Infuriatingly silly

Posted on July 29, 2009 by Michael

Jerry Coyne has a post about why Francis Collins pollutes science with religion. It’s a succinct piece that basically nails Collins for all his silly, childish, superstitious, frankly stupid beliefs.

The most inane and disingenuous part of Collins’s argument is his claim that without religion, the concepts of good and evil are meaningless. (Collins’s slide 5 in Harris’s piece: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”) That’s palpable nonsense. Good and evil are defined with respect to their effects and the intents of their perpetrators, not by adherence to some religious code. It is beyond my ken how a smart guy like Collins can make a claim like this, even going so far as to argue that “strong atheists” like Richard Dawkins have to accept and live their lives within a world in which good and evil are meaningless ideas

It’s inconvenient for Collins or any other religiously-driven person to admit that morality is a purely human affair. And really, it’s getting to be a tiresome argument. Explanations abound for how morality could have naturally evolved. That should be good enough to force any reasonable person to admit that, no, morality need not have a god, it need not adhere to the whims of one individual entity, and it definitely is not universal. Our ideas of morality change with the times, with cultures, with known facts, with context. The only real constant is that every human society has developed a moral system. The details within each system may vary wildly – in bin Laden’s, the death of most of America is just – but they are always put within some sort of construct. That does not mean that bin Laden’s version of morality is equal to any other version which may exist. One key component in any moral system is basing premises on facts. That’s the main reason that god-based moral systems tend to fail or be wacky (see inane hatred of homosexuality among, well, almost all the religions). It’s one of the reasons bin Laden’s system doesn’t work and is not equal to mine or yours or most Americans’ or other Westerners’ (or even most Muslims’).

Collins, like most Christians who think they somehow own the moral high horse, despite all the contrary evidence, does not understand that morality is not universal. It is only moral systems. His is broken and can only work because he’s made it malleable to the progression of secular values and understanding. Indeed, if religions weren’t so agreeable to such change, Christianity would be as much a relic as slavery. Of course, that isn’t to suggest that religion so easily moves along with reason. It doesn’t. It usually comes kicking and screaming, forced by the hand of rationality.

There are, of course, also statements made without evidence, including this one: “God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the Moral Law), with free will, and with an immortal soul” And this (slide 4): “We humans used our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God.” How does he know? What’s the evidence? Isn’t the distinction between the science slides and the faith slides being blurred here?

One thing I’ve been forcing myself to ask myself a lot lately is “Where’s my evidence?” I recently went on a big hike through the 100-Mile Wilderness, the most remote and difficult section of the Appalachian Trail. I recall passing a tree root that had made a sort of rainbow shape. Each end was in the ground, but the middle was up in the air (as opposed to laying against the ground). It was unusual, but I quickly thought “It must have been buried at some point before being exposed, thus causing it to pop up”. I had to stop myself right there. How did I know that? I didn’t. It was a plausible guess, but other explanations were also plausible. It could have grown that way. Another tree could have been there before being removed, long ago, by the Maine Appalachian Trail Committee (MATC). It could just be a brief, weird angle I had making me think it was a root when in reality it was just a fallen branch that appeared buried in the ground. All I had was a hypothesis, and one I wasn’t about to test. I had to settle with “I don’t know” as an answer. Sometimes that isn’t just a temporary answer. Every single claim/question about the after-life that Collins makes deserves a permanent “I don’t know”. He doesn’t have the evidence. As a scientist, he should value that above all else in his work.

But then again, he is a Christian. Religions do not value evidence.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The moral elite

Posted on June 3, 2009 by Michael

“Elite” is a term that generally gets bandied about when someone is stupid. Obama was elite and McCain and Palin were Real America. In other words, they were amazingly stupid and Obama was intelligent. This applies to many conservative-liberal dynamics. So in essence, this dynamic changes the definition of elite. Put bluntly, it makes faux connotations to a word which is a positive attribute or characteristic. Unfortuntely, I’m going to delve into this bastardization of the English language, too.

We have a moral elite in the world. They are the righteous religious, the men and women (but mostly men) who believe they are right because they have always been told by their dogma they are right. In truth, they are moral scum. In 2008 campaign rhetoric, they are the most elite of the elite.

