with any further cleanup?
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2008 9:44 AM
I'm arguing on the warrant that social practices survive over long, long periods of time because they are useful. You'll need to address that warrant. Analogies with viruses won't work here.
Jeff at May 2, 2008 9:49 AM
I'm not saying that atheistic societies are necessarily more abusive than religious societies. Denmark is a mostly atheist country, and it's benign. But there is no reason to believe, from the historical record, that atheistic societies will be any more rational or less abusive than Western religious societies.
Jeff at May 2, 2008 10:00 AM
The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake. Atheists often err by assuming all religions are fundamentalist, but most aren't. So saying a religion is "false" is like saying that moral tales, like Flaubert's Madame Bovary, are false. - Jeff
So Jeff what you are saying is Madame Bovery acctually happened?
That Hansel, Gretal, and Goldilocks were real people. And that what they all went thru was hostorical fact, that we need to center our lives around them and legislate innane laws to force the populas at large to 'benifit' from the wisdom their biographies teach us?
Is that what your saying Jeff?
lujlp at May 2, 2008 10:10 AM
Do you find it convincing when Muslim apologists cite Timothy McVeigh being a Christian as evidence of "Christian Terrorism"?
Neither do I.
And it's equally unconvincing when atheists cite Hitler being a Christian for similarly sophist purposes. As an Irish standup comic whose name I can't remember put it: "I'm about as much a Catholic as a cow born in a tree is a bird."
History will show that regimes that have criminalized religion have killed more people than religious regimes, at least in the 20th century. Why this should be I can't say, and the kill ratio may indeed become reversed in the 21th century, but we'd be in a better position to face the future if we're more honest about the past.
Naif Mabat at May 2, 2008 10:16 AM
>> I ran into Christopher Hitchens, who said he was in ...
Amy, you're the bomb. Hitch isn't one of my favorite thinkers, but it would be cool to run into him.
eric at May 2, 2008 10:22 AM
I am not an atheist (agnostic maybe?) but I can't help but blast this:
"The "playbooks" do exist. You need only read the works of Marx, Trotsky, and Mao. For example, atheism is the bedrock of Mao's totalitarian "new man" concept."
Atheism is not a set of rules and it is NOT a singular set of ideas. Atheism simply means you don't believe in something - that is unless you are presented with some sort of proof which is reasonable to you.
Religions give you all the answers, not urge you to find them. Atheism allows you to seek your own proof. Create your own unique framework for believing in god, afterlives, karma, whatever.
I don't know what Marx did in terms of religion, but I do know he was a great thinker of economics and human behaviors. Maybe I'm missing something there. I probably am.
Not believing in god (because there isn't sufficient evidence, which I think is subjective) doesn't necessitate your allegiance to everyone else who feels the same. Atheism is just a term for people to describe themselves as not believing in god, yet there is nothing binding about their whole belief system. I'm definitely repeating myself.
Furthermore, the insinuation that morality outside of religion is ludicrous. My statement about "being condemned to hell is scarier than 25-life" = religion is a tool that states can use to create good behavior. I find this insulting as morality and ethics exist entirely outside of religious context for me. I don't follow a religion yet have no desire whatsoever to kill, rape, steal, maim, etc. Those just aren't appealing activities, in fact they are revolting to me. I'd much rather DRINK MARGARITAS AND WATCH BSG TONIGHT! Sorry, I'm exciting it's Friday...
Maybe you should beef with Nietsche, not labor activists and revolutionaries...
Gretchen at May 2, 2008 10:37 AM
Lujlp - go easy there! :-)
Gretchen at May 2, 2008 10:39 AM
For Jeff
False religions
Islam - founded by a child rapist to justfy his actions - Highly doubt any god condones raping children
The Church Of England - Created by Henry the 8th, a serial killer who wanted a divorce - doesnt sound devinely inspired to me
Lutheranism - Created by Martin Luther. Luther himself said his church was a false church, but that it was slightly better that catholocism - Its own founder labels it as false
Catholocism - Under a banner of peace n love ran a thousand year campgain of death and torture. Venertaes idols in violation of the ten commandments. At one point declared the christ has no soul. Subscribes to the doctrine of triny which holds jesus god and the holy spirt are one being, unfortunatly jesus himself denied being god.
As nearly every christian sect in the world today holds to the doctrine of trinity they must be false. Unless jesus was a liar, but if jesus was a liar then obviously they would still be false.
The few sect which are not followers of trinity are Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Unitarians.
Christadelphians - belive that the bible was the only work inspired by god. Unfortunalty when jesus assended after the pentecost he said he was off to visit other 'sheep that were not of this flock' alluding to other belivers.(This phrase has been latched onto by mormons)
But it raises the question ifgod has followers elsewhere in the globe why would he deny them a religious text. As everyone claims god is unchanging it is obvious he wouldnt therefore Christadelphians are wong.
