Why do they waste their time with these idiots? Barack Obama has been struggling against the guilt-by-association of having been a regular member of a lunatic’s church, this odious little ignorant rat-bag named Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Yet at the same time, McCain joyfully accepts endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parsley…and if Wright is a rat-bag, those two are festering, reeking mountains of putrefying rat-shit. Does the media give a damn? No. They’re also white members of the televangelical racket, and ever since the anti-semitic backwoods babbler Billy Graham was canonized for introducing the appearance of delusional piety into the hypocritical Nixon White House, it’s become the habit to defer to the liars for Jesus who brag about bringing morality to government.
And yet, someone who refuses to sit quietly as these nutjobs rave, who refuses to endorse the lie of religion, who does not suffer through the weekly tedium of sitting in a pew to listen mutely to a know-nothing air his ignorance to a flock of sheep, cannot possibly be elected to the presidency. Meanwhile, if the press is antagonistic towards you, they will cheerfully take some stupid sermon you listened to and blame you for its contents (and if they don’t want to trouble your march to election, they’ll quietly ignore it). It’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.
So why not just Kobiyashi Maru your way out of the whole corrupt situation and stop pandering to the churchies all together? That’s my advice to the candidates right now. You’re screwed no matter which way you jump, so you might as well take the rational route and announce that you’re washing your hands of the whole wretched lot of preachin’ scalliwags, whose faith-based advice doesn’t belong in government anyway. Be bold! Be free of gods, or at the very least, free of god-bothering liars.
(By the way, if you don’t know how vile Hagee and Parsley are, Revere has video clips.)
Let’s not forget Hillary Clinton. She’s entangled with a far right-wing fellowship of fascists.
I’m not sure what’s worse… the fact you used Kobiyashi Maru as a verb, or the fact that I didn’t need to look it up to know what you meant. And I don’t even LIKE Star Trek. :)
But.. but.. Hagee’s “Israel rules” books are selling well at WalMart. Surely that means he must be all-american, and can’t be all that bad.
I love how the Catholic church is so offended about Hagee’s “vile anti-Catholic” remarks.
How do they think atheists feel about the fact that Hagee et al think we’re amoral people who are going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity?
Oh to live in a country where candidates, even promising ones like Obama, don’t have to always fellatiate the loony religious folks and can instead talk about ideas.
Everyone hates a hypocrite. Exposing these pious poseurs and their enablers by way of mockery, relentless and remorseless, is, I’m growing certain, the antidote.
Moliere would approve, PZ.
What’s with the weird lighting at the Hagee McCain press conference.
Anoint the apostates!! Anointy noint noit!! Aposteeeateeeeesss woooooooooo….
John Hagee believes the Jews deserved the Holocaust, which was God’s punishment for their crime of trying to live in Europe instead of Israel.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/5/105015/2167/
I guess it would be more newsworthy if Hagee was black.
Frank Rich has an op-ed on Wright vs. Hagee in today’s NYT.
Because we live in a country where godless = evil still looks True to most people. I don’t have any polling data to back me up, but my gut tells me most of our compatriots would rather vote for a candidate whose religion they despise than for an avowed atheist.
Maybe the recent popularity of people like Dawkins and Harris and yourself, PZ, will change that for future generations, but I don’t imagine seeing an openly atheist president, senator, or state governor in my lifetime.
Some people think that because Obama BELONGED to the “Rev” Wright’s church, a distinction should be made between the Hagee connection (McCain didn’t attend his church) and the Wright connection.
Personally, I think McCain is being given a free ride on the Xtianist extortion racket.
SG
The Kobiyashi Maru scenario requires the ability and desire to change the rules of the game, something that all politicians pay lip-service to but none ever actually attempt.
Mr. Smith needs to go to Washington, but has been eerily silent since the 1800s.
I think you’re being a little hard on Rev. Wright. Have you seen the interview he gave with Bill Moyers? He at least seems capable of being thoughtful, reasonable person, unlike those other characters mentioned.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytn2p8FHos0
I think Jon Stewart did a pretty good job of examining the media and wright. http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/28852/1/TDS-Festival-Wrights.wmv
Oh dear.