We recently had the killing of the abortion doctor in Kansas. The irony should not be lost on anyone. A pro-life man killed someone. In reality, he was actually pro-some-life. He went about picking and choosing. Religion is the engine which allows this. It is the wrong model for morality. It allows – nay, often encourages – itself to be subverted for evil. If it isn’t actively advocating for evil acts (i.e., telling people to murder rape victims), then it’s propping itself up for people to be immoral. The abortion doctor was killed because a religious man believed he was defending life. Religion leads to this conclusion, unavoidably.

Locally, religion has been a motivator in my hometown. A few years back we had a lingerie shop with live models. Women stood in the window downtown and showed off some underwear. Small acts of vandalism against the owner eventually built up to the slashing of her tires. She soon moved to another part of the state out of fear bred by religion. Years later another business opened up with the same idea, though with a focus on latex. Given that reality has a huge liberal bias, people apparently recognized that window models harm no one. It turns out the religious motivations were wrong. Again.

Now we have this incident. A man opened up a topless coffee shop in the next town over. He had plans of opening a stripclub, but recently announced he planned on just having dancing waittresses (pending board approval), sans the alcohol and lap dances. Sure enough, we have an act of vandalism. I use that word very, very lightly. In truth, this was an act of arson. A person, ‘morally’ motivated, burned down a building because it housed harmless activity of which he or she did not approve. The culprit is still unknown, but is there any doubt religion has its filthy hand in this?

Oh, and just to make matters worse:

An ambulance crew from Belfast was driving by at around 1:00 a.m. and spotted the fire. They woke the building’s occupants, which included owner Donald Crabtree, four other adults and two four-month old babies. They all got out safely.

Religion makes people do inane, dangerous things for which there is no secular basis.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

It doesn’t force you to be moral

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Atheism doesn’t force a person to be moral, it merely allows for it. And better than any religion.

Atheism comes with no specific set of beliefs, no system of thought. In common usage it is simply a rejection of all gods. This is compatible with a bunch of philosophies, both good and bad. Importantly, however, it is compatible with good intentions.

In the spirit of Kant, atheism allows perfectly for good will. That is, what a person intends is the important element in deciding the goodness or badness of an action, behavior, thought, etc. It’s the idea behind the phrase “It’s the thought that counts”. Give a person a fantastic birthday present because you want to impress everyone with your wealth and the intention is to self-aggrandize. Most people, myself included, regard that as a generally bad intention. But regardless of what one thinks of self-aggrandation, the point should be clear: intention matters. A low-quality gift given after much consideration to the happiness of the recipient is a much better gift, at least philosophically, than the fantastic present.

Atheism jives with good will. Any action with a good intention is ultimately good because consideration has been given to others; people are considered above all else. Religion is evil in this regard (and most regards, for that matter).

Religion teaches that good intentions should stem from a desire to please some magical man in the sky. This is not good intention; it is selfishness. It is a desire to please some god in order to gain access to a reward at the end of The Yellow Brick Road (or at least a desire to avoid punishment). That is action out of self-concern, not for the sake of being a good person. Religion does not allow for purely good intentions except when the actor forgets his particular god(s).

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

It doesn't force you to be moral

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Atheism doesn’t force a person to be moral, it merely allows for it. And better than any religion.

Atheism comes with no specific set of beliefs, no system of thought. In common usage it is simply a rejection of all gods. This is compatible with a bunch of philosophies, both good and bad. Importantly, however, it is compatible with good intentions.

In the spirit of Kant, atheism allows perfectly for good will. That is, what a person intends is the important element in deciding the goodness or badness of an action, behavior, thought, etc. It’s the idea behind the phrase “It’s the thought that counts”. Give a person a fantastic birthday present because you want to impress everyone with your wealth and the intention is to self-aggrandize. Most people, myself included, regard that as a generally bad intention. But regardless of what one thinks of self-aggrandation, the point should be clear: intention matters. A low-quality gift given after much consideration to the happiness of the recipient is a much better gift, at least philosophically, than the fantastic present.

Atheism jives with good will. Any action with a good intention is ultimately good because consideration has been given to others; people are considered above all else. Religion is evil in this regard (and most regards, for that matter).

Religion teaches that good intentions should stem from a desire to please some magical man in the sky. This is not good intention; it is selfishness. It is a desire to please some god in order to gain access to a reward at the end of The Yellow Brick Road (or at least a desire to avoid punishment). That is action out of self-concern, not for the sake of being a good person. Religion does not allow for purely good intentions except when the actor forgets his particular god(s).