Jehovah's Witnesses belive only 144,000 people get into heaven. Out of all the people in all of the universe. If you were to simply take the people on the planet at this moment that would be .0024%. less than one quarter of one percent of people from right now. Imagine how small that number will be if you were to factor everyone who has ever or will ever live - it flies in the face of 'belive in me and you'll go to heaven'
Unitarians are an interseting bunch - they consider themselves christians but do not belive christ was the son of god. Kinda hard to have a christian faith that denies christ was the son of god, but they manage to wrap their heads around it.
I could go on and one about mormons as well if you'd like Jeff. Let me know if youd like me to. In the mean time if you can provide me with a religion that is true I'll be happy to look into it
lujlp at May 2, 2008 10:45 AM
History will show that regimes that have criminalized religion have killed more people than religious regimes, at least in the 20th century. - naif
Well sir the 20th century is over, why hasnt history shown it yet?
And Hilter was a christian, denying to doesnt help your argument in any way
lujlp at May 2, 2008 10:52 AM
And Mad Russian Roman Genn argues that communism was the state religion.
(Just bopping in for a second...thanks so much, Gretchen and lujlp, for the janitorial help!)
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2008 11:25 AM
lujlp: Jehovah's Witnesses belive only 144,000 people get into heaven.
What's the appeal for the 144,001st Jehovah's Witness?
lujlp: And Hilter was a christian...
Yes and no. It's more complex than that - history often is.
Hitler viewed mainstream religion like Napoleon and Marx did, as a means of keeping people under control. Hitler viewed Christianity as a religion for the weak and instead formed his own quasi-Christian religious views - a muddled mess of Ariosophy, the occult, racism, and select those portions of Christianity he deemed sufficiently Aryan and militaristic.
He wasn't an atheist - in the sense he never publicly denied the existence of God, but his view of God did not resemble the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God. He referred to a more vague "Almighty Creator" and "Providence" rather than to "God."
While he consolidated his power, he sought a religiously neutral Germany, fearing the political power that a state church not completely under the thrall of the Nazis would have.
Hitler tried to replace traditional Christianity with what the Nazis called, "Positive Christianity," which celebrated Christ as a fighter, organizer, and opponent of established Judaism - i.e., a Nazi. The issue of Christ's divinity was left deliberately vague.
In Hitler's view, Aryans were the chosen defenders of civilization while Jews were the enemies of civilization everywhere.
Hitler once lamented to Albert Speer that Islam would have been a better religion for the German people to have embraced than Christianity. He even appointed the grand mufti of Jerusalem an honorary major in the SS.
Documents from the Nuremburg Trials show the Nazis eventually planned to completely wipe out Christianity and substitute their own religion based upon Aryan racial superiority. Whether that religion could be called "Christian" is open to debate.
Conan the Grammarian at May 2, 2008 11:44 AM
Hitler was as much a Christian as Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Muslim. In other words, not.
Whereas Ali decided that the religion was too barbaric and could no longer remain involved with it, Hitler decided that HE was God, and that Christianity wasn't sufficiently ruthless to guide the ubermenschen to their rightful place in the world.
Humans have an innate need to believe in something bigger than themselves. When spiritual religion is replaced by secular religion (as always happened in societies with messianic leaders (mao, hitler, stalin)) you get much larger quantities of slaughter than you ever do in societies led by believers.
Communism, which had as one of its central tenets that organized spiritual religion must be suppressed so that there would be nothing above the state, has killed more people in its short history than all religions combined in all of recorded history.
You could take a shortcut and say that atheism kills, but I won't pull a Ben Stein here. But the simple fact is that non-belief is not a hedge against irrationality as Amy and others here seem to believe.
Humans are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings. And nothing focuses the mind so well as fear. The smart ones figured out that fear of eternal divine retribution worked out better than just about any worldly punishment they could threaten.
brian at May 2, 2008 11:53 AM
Hitler a Christian? That's a new one. Anyone can call themselves a Christian, that's not the point. It's about following Christ. Hypothetically, let's say he did call himself a follower of Christ, did he follow Christ's teachings? Did Hitler practice the principle of "loving your neighbor"? What about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty and helping those less fortunate?
I don't think so. So it's obvious
your point about Hitler being a Christian holds no water!
thatsagreatquestion at May 2, 2008 11:57 AM
Jeff - Analogies with viruses won't work here.
Actually they work very well. The idea is described by Dawkins.
Whether or not any god exists, religions are systems of thought and values which exist inside people's heads. As such, religions need limited resources - people - in order to survive. Once the number of people who believe in a particular religion drops to zero, that religion is extinct. It may exist in a book, and who knows, it may have been the one truthful religion, but it has joined the thousands of extinct religions whose names and rituals we no longer even know. Occasionally you see primitive cave art from some of these extinct religions.