Parsley:
He actually thinks it’s the duty of the judicial system to support every decision of the executive/legislative system. It’s argumentum ad populum taken to a whole new level, taken to a level that is meant to subvert the very governmental system on which this nation was founded. It goes even beyond violating the 1st Amendment — it completely *ignores* the first three articles of the Constitution. Parsley has *no* concept of the idea of checks and balances, or if he does, he’s conveniently forgotten about it.
I don’t want to invoke Godwin’s Law, but this kind of talk sounds a hell of a lot like the thought that led to the Enabling Act of 1933. And quite frankly, it does scare me a little….
So, I’m going down my list of possible atheist blogs to visit, and I come across Pharyngula.
I can’t even read it for all the disgusting foul language and hate speech directed at people, I presume, the OP, PZ Myers, doesn’t even know these people personally.
You know, someone has to rule this country, and we better all hope it’s a Christian who honestly tries to behave like Jesus Christ. Because if the atheists ever get in power, I can only imagine the horrors.
How does PZ Myers get away with a blog like this? I mean the guy admits the police have to remove him from a line in a movie because he’s too offensive to the producer. Were you going to go in and shout down the movie, Mr. Myers? Is this what you call free speech: hate rhetoric and foul language.
I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again, for the good of society atheistic public speech really should be ruled obscene.
People, wake up
Figure it out
Religious fanatics
Around and about
The Court House, The State House,
The Congress, The White House
Criminal saints
With a “Heavenly Mission” –
A nation enraptured
By pure superstition.
_ Frank Zappa, “When the Lie’s So Big”
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/When-The-Lie-s-So-Big.html
Yeah, these religious wackaloons are fucking ridic. But what’s even more ridic–which I posted about at my blog a few days ago–is that we elevate their ridicness to such a prominent position in our polity. Most of the rest of the world must just laugh its fucking ass off at us.
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/obama-wright-wackaloon-religious-assholes/
Edward,
Grow up. Stop spreading lies. Stop being a bigot.
“Edward” :
You need to be put down mate.
Edward! Far out satire! You really must visit here more often.
Hey Edward,
It’s your “Good Book” that approves of genocide, rape, misogyny and slavery.
Hey MAJ Jeff,
What have I lied about? I’m just making and observation of this particular blog.
And this blog confirms what I have found in almost every atheist blog I’ve visited: atheists lose their moral foundation, when they jetison God, and eventually end up foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals. It’s because the mind can’t actually cope with the implications of atheism. The personality begins to deteriortate. It’s a mentally unhealthy state of mind. PZ Myers simple confirms it. He can’t be trusted in a theater, he’s a professor, but he can’t speak without vulgarity, and he appears to be a grossly self-centered individual.
This is the ultimate result of the atheistic influence on a personality. It’s tragic. I hope he has a turnaround.
I’ll come back and check on this a bit later. I have to go run ten miles in the name of God! :)
There is new game afoot, goes by the name of Edward!
You might as face it, you’re addicted to atheism.
Five paragraphs Edward has posted but not one true statement. But it is good to know you like censorship.
Edward, please tell me why Jesus caused a fig tree to wither and die just because it did not have ripe figs in the spring time. This does not sound like a calm and rational leader. I expect better.
“You know, someone has to rule this country, and we better all hope it’s a Christian who honestly tries to behave like Jesus Christ. Because if the atheists ever get in power, I can only imagine the horrors.”
First, in this country, we don’t have rulers. We have representatives. They get together and argue at length about which particular lobbyist is in the best interests of the people.
Second, as near as I can tell, no president has ever honestly tried to behave like Jesus and we are still here.
Third, any horrors caused by an atheist president–as if you could tell the difference if they didn’t self identify–would be constrained by the constitution that also protects us from the horrors of a Christian president…in other words, mostly.
Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson, by the way? The horror of the Louisiana Purchase is still legendary.
And why, pray tell, were you looking for atheist sites to visit? Looking for rational discussion were we?
Steve “Does the troll do tricks?” James
Edward,
You’re an idiot.
Fuck off.
MAJeff, (Hey, I can get your name right!) just hit the link I made. You will see where Eddie is coming from. I am sure you can have fun with it.