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Morality

Posted on April 14, 2009 by Michael

On morality.

There exists for those willing to see a new perspective a deeply satisfying purpose and meaning to life free from any divine influence. To glimpse this world, imagine for a moment that there is no invisible man in the sky using magical powers in “mysterious ways” to control our fate. Imagine that we can toss away the crutch of false hope and bad myth to walk unhindered down the path of personal responsibility. Without the burden of a wrathful god, we have the power to create our own meaning, our own sense of purpose, our own destiny. By rejecting the false premises of religion we are free to move beyond the random hand we are dealt at birth to pave our own road to a better life.

With freedom of course comes the obligation to act wisely and responsibly. We fulfill this duty first by taking a more modest view of our place in the world. When we see that humans are a natural part of the ecosystem, not above or separate from the environment, we will protect the resources that sustain us. When we reject the hubris and conceit of religion, we will redefine our relationship with each other without calling upon god to smite our enemies. When we understand that true morality is independent of religious doctrine, we will create a path toward a just society. We each have the power to create a life in which we no longer accept the arbitrary and destructive constraints of divine interference.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Our morality is rooted in evolution

Posted on February 17, 2009 by Michael

Duh.

MONKEYS and apes have a sense of morality and the rudimentary ability to tell right from wrong, according to new research.

In a series of studies scientists have found that monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer altruistic help and empathise when a fellow animal is ill or in difficulties. They even appear to have consciences and the ability to remember obligations.

The research implies that morality is not a uniquely human quality and suggests it arose through evolution. That could mean the strength of our consciences is partly determined by our genes.

This isn’t exactly news, though I suppose the studies are recent. As expected, they go to confirm that “evolution could not have evolved” is a patently stupid statement made without basis. It’s a favorite of creationists and is just a variation on the God of the Gaps argument – “It’s soooo complicated! I can’t explain it and I’ve insolated myself from all forms of science because it is SATAN so I don’t know about any evidence, so it couldn’t have evolved! It just couldn’t have! LA LA LA LA!”

Anyway, off the creationists and on the science:

The animals were asked to perform a set of simple tasks and then rewarded with food or affection. The rewards were varied, seemingly at random. De Waal found the animals had an acute sense of fairness and objected strongly when others were rewarded more than themselves for the same task, often sulking and refusing to take part any further.

Another study looked at altruism in chimps – and found they were often willing to help others even when there was no obvious reward. “Chimpanzees spontaneously help both humans and each other in carefully controlled tests,” said de Waal.

Other researchers, said de Waal, have found the same qualities in capuchin monkeys, which also show “spontaneous prosocial tendencies”, meaning they are keen to share food and other gifts with other monkeys, for the pleasure of giving.

“Everything else being equal, they prefer to reward a companion together with themselves rather than just themselves,” he said. “The research suggests that giving is self-rewarding for monkeys.”

Filed under: Creationism, Evidence, Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Taking morality back

Posted on January 6, 2009 by Michael

There are far too many claims coming from atheists and humanists that the religious do not have the sole claim to morality. It’s true, of course, they don’t. But that argument is getting old. What’s more interesting is that the morality of the religious, if anything, is lesser than that of the secular.

As time marches forward, secular thought prevails more and more in public policy. The religious often claim credit for these things, but they’ve long been known as liars (see intelligent design). It’s merely a matter of time until a large roadblock to equal rights is quashed; homosexuals will have the right to marry in most parts of the country within the next two decades. It’s simply an inevitability. The religious zealots never win these arguments. Their basis is weak (i.e., belief in superstition). They have no good grounding for their bigotry. Interestingly, it will be discrimination on the basis of gender that actually falls. That is, the government does not make distinctions on the basis of gender in deciding who can enter into a contract. It’s clearly illegal. That is precisely what is happening with this “one man, one woman” bigotry that pervades the country, most notably the backward-thinking south.

It is with the secular that we see an increase in our morality as a nation. The secular progressiveness of Europe has shown itself with a strong repudiation of torturing. It has shown itself with its higher regard for animal rights. Perhaps most importantly of all, it has shown itself in the fact that the vast majority of the continent’s nations have outlawed the death penalty, a punishment based upon the desire for revenge, a petty and callous reasoning.