Religions spread mostly from parents to children. This is why religions and nations are roughly coextensive. You can draw maps of religion because of this. To a lesser extent people change religions, or drop in or out.
Thus, religions are a kind of organism that inhabits human minds and replicates. Religions also compete with each other for resources - namely, people's minds. They trumpet how many believers they have, and how fast their numbers are growing. Religions like Islam mention "paying the religious tax" in just about every second breath. Clearly by the time Islam was founded, it was well able to take advantage of a society where money and tax were well established, and was well able to see how important money is to an organisation.
So we have all the requirements for a form of life that is every bit as insidious as a computer virus - and every bit as hard to get rid of.
Finally, consider the following. When biological parasites invades their host, it is common for them to de-sex the host, so that the host does not spend any of its resources reproducing itself. This means that the host has more resources to reproduce the parasite. The Catholic Church requires that its priesthood is celibate - that is, de-sexed. The reason is that when priests were able to marry and have children, they would naturally spend time and money on bringing up their children, and would bequeath their estate to their children on death. Now, de-sexed, they spend all their efforts promoting the religion, and leave everything to the Church when they die. The parallel with biological parasites is striking and horrifying.
This is why the analogy holds.
Norman at May 2, 2008 11:58 AM
Hypothetically, let's say he did call himself a follower of Christ, did he follow Christ's teachings? Did Hitler practice the principle of "loving your neighbor"? What about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty and helping those less fortunate?
I don't think so. So it's obvious - thatsagreatquestion
If your going to hold up that as the standdanrd of being a christian, how many christians will acctually qualify?
And brian if you truley belive that communism has killed more people in the last 70yrs than religion has in all of recorded history you have no concept of numbers, time, or history.
Also you faild to provide a direct corrlation between athism and communism
lujlp at May 2, 2008 12:08 PM
Jeff - The "playbooks" do exist. You need only read the works of Marx, Trotsky, and Mao.
But that's exactly the point: I'm an atheist and I don't need to read these books, and I never have. Well, I think I did look into Das Kapital as a student, but found it impossibly turgid. I wouldn't recommend it (and the ideas in it have been found wanting).
By contrast, every believer is encouraged to read and even memorise their holy book, to take it as absolute truth, and to hold it sacred.
Some people do get carried away by non-religious books; the result is effectively another religion, albeit not supernatural. So I'd say that the various totalitarian governments of last century were evil to precisely the extent that they resembled religions. The Communists with Marx, the Red Chinese with Mao's Little Red Book, the Nazis with Mein Kampf. I don't think you would have been any safer desecrating a copy of Mein Kampf in Nazi Germany in the 1930s than you would the Koran in Islamic Arabia today.
I do hope you can see the difference between atheism and religion. You won't find many atheists who will physically attack you for desecrating a copy of The God Delusion - unless it's a signed first edition or something. If they do, I'll stand with you.
Norman at May 2, 2008 12:12 PM
"And brian if you truley belive that communism has killed more people in the last 70yrs than religion has in all of recorded history you have no concept of numbers, time, or history."
Ouch. The relation between communism, atheism, state secular religion, etc. can be debated. The magnitude of the communist death toll, however, is simply a fact. If you don't have time for a trip to the library today, you can find some rough figures here:
http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/05/01/the-red-plague
Note that these exclude deaths related to Nazi Germany.
Naif Mabat at May 2, 2008 1:13 PM
Interesting link, blame communism for anywhere between 40 million and 260 million deaths in 100 yrs.
In the hunndered yrs after Columbus reache the western hemisphere estimates put the death toll between 40 and 90 million.
And that was just in the new world durring the 16th century. Doesnt even count the deaths in the old world.
And that is just one century, still 18 others need to be counted up just for the AD side of the calender.
Sumerian cuenfor dates back alost 55 centuries before christ.
So lets recap - you are saying brian is right in his assumption that communism killed more people in the last hundered yrs the religion has in the last seven or eight thousand.
Remember a couple of paragraph ago when I showed how religion in the 16th century had the same base death toll estimate in one hemisphere as communism did?
I wonder what the toll is for the other 74 centuries? ANd thats not even counting what might possibly have happened durring pre history
lujlp at May 2, 2008 2:13 PM
sorry that should read
Sumarien cuneiform dates back almost 35 centuries before christ
lujlp at May 2, 2008 2:17 PM
Still hoping to hear the debate tonight, if anyone knows where it is, speak up.
Crid at May 2, 2008 2:50 PM
"The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake."
Here you go then: pick the "right" one.
A bunch of these are exclusive. Logically, only three possibilities exist: 1) one religion is "right"; 2) all religions are "wrong"; 3) all religions are irrelevent except as inducements for men to influence other men.
Take your pick.