Oh, Edward. No one is angry at you. You are merely sport. To paraphrase an old line from Cheers, it is a dog eat dog world and you are wearing milk-bone underwear.
@#8 Bill Daupin —
And depressingly, you’d be right.
Gallup had a poll in which they asked respondents the following question:
As of the most recent polling (December 2007), it’s at 46% yes, 48% no, and 6% unsure. They have data from various years starting at 1958 on the poll page…there’s been definite improvement (in Aug 1958, it was 18% Yes, 75% No, and 7% Unsure), but it’s still a long way to go before an openly atheist candidate would even have a chance. (And according to such pundits as Michael Medved, Americans would be right in refusing to vote for an atheist candidate…so that kind of talk isn’t helping things either.)
There’s a lot of other interesting data on the poll page as well, including stats for other religious denominations and other minority groups. (The lowest amount yes for a religious denomination was 80% for a Mormon…they didn’t have Muslim, though, which is the one religion I think might actually get a lower Yes percentage than atheist. In terms of minority groups, even homosexuals had a higher yes percentage [56%] than atheists.)
I kind of wish they’d broken it up by political party (I’m particularly curious what the allegedly progressive Democratic voters think…my guess would be that the amount that wouldn’t vote for an atheist would be depressingly high…) but I guess you can’t have it all.
((The poll also had a question on whether the polled think George W is too conservative…scarily 17% actually think he’s too liberal.))
Edward, thanks for sticking up FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
Poe’s Law is in effect here, but if you are serious, Edward, please check out any of your typical rightie blogs, and notice the difference in rhetoric. Posters here may use salty language and insult looney religious types with gusto, but there is a distinct lack of ELIMINATIONIST rhetoric that seems to always creep into sites like WorldNetDaily and Townhall.
Ironically, on Easter, my mom, sister, and I were lamenting the lack of an agnostic candidate.
Poor McCain – I’m very honoured by Hagee’s endorsement – what a stupid mistake ! Now you’re really showing how no different you are from GWB. And I’m sure the dems are going to love this for the general election.
I’m an optimist. I think the whole GWB era has served America a lesson and that any candidate who panders to any of those wackaloons automatically obliterates himself from at least the 60% of the poulation who are amongst the mainstream religions or the secularists.
As long as he was distancing himself from these guys he managed to keep a “semi-progressive” appearance and sway in many independent voters who helped him to secured the nomination. Now that he is moving to the right, he is going to scare the independents. How long is he going to keep on dancing that way ?
Are you talking about the PZ Myers who has been faithfully married to one woman for thirty years, has 3 college-educated children, who doesn’t drink to excess, doesn’t gamble, doesn’t smoke, and who lives a life of such bland middle-class probity that he would make a Southern Baptist swoon with envy?
As for the theater incident, there was no cause — I was talking quietly with my friends in line. The arbitrary actions of Mark Mathis ought to worry you more, because that’s what we’ll see more of in an authoritarian theocracy. Atheists might be less inhibited about saying “damn”, but we won’t burn you at the stake.
Janine,
Wheeee! Flowcharts! It must be true! Next, PowerPoint!
I do love the “Without our fairy tale buddy, there is no morality” folks. I like the word, “fuck.” I like to have sex with men. I like raunchy humor. None of these are moral issues. Sorry to disappoint you, Edward, but you need to grow up and give up your childish fairy tales and moralistic immorality.
Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson, by the way? The horror of the Louisiana Purchase is still legendary.
Posted by: longstreet63
Longstreet63, just because Jefferson’s enemies called him an atheist does not mean he was one. He believed in Jesus. He just did not believe that Jesus was supernatural. This explains Jefferson editing the bible to remove all supernatural events.
Edward, thanks for sticking up FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
Maybe we should give Edward a nickname: Helen Lovejoy.
@#14 Edward —
Look, you’ve outright admitted that you came here only to tell us that we’re obscene and deserving of no respect. You looked specifically for an atheist blog just so that you could say these things.
You’re obviously here only for the sake of trolling, and you have no interest in good faith argumentation. Moreover, by arguing in bad faith, you subvert others’ efforts to have constructive discussion.
