Good. Everyone hated Raphael anyway.

Now if it was Michelangelo, I would be upset.

Jesus the liar

I’ve had conversations where I’ve asked people to tell me who they think is among the greatest humans to have ever lived. Unsurprisingly, Jesus is a common answer. And for a long time I didn’t disagree. After all, the things Jesus said really aren’t represented by the religious, so it isn’t so much to say he was a good person. Of course, I’m granting that he really did exist, but that’s another discussion.

But I’ve been thinking. Sure, Jesus said some good things. Of course, other philosophers have said the same good things – and done so with actual, ya know, reasons – but good is good. Except that pesky detail about using reason is where things get sticky. Okay, Jesus wasn’t great at arguing his case logically (that part is well represented by the religious), and that obviously doesn’t make him a bad person by any means, but consider the way he did argue his case: he lied. He claimed he was a divine being from some magic place. He said he had a mandate from the one true god to save the world. Whether it was an actual man named Jesus who said those things or if scribes simply made them up along with the miracles they invented, none of it is true. Not a bit. It’s all a lie.

I don’t know about anybody else, but I have trouble ranking a fundamental liar among the greatest people the world has ever seen.

Occupy Augusta

I decided to check out the Occupy Augusta crowd over the weekend. I didn’t get down there Saturday, which is when I imagine there was at least a moderately sizable crowd, but there were still a couple of dozen camped protesters Sunday. It’s about what I expect for a small city – the larger protests are going on in Portland where a bomb was recently set off by someone rather unsympathetic to the movement.

Anyway, here are a few pictures:

Thought of the day

Dead or dying because of President Obama: bin Laden, al-Awlaki, Gadhafi, the war in Iraq.

Dead or dying because of Republicans: the economy, hope, change.

Bow! Bow before my particular god!

That’s what the military told one of its soldiers. He said no:

The 20-year old private first class, a proclaimed atheist, is graduating from Advanced Individual Training at Fort Jackson in South Carolina on Thursday.

The soldier, who requested that CNN not give a name and gender for fear of repercussions, called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on Wednesday after taking part in a rehearsal for the graduation.

The soldier told the watchdog group that during the rehearsal, officials ordered the soldiers to bow their heads and clasp their hands during the chaplain’s benediction. As an atheist, the soldier refused to do so.

The military then threatened to prevent the soldier from graduating. They backed down when they found out he had contacted an outside group for protection of his rights, but who knows how far things would have gone otherwise.

This isn’t a big story because it appears to have been resolved relatively quickly (plus the solider is remaining anonymous), but I wonder how Christians in general would react to this. I imagine a good number would support the solider in principle, but I think a significant portion would be against his actions.

This is why TBS shouldn’t cancel shows

Thought of the day

I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

That would only be a crazy thing for someone seeking the Republican presidential nomination to say. Someone like the only remotely reasonable candidate in the field, Jon Huntsman.

Craig is unworthy

William Lane Craig has his rhetoric down pretty well. He is a professional debater, after all. Ask him most any metaphysical or theological question and he will probably have a prepared answered well memorized. But that’s about as far as the guy can go. Actually engage his points and it isn’t difficult to defeat him.* But why should anyone bother debating the guy? He has made zero special contributions to his field other than to revive a long-dead, easily dismissed argument (one which, unlike a good deal of philosophy, can be directly addressed and defeated via empirical evidence). His primary claim to fame is that he likes to debate. I admit I occasionally enjoy watching debates myself, but I generally only watch the ones done by people with esoteric knowledge in a field. Craig, for that reason, is not worth watching.

And according to Richard Dawkins, he also is not worth debating.

Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”. For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

It’s true. A debate between Dawkins and Craig, while it would rack up the YouTube hits, would only serve to benefit Craig. It would be beneath Dawkins to engage the guy.

But these facts aren’t stopping Craig from continuing “in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame” Dawkins into a debate. At one of his entertainment shows in England, Craig is going to place an empty chair on the stage to represent Dawkins’ absence. I’ll let the good doctor take it from here:

But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn’t only Oxford that won’t see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

Okay, I’m happy Dawkins isn’t going to debate the guy, but it wouldn’t be so bad to hear a few more knockdowns like that.

*When I went over to Mike’s to find some Craig links, it turned out he already had a post on this topic, as well as another Craig post. Further searches will reveal a good number more posts.

Nope, wrong

PZ has a post about circumcision where he goes through the arguments in favor of the procedure based upon a video. (I haven’t watched the video nor will I because from what I gather it’s just a hack piece which does not focus on circumcision as performed by medical professionals in a medical setting.) Two of the arguments he quotes are apparently from a single guy and should just be boiled down to one: ’cause religion says to do it. Another one appeals to tradition, which is also a bogus argument, but then PZ has this last one:

The health benefits. Total bullshit. As one of the speakers in the movie explains, there have been progressive excuses: from it prevents masturbation to it prevents cancer to it prevents AIDS. The benefits all vanish with further studies and are all promoted by pro-circumcision organizations. It doesn’t even make sense: let’s not pretend people have been hacking at penises for millennia because there was a clinical study. Hey, let’s chop off our pinkie toes and then go looking for medical correlations!

PZ is wrong. The evidence has not suddenly vanished that circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV in high risk groups. Furthermore, it is blatantly invalid to dismiss this evidence because it may be used by pro-circumcision organizations, whatever those are.

If PZ wants to argue that circumcision holds little to no health benefits in places like the United States and other low risk nations for certain diseases, he can do that and be perfectly accurate. But if he wants to argue that circumcision has zero benefits in all circumstances, then he is in denial of the preliminary evidence.

Thought of the day

On voting: The voting age ought to be at least as low as 16. That is the age when most (perhaps all?) people are allowed to work. It should be the age when all people are allowed to vote. After all, why are we making teenagers pay into SS and other programs if we aren’t going to give them an equal say?

Also, I wouldn’t support it, but I can’t say I would be heartbroken if the U.S. adopted an Australia-like system where voting was mandatory.