Radwaste at May 2, 2008 3:06 PM
lujlp - I get it. If anyone was ever killed by a Christian for any reason, they were killed bor religion.
Right.
40-90 million killed where? In the name of what religion? We're talking "convert or die" kind of killing. War, etc. I'm not talking about wars of defense (like the Reconquista).
I'm talking about the kind of killing that Stalin engaged in against the Ukrainians. Or Mao's purges.
If you're going to start calling the colonization of America the product of religious killing, then we've got nothing to talk about besides your irrational hatred.
brian at May 2, 2008 3:06 PM
brian,
sdj uv nnsdnkwj dmfnhf g shnc dmf ns dmm dhfv mdejjjc.
Failure to respond to my messgae will result in my men attacking your town, anyone who resistes will be killed, your women and children will be sold as slaves.
Imagine a boat load of people land on your shore - babble on in a language you have never heard. And when you fail to submit to their demands that you worship their god and bow down to their government they attack.
And I am not saying any time a christan killed someone it was attributable to religion. I'm saying anytime a religous person used their religion as justification it is attributable to religion.
But I am curious, if you think an idea like religion is never resposible for an idividuals actions, then how can you blame communism for the actions of Stalin and Mao?
lujlp at May 2, 2008 3:40 PM
As for where, I think I was clear, I said the new world in the century after Columbus landed
American Holocust by Stannard
lujlp at May 2, 2008 3:49 PM
Here's your analogy.
First, a ruductio. Science can be said to spread in exactly the way you describe. Advanced scientific societies have lower birth rates than less scientifically advanced societies, and then by your assumption science seeks to neuter it's "host" too. In fact, it's worse. You use the example of Catholics (you err by failing to note Roman Catholics), but Catholics have higher birth rates comapared to non-religious people. Thus, with science the "parallel with biological parasites is striking and horrifying" too. Of course, this is ridiculous.
Second, another reductio. If ideas are organisms which can, over the long term, evolve contrary to the will and benefit of the people who hold them, then what are we to make of your ideas? What makes your parasites less pernicious than mine, for example? To answer this you will have to posit some non-parasitic idea, but all ideas have the characteristics you cite. Hence, you have forever removed all of science's ability to discriminate true from false. Of course, this is ridiculous.
Third, another reductio. it appears to most of us that we can reason. It seems to be a bedrock of science, for example. But reason is precisely the deliberate alteration of one's own ideas, including religious ideas. I, and surely many others, ceased being religious by the application of reason alone. No anti-virals were necessary. This is not possible with something like say, the cold virus. Ideas seem to have properties that viruses don't have, and also the other way around. Moreover these differences are essential to both. If the virus was alterable by human cognition alone, it would in fact not be a separate organism at all, It would be part of the cognitive system of a human. So we arrive at another absurdity: if your assumption is true, then viruses and many other organisms are all human, or at least part of a human. Of course, this is ridiculous.
Norman, ideas are not like viruses because ideas can be altered by the application of reason which is an act of the human will. Physical ailments are quite different.
Jeff at May 2, 2008 4:34 PM
Taking up the weak form of atheism you've mentioned, a number of societies have attempted to build a cohesive society under using atheism as one of their bedrock principles. These societies have proved to be neither more rational, more prosperous, nor more cohesive. You aren't "missing something," but I think you may be going further than what has been claimed.
I agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. Modern science developed out of the religious notion of natural theology. Many, many great scientists were devoutly religious. How can this square with your first sentence?Jeff at May 2, 2008 4:47 PM
No one is saying religious people have never done violence. Some of us are pointing out that we must also blame atheism, yes even weak atheism, if we are to blame religion for violence. Lest you are deceived, I am prepared to blame religions for violence, and atheism too.
As for the bit about warring on American Indians, all states expand by conquest. The atheistic states of the twentieth century most especially. Also, it was religious people who most fervently argued the case for humane treatment of Native Americans. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between Stalin starving the kulaks to relieve them of their "religious superstitions" and the incidents you cite.
Such insight must be hard for an impoverished intellect that can find no truth in literature. I say: blame Dawkin's memes. You're infected!
Jeff at May 2, 2008 5:13 PM
Science is a singular set of rules and no one complains about that. I'm not sure what the problem is here.
Science is a singular set of rules that were established by observation, experimentation, and peer review. Any rule is subject to being overturned when new knowledge is discovered.
Religion's rules are faith-based. They are only overturned in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (the world is not, in fact, flat and the sun does not revolve around the earth) and sometimes not even then (the absurd persistence of creationism).
Conan the Grammarian at May 2, 2008 5:24 PM
So, tell me. What justifies the physicist's belief in the existence of forces? I'm very sure it's not observation. Don't get me wrong. I'm not disputing the usefulness of forces for predicting phenomena. But sometimes what is useful is purely conceptual, and not an existent.