So fuck off.
Gosh, I hope you cleaned the spittle from your computer screen after that, PZ.
I’m not an American, so I willingly admit I have no right to criticize.
But .. is anyone in America giving any thought to restructuring your election system?
I understand that in 1776 it would be important to visit all 13 colonies, and collect supporters in each one. You would need a generous amount of time if you were traveling all around the country on horseback.
But, seriously, how can you justify an eighteen month long campaign in the age of jet travel and the internet? Yes your media are insane, yes they spend countless hours discussing flag pins, yes they are actually controlling the message and dumbing down the dialogue to such an extent that it is outright embarassing.
What are they supposed to talk about for EIGHTEEN months?
No candidate is actualy going to publically announce a great new initiative so far in advance of an election that the incumbants could steal it.
The legal time allowed here for active campaigning was cut from about 7 weeks to 30 days 10 or 15 years ago. It made a huge difference in the quality of the news coverage. You can fill 30 days discussing new policy and a candidate’s record.
A side effect of a shorter campaign is less fundraising, and less lobbying.
This is a sincere question. Other democracies have revised their election procedures from time to time. Is anyone in America looking into a more sane election process?
You are probably losing out on many good candidates who will never consider running for the office, because they once dated sisters, had a roommate convicted of trafficking, or appeared on youtube. The media would rather report on any topic except policy, acheivement or ability.
And as for the label “elitist”! Don’t you want a president who plans further ahead than beer for Friday night?
The only difference between a valued commenter and a troll here is if you agree with PZ or not.
the media wants a circus to fill the minutes during the 6 o’clock news. they don’t care about anything else. and, sadly, the rabble want entertainment above anything else, a jolly. to them running the country or a war has been a sporting contest, like Fever Pitch, no more.
and i think candidates, with some justification, fear telling the truth to the power of the people because of the consequences. Obama is right to oppose the Gas Tax Holiday, but guess how that’s gonna go down?
Hey don’t forget to examine the Argument from Non-Neurological Consciousness, which, I’m told, is championed by Edward Gordon, co-founder of Christian Cross Talk (a good name for it, since in my business, cross-talk is what happens when two voice signals get scrambled together).
Basically, it says that since paramecium have no brains, but still move and eat and stuff, they must be conscious, and the only place for that consciousness to come from is…
Guesses, anyone?
Steve “Can’t see why that hasn’t gotten more play.” James
I agree… but I think the distinction cuts the opposite way from the point Obama’s critics are trying to make. They say Obama’s long-term membership in Wright’s church makes him more responsible for Wright’s comments; I say that’s the bunk. Church membership involves a complex web of personal and social relationships, most of which have nothing to do with what the pastor says from the pulpit (and many of which, BTW, have nothing to do with theology or religious practice). It’s not so easy (or particularly common) to just up and leave because you hear something hinky from the pulpit (and keep in mind that Wright was not screaming “God damn America” in every sermon all those years, and Obama was not present for the particular sermon that’s getting all the YouTube play). So in my mind Obama’s long relationship with that church tends to lessens rather than heightens his culpability for Wright’s remarks.
McCain, OTOH, deliberately identified himself with Hagee’s ideas by seeking out Hagee’s political endorsement. And even if you accept (as I do not) the notion that McCain was unaware of Hagee’s most offensive specific comments, he must have been aware of the generally radical philosophical bent of Hagee and his followers, whose favor McCain was trying to curry.
The media have been holding Obama responsible for things said in a church he’s associated with while giving McCain a free pass for ideas he specifically sought to align himself with; they’ve got it precisely backwards.
FWIW I wrote about this back in March. I find it incredible that McCain is not getting eviscerated by the press for Hagee, who is overflowing with hate. But then, the press treat McCain with kid gloves, which is most assuredly not deserved on his part.
My hope is that when the Democratic party primary dance is over, they’ll focus more on what a nutbag McCain is.
They say that God created Man
As part of an enormous plan,
And did so in His image, cos he loves us, every one.
When men of God discriminate
And treat their fellow men with hate
They do so with the knowledge it’s what Jesus would have done.