The argument atheists and humanists should be putting forth is not that the religious do not have the only say in morality. It’s that they have very little. They have a distorted view of reality. They are not interested in freedom, equality, and being good people. They wish to pursue their largely evil gods at the expense of everyone else. It is the religious who must present a case for why anyone should listen to their version of ‘morality’, not the atheists and humanists.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 38 Comments »

Be good for goodness' sake.

Posted on November 14, 2008 by Michael

Recently, an atheist bus campaign was brought to fruition in the UK. Its point was to convey a message that worrying about what happens after life really doesn’t do much to improve what’s happening during life. Now there is a new humanist campaign. This one takes place in the United States.

DENVER — Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December, sponsored by The American Humanist Association.

…

“Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”

While the religious who are utterly offended by the notion that morality can exist outside their world of make-believe will object to this message, they really shouldn’t. It does one of the few good things religion has going for it – it reaches for a sense of community. As one of the social animals, humans need the contact and closeness which religion has the ability to harness. Hopefully this humanist message can help to foster the community sense by appealing to the wide-spread desire to simply be a good person.

It’s too bad people like Bill Donahue are under the delusion that morality somehow comes from religion. See a video with the same general idea here.

Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. For those of us in Western civilization, its tenets emanate from the Judeo-Christian ethos. By casting this heritage aside, and replacing it with nothing more than the conscience of lone individuals, we lay the groundwork for moral anarchy. And that is because there is nothing that cannot be justified if the only moral benchmark is what men and women posit to be right and wrong. Indeed, every monster in history has followed his conscience.

The man is blatantly wrong. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he isn’t willing to stone a woman to death for adultery or any other absurd command that is in the Bible. It’s morally repugnant by today’s standards. But what makes Donahue not cast (physical) stones? It certainly isn’t the idea of morality in his religion or from his god. The very reason he (and all others) pick and choose from holy books and philosophers is that our sense of morality comes from somewhere outside these books.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Be good for goodness’ sake.

Posted on November 14, 2008 by Michael

Recently, an atheist bus campaign was brought to fruition in the UK. Its point was to convey a message that worrying about what happens after life really doesn’t do much to improve what’s happening during life. Now there is a new humanist campaign. This one takes place in the United States.

DENVER — Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December, sponsored by The American Humanist Association.

…

“Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”

While the religious who are utterly offended by the notion that morality can exist outside their world of make-believe will object to this message, they really shouldn’t. It does one of the few good things religion has going for it – it reaches for a sense of community. As one of the social animals, humans need the contact and closeness which religion has the ability to harness. Hopefully this humanist message can help to foster the community sense by appealing to the wide-spread desire to simply be a good person.

It’s too bad people like Bill Donahue are under the delusion that morality somehow comes from religion. See a video with the same general idea here.

Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. For those of us in Western civilization, its tenets emanate from the Judeo-Christian ethos. By casting this heritage aside, and replacing it with nothing more than the conscience of lone individuals, we lay the groundwork for moral anarchy. And that is because there is nothing that cannot be justified if the only moral benchmark is what men and women posit to be right and wrong. Indeed, every monster in history has followed his conscience.

The man is blatantly wrong. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he isn’t willing to stone a woman to death for adultery or any other absurd command that is in the Bible. It’s morally repugnant by today’s standards. But what makes Donahue not cast (physical) stones? It certainly isn’t the idea of morality in his religion or from his god. The very reason he (and all others) pick and choose from holy books and philosophers is that our sense of morality comes from somewhere outside these books.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Just for fun

Posted on October 21, 2008 by Michael

Here’s another Michael Heath rebuttal (he doesn’t allow dissent in his comment section). I’m not particularly trying to troll the guy or pick on him, but I have to admit I was hoping to find something anti-evolution on his blog. I know he’s made short mention of evolution being a problem, but he has yet to create any explicit article denouncing the foundation of all of biology.

Fortunately, Heath made this post where he blathers on in pride over his bigotry. He makes this statement at the end.

We are dedicated to the proposition that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Our civilization will continue to nurture this truth, or it will die.

Actually, Mr. Heath, civilizations will continue to thrive because of sex. That isn’t even Bio 101. What Heath means is that civilizations which promote his brand of morality will die. And all the better for it. As he says,

The Bible is the most discomfiting book on the planet.

This is a rare instance where Heath may agree with someone of the likes of Richard Dawkins

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page