What of these forces? Ever observed one?
Jeff at May 2, 2008 6:41 PM
Ever hear of gravity genius, how about magnitism? Ever observe that?
lujlp at May 2, 2008 7:00 PM
I feel like I'm beating my head on a rock. There is so far to go with logic and the history of discovery - indeed, the very formation of belief. Yet people who have never even suspected what a reasoning process is presume to tell all about the Earth and everything on it.
Jeff (and others) we define things in order to discuss them with others as to what they are, what they mean and how to use them. This is awesomely difficult to explain to people who have made it a habit of assuming that what they see is what there is - and no more. This is also difficult to explain to people who do not understand that measurements mean things. We are not restricted to observing the reflection of light to "see".
Most people are inherently so egotistical they will not learn this.
There are literally hundreds of reputable sources you can visit to determine what forces are. Four fundamental ones are in use right now in front of you, in your computer. They have definitions, and are every bit as real as air, which you also cannot see. Now pardon me while I go spit.
Radwaste at May 2, 2008 7:25 PM
Jeff - a physicist's "belief" in forces is due to the fact that HE FUCKING OBSERVED THEM IN HIGH-SCHOOL PHYSICS.
You can't see alcohol. Can you drink a fifth of Stoli and not get drunk?
You can't "see" electromagnetic force. But you can for damn sure measure it. Don't believe me? Stick a couple unbent paper clips in those little slots you see in the wall all over your house and touch your tongue to them. Is your hospital visit purely conceptual, or did you observe it?
Lujlp - you're being an asshole. The Puritans didn't wipe out indians who didn't convert. Cortez didn't kill indians for not converting. In the first case, any deaths were purely accidental (nobody had worked out the germ theory of disease in 1620). And Cortez was just there to steal.
The Crusades, in as much as they could be considered "religious" wars were simply wars of defense and retribution. The Islamic invasions of Europe, while for the expansion of Islam, were still EXPANSIONIST. Which makes them territory and ideology. Which sounds an awful lot like the Nazis and Soviets.
Mao's was purely ideological. And frankly, I think that makes him asshole of the century. Hitler killed people for land, and while he was at it he decided to throw a little hate-crime in for good measure (flame me for trivializing the Holocaust and I'll melt your screen). Stalin was a paranoid motherfucker who liked to kill people, and then steal their territory. Mao? He actually believed that he could create the perfect man, if only he killed all the imperfect ones.
That whole "True Believer" schtick makes Mao the Number 1 motherfucker of all time in my book.
Name for me any religious movement that can say they killed 40 million people at all, never mind in one go and in the space of a decade.
Not even the Muslims with all their combined attacks on Europe from 600 and change to today can hit those kinds of numbers.
brian at May 2, 2008 7:53 PM
I probably cant name one religious movement that killed 40 million for two reasons. First there werent as many people in existance in such a concentration. Look a graph of human population growth rates.
Second I am not singleing out any ONE religious denomination or faith. I am counting them all.
From christianity, to jeudaism, to islam, to the greek and roman pantheons, to norse mythology. I am counting the religous sacrifices of the atzetcs, to the indian practice of throwing widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands.
I am counting the deaths that occured during the constrution of edifices to false gods. I am counting all who died in the afrcian slave trade after the papal decree that africans could not be freed for converting because their country of origin was not a catholic satalite state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas
Am I being an asshole? Yes, but lets face it being nice to morons isnt very productive, by shoving it down your throat you are forced to acknowledge it, at least, for awhile
lujlp at May 2, 2008 8:51 PM
Yeah, Hitler was decidedly a Christian as well as an occultist (not that Christianity doesn't have its own magic show), and his entire staff was steeped in a perverted vision of Christianity with Jesus granting them dispensation for their evils.
Religion. It's good for fleecing and herding the sheep, starting wars, and hiding crimes.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 2, 2008 10:44 PM
Actually you could argue that the old Soviet Union was an Atheist Regime. You could make a similar argument for the old Khemer Rouge of Cambodia, or the present day North Korean government.
There have been & presently are a few places you could count as Atheist Regimes in the narrow definition of a government that is hostile to religion in general. The most extreme examples attempt to replace any divinity with the ruling party.
One thing I'll say in favor of religion in general...at least the ones that don't demand that nonbelievers die or pay extra taxes...over atheist reletavism:
When morality is relative, the only morals are the convenient ones.
Robert at May 3, 2008 1:19 AM
Morality is relative, whether you are religious or not. In terms of Xianity, was Jesus' crucifiction a good thing or a bad thing? If morality is absolute, you can't say it was good for us but bad for Jesus.
Norman at May 3, 2008 2:32 AM
Norman - if you take the Christian mythos in its entirety, Christ HAD to die. It was part of the plan.