When righteous men, in righteous ways
Hate atheists, or Jews, or gays,
Or Muslims, pagans, redheads, southpaws, foreigners, or Voodoo
I know at first it may seem odd,
But clearly, you’ve created God
In your own image, when you find he hates the same folks you do.
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” –Annie Lamott
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-his-own-image.html
After years of struggling under the irrepressible, seemingly all-pervasive influence of American cultural imperialism down in my small corner of the globe it is indeed refreshing for once to see a minor, but welcome reversal.
I refer, of course PZ (er, that’s Pee-Zed :-), to your use of the colourful expression “rat-bag”, which has been a wonderful staple of Australian idiom for many decades.
(One small point: we generally do not hyphenate it. But your contextual use was perfect.)
I hope to see a rash of American bloggers and commentators fully availing themselves of this most useful and descriptive expression.
You know, I seem to recall something somewhere about there being no religious test for federal office. Oh yeah, it’s in the Constitution! How silly of me to forget!
And yet, every one of the current leaders in the race for the office of President of the United States has made some sort of statement meant to assure the followers of the Witch-Doctors that they too are a follower.
The latter two accusations (hate-filled and humorless) are absolutely contradicted by my experience with atheists, and especially with the atheist commenters here; the former two… hey, those are Features, Not Bugs™!
Out-nerded. It’s called the Kobayashi Maru.
for Edward @#14:
ah, such a toy to play with!
atheists lose their moral foundation, when they jetison God, and eventually end up foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals
Edward, so far, you are the one calling for censorship. Also, I detect no intentional humor in your two post.(Admittedly, that is not much of a sample.) I have known plenty of god-fearing people who swear a lot mote then I do. Also know of a lot of god-fearing people who like porn.(But I have to ask this, what porn is on this blog? Well, except PZ’s cephalopod collection.) As for hate, it really is hard to top telling people like me that we are going to have eternal torment and that we deserve it.
(An other aside, Hagee said that god flooded New Orleans because of a GLBT parade. Is that not hatred? Face it, hatred is a common emotion. It is how we deal with the hate that all of us have that makes us moral or not. Edward, you embrace your hatred and call it righteousness.)
Part of the reason I keep coming back is that most of the regulars here have a great sense of humor.
And Edward, if you have anything thing to say, you are more then welcome to say it. But I do ask that you base what you say in reality.
This Parsleyism is just bizarre:
Preferred status to people based entirely on who [sic] they choose as a sexual partner? Say it isn’t so!
>The only difference between a valued commenter and a troll here is if you agree with PZ or not.
Geez,the mentally weak are out in force tonight.
>Rat-bag !!! Way to go PZ !
Edward,
Oh yes a good Christian president whose god commanded genocide as commander in chief of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. That’s just peachy keen. On a more personal note good Christian’s claim I should be killed by the state because of who I am. I would e much happier if authoritarian little thugs like you were kept very far from positions of power.
Oh I called you authoritarian because of your call to suppress all speach by atheists by labeling it obscene.
The only difference between a valued commenter and a troll here is if you agree with PZ or not.
Posted by: jsn
Paging Glen Davidson! Paging Glen Davidson! You have been called out! You are a troll!
‘snicker’
If you’ve not already seen the whole Obama/Wright issue summed perfectly, here it is in one panel.
My hope is that when the Democratic party primary dance is over, they’ll focus more on what a nutbag McCain is.
Not going to happen. The press corps like him as a person and won’t turn on him. He’s got the “moderate maverick” image, and the press corps has that story-line deeply embedded within all their reporting. Yeah, he’s basically been a right-winger his whole career (only recently embracing the religious wingnut aspect), but the fact that he has no policy initiatives–indeed the only policy proposals he’s made are continuations of the Republican opposition to understanding the effects of policy–will be washed over by the reporters he barbecues for.
Janine, I have an answer for your question to Edward:
“Edward, please tell me why Jesus caused a fig tree to wither and die just because it did not have ripe figs in the spring time.”
Simply put, GOD HATES FIGS!
Fred Phelps is guilty of a gross misinterpretation of scripture.
@#50 Natasha Yar-Routh —
Why did you have to die during S1? I really liked you.
Edward; you can come visit my blog; I swear a lot less than PZ does. But guess what? I don’t think your god exists either, and I also think Hagee, et al, are delusional misogynistic bigots. And I think your call to curtail free speech is just plain un-American. See, it isn’t the words, it’s what they mean, y’know?
Preferred status to people based entirely on who [sic] they choose as a sexual partner? Say it isn’t so!
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 4, 2008 2:19 PM
What’s amazing is how few heterosexual Christianists see no irony in making such a statement.
Hi, Edward (#14)! I don’t want you to be disappointed on this blog so I, as an atheist, would like to cheerfully invite you to fuck off. I’d throw some more potty mouth words in there but it would likely make somebody of your obviously delicate sensibilities get the vapors.
Ahem.
If you go by the monthly awards for most-valued commenters, I’ve been near the top of the pack. Yes, I hang out here because I find the host and most of the other frequent guests congenial, but news flash: if everybody here said only things with which I agreed exactly and could have said myself, the place would be boring. One of the important things which makes people here congenial is their willingness to roll up the sleeves and have a frank, evidence-based discussion of important questions to which the answers are not clear. We like to argue, and we’re good at it. Sometimes, I even think we do good by doing it.
I’ve said before, on multiple occasions, that I have my disagreements with the people whom, if I were really a “fundamentalist atheist”, I would have to follow slavishly. I disagree with Richard Dawkins about the reason why physicists are not gung-ho for Smolin’s hypothesis of evolutionary selection of universes, about the role “Bible studies” should play in cultural education, and about the relative rhetorical strengths of the Ultimate 747 and the Problem of Evil. I disagree with Michael Shermer about most everything concerning economics, particularly when he yokes libertarianism to evolutionary psychology, and about the origins of religion. I disagree with Hector Avalos about the merit of Baudrillard and the religious content of The Simpsons. I disagree with PZ Myers about the merit of D. S. Wilson’s arguments for “group selection”, and (more crucially, of course) about the movie The Golden Compass.
See?
Etha #26
the Economist had a fairly detailed report (I think it’s still online – anglosaxon attitudes – april 07 – I downloaded it) and there are many interesting comparisons between britain and the US. Amongst others, this question, how would you feel if your president (our prime minister), were :
– a muslim
– an atheist
what’s interesting is also that they have by age groups, so you can see the evolution :
1st column : % of people positive attitude or wouldn’t mind
2nd column : % of people negative attitude
(total not 100 because of respondent not answering)
US
Atheist
total 34% 52%
18-34 46% 39%
35-54 30% 53%
55-99 29% 62%
Muslim
total 29% 53%
18-34 40% 41%
35-54 26% 53%
55-99 23% 61%
UK
Atheist
total 74% 16%
18-34 79% 7%
35-54 76% 15%
55-99 68% 24%
Muslim
total 34% 55%
18-34 44% 39%
35-54 32% 56%
55-99 26% 66%
Whereas both US and British still seem to reject the idea of a muslim as head of state, the british are perfectly happy with an atheist. Also, in the US, within the younger generation, the percentage which is rejecting the idea of an atheist president is diminishing rapidly and at 39% is not any more such a determinant force…
As I always say, within a generation or so, and we’ll probably have a not so religious president.
Longtime Lurker, you do know there is a website for that.
But my main point was this, for a perfect being, Jesus punishes for the oddest reasons. And leaders should set a better example then that.
I disagree with Hector Avalos about the merit of Baudrillard and the religious content of The Simpsons.
Baudrillard and The Simpsons, That just makes me happy.
She tried to murder Harry, Dexter’s father, as well as murdering many more patients. She deserved what she got.
‘snark’
negentropyeater, that did not prevent Tony Blair from being PM. But he did hide it away from the public, unlike dubya.
About the stats for atheists:
In my own family (my parents and siblings) this fits the trend perfectly. My parents are both religious (go to church twice a week, etc) and tried to imprint that upon their children. All of their children ending up being intelligent free-thinker, and so they went 0-3 on religion. I’m an atheist, so is my brother, and my sister is an agnostic (possibly atheist, she doesn’t talk about it much).