Lujlp, I don't care how hard you shove it down my throat, YOU'RE STILL WRONG. Being an asshole about it doesn't make you less wrong. Arguing population density doesn't make you less wrong.
The numbers have been run. The total body count in the 20th century attributed directly to Socialist pogroms is in excess of 100 million. That isn't counting casualties of war (like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or the war dead of Hitler). Just civilians killed for the good of the state.
The only way you can approach that with religion is to start claiming slavery, Manifest Destiny, and defense. And you STILL wouldn't hit a tenth of a billion people.
You are welcome, however, to continue trying.
brian at May 3, 2008 4:49 AM
Brian - [...] Christ HAD to die [...] Just say whether it was absolutely good or absolutely bad.
Norman at May 3, 2008 6:13 AM
Is the death penalty absolutely good or absolutely bad? What Jesus was accused of carried such a penalty (as did most anything in those days) in the eyes of the Romans.
If you accept the life and death of Jesus as the will of God, then you would certainly consider it absolutely good - the Christian faith is predicated upon the death of Jesus redeeming the fallen for their sins. No dead Jesus, no path to salvation.
If you're a muslim, you consider the death of Jesus to be the final act of sedition against the Lord by the Jews, and therefore absolutely bad.
If you're a buddhist, I don't know how you'd view it. I suspect that the answer to your question in that frame of reference is 'mu'.
brian at May 3, 2008 7:06 AM
Of course, when attempting to judge the "absolute" morality of an act, you also have to consider the actors.
At the time (and even by modern standards) the Roman Empire was hardly a bastion of morality. Government by whim. Wanton exploitation of the underclasses. Given that, it would be hard to assign a positive to anything they did. From that frame of reference (in other words, discounting the divinity of Christ) the killing of Christ was absolutely bad.
In this one specific case, the morality of the situation is not relative, but it exists in both states. If you do not accept the divinity of Christ, then it was an immoral act perpetrated by an immoral regime. If you accept the divinity of Christ, then it was the expected reaction of the Romans to having their apple-cart upset.
brian at May 3, 2008 7:13 AM
I'm qualified to answer the question about Jehovah's Witnesses.
They believe the political forces of the world are going to unite against them. (I know, it's sort of cute that they consider themselves so relevant, but bear with me.) They believe that in the "Last Days," everyone in the world will either become a Jehovah's Witness or turn against them. And then, at that point, God will step in and kill all the bad people who are against the Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you have already died through natural causes at that point, never fear - you will be resurrected and given a chance to become a Jehovah's Witness. No one really knows whether EVERYONE who has died in the past will be resurrected, or if God just deems some of them too evil to bother with. (Like Hitler - it seems unlikely that he would be resurrected, for example. But you never know.)
Then the earth will be restored to the Garden of Eden and all the Jehovah's Witnesses will live forever in paradise. They will have eternal life, eternal youth, perfect health, and (one presumes) straight teeth with no cavities and the end of the common cold. So the alternative for #144,001 is pretty good. But they do believe that out of the entire surviving lot, 144,000 (many of whom have already lived on this earth and died) will be/have been chosen to sit at the right hand of God in heaven. I think Jesus' apostles are included in that group, and some other ones mentioned in the Bible, like the people who had the tongues of fire appear over their heads in that one story.
But, other than that group of 144,000 and the chance at resurrection, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in any type of afterlife, or that the soul lives outside the body. They do not believe Hell exists. Heaven is only for God, Jesus, the angels, the 144,000, and for the rest of the people it's either eternal life on earth or eternal non-existence in death.
Thank you everyone, I'm here until Thursday. Try the veal.
Pirate Jo at May 3, 2008 8:12 AM
brian, mainfest desitny was a religious justification for the wholesale slaughter of millions.
And thnks to the catholic church slavey became a point of relgiogius justifiction as well, so I do claim those.
But you still have failed to answer my question.
If you truley belive an idea like religion is not in any way responsible for the actions of individuals then how can you blame an idea like communism for the actions of Stalin and Mao?
Its been almost 24hrs and you've posted 3 times since I asked to answer the question already.
lujlp at May 3, 2008 12:59 PM
Bear with me. I'm playing slow here to make a point.
On magnetism, I've observed that certain arrangements of matter cause changes in other arrangements of matter. In fact, all of my measurements of magnetism are simply measuring the degree of re-arrangement.
When we say that forces exist, aren't we really just saying: "I have a mathematical relation, called a force, which accurately predicts the re-arrangement of matter under these such-and-such conditions?" In other words, we (even the hard-core atheist scientist) posit the existence of unobservables --- just because it's useful.
It seems that pragmatic criteria lead even the most die-hard empiricists to posit the existence of things never observed. Then why can't others legitimately posit the existence of unobservables, if it's useful?