However, it is going to take that 39% dropping even lower in the next set of demographics to get an openly agnostic or atheist president. Religious people are too motivated by this single issue and have high rates of voter participation. There needs to be fewer of them (as a percentage) and atheists need to be a more vocal block in society.
One of my Senators – Lindsey Graham – participated in the “coronation” of Rev. Moon a few years ago. The other, Jim Dimwit whoops, I mean DeMint, (I’m always getting that wrong) reportedly lives in housing belonging to The Family/The Fellowship in DC. It has been reported that while rent is charged these senators and congressman, it is well below the market rate for DC.
Yeah, South Cackalackee’s senators are a couple of real supernaturalists! Someday, someone will catch a shot of these two, naked and glistening in a coating of Crisco oil, howling at the moon.
And most folks in South Cackalackee will think a thing of it.
@#39 jsn —
I really think the difference between a troll and someone who disagrees (and there is one) can be traced back to Habermas’ discourse ethics (yes, I’ve been on a Habermas kick lately) regarding good faith vs bad faith argumentation. In good faith argumentation, an effort is made to understand the points of the other speakers (both PZ and commenters, in this case) but there is no obligation to agree. In bad faith argumentation, such an effort is not made, and in the most extreme cases, an effort is made to deliberately misconstrue the others’ arguments or to ignore them completely when “responding” (as seen in Edward’s case, where he goes through his list of “atheist blogs” just too find a place where he can spout his hateful nonsense).
Bad faith argumentation can often lead to disastrous consequences for the rest of the discourse, since even though it is impossible to have a good faith argument with someone who is already arguing in bad faith, there is an innate desire to refute their points as one would with any argument. Thus, the futile effort to combat bad faith argumentation using the ethics of good faith argumentation can take over an entire thread at the expense of actual discourse.
Of course all religious people are somewhat off kilter, but Wright doesn’t seem near the idiot that Hagee (and a SLEW of WHITE RIGHTWING PASTORS) et.al. represent.
Wright’s mistrust of Government and healthcare (ref: his AIDS comments) are supported by the citing of the Tuskeegee experiments on untreated VD in black males. That study concluded in 1972, not exactly ancient history in you get my drift.
His saying that 911 was a result of our activites abroad. Check. Osama told us he’d attack us if we kept troops in Saudi Arabia. Those troops were removed POST 9-11. I’m not sure if they flew back on the same planes Bush used to shuttle all the Bin Ladens out of the country. Osama specifically wanted our troops removed. He mentioned nothing about ‘hating our freedoms’.
It is indeed a sad statement on the educational level of the average citizen of this country that politicians have to pander to these fools. IMHO, they really DON’T need to. I’m CONVINCED that there are no more than 5% religious NUTJOBS because when Pat Robinson ran that was the ceiling for his support. A small minority of torturers and religious quacks have SEIZED THE MICROPHONES. That’s all it is. It is illusory but that doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous IF WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.
Enjoy.
No, let’s. She doesn’t have a mathematical chance of winning the nomination.
Edward, on your site in your “Existence Requires Observation” argument, you say that the universe could not exist without God to observe it. By that same logic, how can God exist without you to observe Him? (assuming you actually do observe him, and you’re not hallucinating). How can God exist if you don’t?
“atheists lose their moral foundation, when they jetison God, and eventually end up foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals.”
Pornographic? I’m sorry, but if you’re getting turned on by all those squid pictures, then it sure as hell ain’t anyone else’s fault.
As for “humorless”, I don’t think I can take that accusation seriously from someone who, with a straight face, tells us that he’s gonna “run ten miles in the name of God”.
Hm,ok,maybe i should apologize for my comment No 18,but im grumpy and on night shift and a little over the Edward’s of this world right now….
Edward said : “You know, someone has to rule this country, and we better all hope it’s a Christian who honestly tries to behave like Jesus Christ. Because if the atheists ever get in power, I can only imagine the horrors.”
Sounds like he saw Expelled….