Jeff at May 3, 2008 1:59 PM
You misunderstand or are ignorant of the origins and attitudes towards slavery in the ancient world. If you were a humanitarian in the ancient world, you advocated for slavery because the only alternative was massacre. When political power was traced through bloodlines, the only way to annihilate the political power of a state was to kills it's people. Since slaves had no political rights, humanitarians urged kings and princes towards slavery instead of genocide. For example, most of the African slaves imported to the US were captives from internecine tribal wars among Africans themselves.
After the Enlightenment, when the American experiment proved that political power did not need to rest with a high-born elite, the practice of slavery declined in the West. It didn't anywhere else. Why should Western political or religious institutions apologize for being the first civilization in history to eradicate slavery in its midst?
Why does the Republican Party have so many religious fundamentalists in it? Because the Republican Party was founded to eradicate slavery by defeating the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Most opposition to slavery in the ante bellum US was from precisely the fundamentalists you so despise, and they entered the Republican Party to vote out the pro-slavery Democrats. Unfortunately, Democrats were so attached to slavery that it required a war to actually oust them from power. Hence, to this day you have lots of fundamentalist Christians in the Republican Party. Why should those fundamentalists apologize for ending slavery on the US continent?
The ironic contradictions in your views are rather funny. You have a cartoon-version of history swimming around in your Leftist brain.
Jeff at May 3, 2008 2:17 PM
I haven't answered your question because I'm not in the habit of defending things I did not say.
I've spent too much time on the internet having my words twisted, or having things attributed to me that nobody in the conversation came close to saying. And I don't fight straw men.
When you can come to a zeroth approximation of what I actually said, then we can have a conversation. Until then, I see no question worthy of answer.
brian at May 3, 2008 7:42 PM
Jeff:
That's what we might teach in the sixth grade. But it's not the state of the art.
We may not know of the specific quantum reactions that take place in a magnetic field, no. But we can observe them, measure them, and explain them to an insane amount of precision. Consider the bit density of the 500 GB hard drive in my computer. If we were merely dealing with a postulate, there's no way it would work. But the fact of magnetic fields and electrical fields, the relations between them, and their effect on permanently magnetized materials (hint - it has to do with atomic alignment, which HAS been observed) is known, and can be controlled with microscopic precision.
I've seen how the inside of a microchip works. I understand it. The equations aren't abstract. I can give you the equations that will tell you the precise temperature you can expect a transistor to generate for waste heat based upon its geometry, the operating voltage, the bias circuit, and the switching frequency.
Electronics is a real science. It is measurable in excruciating detail (IBM is doing amazing things with atom-sized transistors). Memetics is mumbo-jumbo meant to make people money by trying to make thoughts seem like independent entities.
brian at May 3, 2008 7:51 PM
"It seems that pragmatic criteria lead even the most die-hard empiricists to posit the existence of things never observed. Then why can't others legitimately posit the existence of unobservables, if it's useful?"
Others can, and do. I hope that you understand that the first time such a thing fails of support, it must be abandoned. Also, a very large number of people do not have the training to understand what "legitimate" means; though this can be self-taught, it usually isn't - I've had to deal with all sorts of idiocy because people like the sound of their own voice. The history of religion is the history of believing things for which there is no support other than the collection of other "could'a, should'a, would'a"s. The pinnacle of "logic" in the religious mind produces that awesome situation where one statement in the Bible is asserted to be true because another passage in the Bible refers to it.
Really want to confuse a Creationist? Ask them why they think "Creation" happened when we do not have evidence of it today. Sometimes you'll get a blank stare, or the subject will be changed immediately because it seems so obvious that only a lunatic would say that. But everything you can see was converted from something else, not "created".
Radwaste at May 4, 2008 6:26 AM
Regards slavery and religion in the U.S.
The Republican party only reluctantly became an actual anti-slavery party. It is true that many abolitionists did reside in it, before Lincoln changed his tune that slaves ought be freed (and then only in the rebelious states). Lincoln clearly said his priority was union, not freeing people of their fetters.
And Jeff, you seemed to not bring up how so much of the Souths argument for continuing and expanding slavery was entirely through religious appeals-other fundamentalists. You mentioned what the north had. I hope you take a measured view. Both north and south were religious, and appealed with religious arguments on why they were correct. Because both major sides saw themselves as religious, I think it effectively disarms any argument that appeals to religion as being the savior of that conflict- because other practitioners of that religion were the ones enslaving.
It took a bloodbath and I think the better side won.
I also think that Reagan and his coalition of morality, freemarket and defense minded people explains more the makeup of republicans of yesteryear than because the democratic party of 1861 was proslavery. That democratic party has changed a lot, so has the republican party.
Abersouth at May 4, 2008 8:53 PM
The religious nature of the abolition movement is often forgotten. It results in unfair, and sometimes untruthful, characterizations of religious peoples. Religious people have political and ideological differences just like everyone else. You can find religious people on all sides of all issues. So, you can east easy when you write,
I do note however, that you have not urged my opponents to such a measured view, which tells us much about your own.
I do not agree. The two parties ahve been remarkably consistent in their political philosophies. Reading period Democratic arguments for extending slavery into the Western territories, I am always struck by how closely they align with arguments for affirmative action and other state transfers of wealth.
I will concede that Wilson and the two Roosevelts altered the Democratic Party towards an English version of socialism. The Progressives erected the entire, unconstitutional edifice of the administrative state. They sought to create a nanny society.
But that term, 'nanny,' is too benign. Such a state is not very different from a large plantation with government masters. What party advocated for that kind of social arrangement, in the past?
I will also concede that neo-conservatism represents a radical and unwanted change. So yes, Reagan did change things.
But still, overall, it is notable how consistent both parties have been to their founding political philosophies.
Jeff at May 5, 2008 6:52 AM
Jeff at May 5, 2008 7:05 AM
Really? That's the pinnacle? So, Grotius and Galileo aren't up near the pinnacle? I dunno, Rad.
Indeed I do. We may disagree on what counts a support, though. Anyway, it might make for an interesting conversation. I certainly reject the view that science "works" by falsification. This is true. Papal infallibility comes immediately to mind. I appreciate the scientific mind's reluctance to engage in metaphysics, but doesn't this just push the question back, from what was the universe converted?Jeff at May 5, 2008 7:18 AM
Jeff, I'm not going to get into an extensive discussion about the physics of semiconductors here. Suffice to say that if the model was inaccurate, it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
If there's some magical pixy dust that makes electrons behave in so specific and predictable a way in a doped semiconductor, then you're right, and the model doesn't "explain" anything. But if there's no reason to believe in God, then there's even less reason to believe in "magic smoke".
I can explain transistor theory to you, but even with my undergrad level of education, I'm pretty much stuck at the electron level of explanation. I have a grasp on the quantum-level explanations of what's going on in there, but I've been out of that field of study for over a decade. And even at that, your insistence on a meta-physical explanation of hole migration is going to send the whole thing into a ditch anyway.
Electrons, quantum states, valences, conductivity. These are all measurable and controllable properties. If the explanations weren't sufficiently good, then the computer you are reading this on simply could not be. Alchemy is not science. And electronics are not alchemy.
brian at May 5, 2008 8:00 AM
Jeff at May 5, 2008 8:57 AM
How many people are posting here with the handle "Jeff"?
You've tried to compare a belief in invisible physical forces with a belief in God. You've implied that we take it on faith that our models are accurate, but don't explain anything.
And now you're acting like you didn't just say all those things.
In the immortal words of Lou Costello, "One of us is nuts!"
brian at May 5, 2008 10:08 AM
Jeff,
I agree one oughtn't to monolithically blame theism for slavery. People enslaved people, and used religion as a tool.
You wrote "The religious nature of the abolition movement is often forgotten. It results in unfair, and sometimes untruthful, characterizations of religious peoples. Religious people have political and ideological differences just like everyone else. You can find religious people on all sides of all issues."
I don't get why you have at least twice now brought up the "religous nature" of the abolition movement, but failed to bring up the "religious nature" of the slave holders until I brought it up. If we find religious people on all sides of all issues, what does that tell us about the worth of religion? To me it speaks volumes to it's plasticity to justify anything.
I will concede that their have been consistencies of thought through the two major parties since their inception. But neither has been some unchanging rock over time. And I partly agree with you concerning the radical change brought on by neo-conservatism. I'm not sure how much of the blame of neo-conservatism is Reagan's. What I was talking about earlier was his coalition of limited government, defense minded and religious morality type peoples. I think after Reagan the limited government types have been effectively cast out of the republican party.
I cannot argue with a lot of what you say about the history of the democratic party. I didn't follow "the two Roosevelts" part though, because Teddy was no Democrat. He changed the Republican party a lot, and did a bit of cowboy imperialism. Not saying I'm a fan of him.
Abersouth at May 5, 2008 10:41 AM
Jeff wrote-
"Slavery was widely practiced the world over until it was eradicated by the same Western religious tradition you so revile."
Here is where you credit the Western religious tradition for saving slaves from their enslavement.
Then I argued (basically) that the Western religious tradition was fractured, some religious minded people seeing slavery as bad, others as good. Then you accused me of using a straw man argument.
"Who's claiming that religion was a savior in the conflict? Not me. You've written a nice post about a straw man."
I hope you figure out what you mean to say on this subject, because I can't.
Abersouth at May 5, 2008 10:53 AM
Abersouth - thank you for confirming my suspicions. I was relatively certain that I was not going mad (or at least not any madder than I already am).
brian at May 5, 2008 12:10 PM
Leave a comment