And @ No 1 :
“I’m not sure what’s worse… the fact you used Kobiyashi Maru as a verb, or the fact that I didn’t need to look it up to know what you meant. And I don’t even LIKE Star Trek. :)”
That,and the fact that PZ used it,I think that shocked me most LOL
Janine, what’s Gordon Brown’s religion ? Do you know ? Do you care ?
The key point is that the media always gives the impression that Americans care a lot about the religiosity of their president. I think it’s more a self fulfilling prophecy. And it’s more a generational issue.
Also, as I mentionned earlier in my post #28, if there is one good example of an election where a candidate would have been very wise to keep religion completely out of his campaign (which doesn’t mean declaring being atheist, it just means keeping it out), because of the very bad historical precedent created by GWB, it’s precisely this election, and that works for the three of them.
I mean they are just a bunch of idiots, can’t they see that this religious issue just backfires and brings them nothing ?
I agree with the commenters who think PZ is too hard on Wright. I listened to some of Wright’s (supposedly) controversial sermons in full, and found them interesting and entertaining, pretty free of god hocus-pocus, and certainly not as offensive as the standard hate-filled evangelical/fundamentalist sermon. The whole media frenzy about this is just a distraction from the real (i.e., President McCain would be a disaster) issues.
Damn, I knew living in a small isolated mountain community was going to come back and bite me. What, pray tell, is S1? Perhaps one of these television shows I keep hearing about?
The sad thing is I commute to Los Angeles to earn a living. Los Angeles, according to Josh Whedon, is hell on earth or at least will be dragged down to hell. So I really should be more up to date on this sort of thing
negentropyeate, my point was that Blair’s religious beliefs were a lot closer to dubya then any of us though. But Blair cloaked his beliefs from the british public while dubya clobbered the american public over the head with his beliefs.(Funny thing, the american fundies said it felt like a kiss.)
Yet despite the british not clamoring for a true believer, they still got one. Call Blair the stealth candidate.
@#74 Natasha Yar-Routh —
I was referring to Season 1 of Star Trek: The Next Generation…there was a character named Natasha Yar who got killed off towards the end of the season. Good character, crappy death.
Natasha Yar-Routh, I do hope you are living in Silverlake. Is there a green skin man with horns who happens to be a great singer lurking about?
Natasha: Do you live in Crestline? I kinda sorta know someone there.
MAJeff: “Maybe we should give Edward a nickname: Helen Lovejoy.”
I was just chuckling over how much Hagee reminded me (see video link in PZ’s post) of Reverend Lovejoy – all that preacher-style, bizarre extension of words the congregation needs to *really* concentrate on.
Of course, it’d be a hell of a lot funnier if he weren’t such an odious little turd.
The only difference between a valued commenter and a troll here is if you agree with PZ or not.
tell that to Truth Machine, who PZ had rather stern words with…right before he won a molly for being a good commenter here (you can check the commenters list).
don’t be SO full of shit, eh?
well, I know you probably can’t help it, but at least try?
It’s just the right wing noise machine and the Dems are fools for thinking they can ever get arounud it. These assholes will just make shit up (witness this whole Sam Stein bullshit) if they can’t find anything to swiftboat a candidate.
The Dems are idiots for playing along and every time the reichtwing comes up with another stupid test of patriotism & piety happily jumping in and playing along. They’re like a bunch of battered and abused spouses trying to please the bully they live with…the rules just keep changing. They will never make them happy. Get over it and kick the bum out.
Oh and it’s Kobayashi Maru .. Japanese name and all (little forest)
I disagree with PZ Myers about the merit of D. S. Wilson’s arguments for “group selection”
…a topic I think should be resurrected around these parts one of these days.
It’s been about a year since the last time there was any serious debate about it around here, hasn’t it?
As the geeks here seem to confirm, there is a huge overlap in the Venn diagram between Star Trek fans and atheists. Perhaps we’d do more to advance the cause of atheism by stealth if we’d just be more proactive in our support of Star Trek and a little more tight lipped about the atheism? Personally, I’m happy we’ve gotten to a point in this country where you can finally even discuss vigorously confronting the ignoramus’.
Obama’s pastor isn’t as crazy as they are making him out to be. Rather tame in the overall, considering the actual abuses that he and his contemporaries LIVED THROUGH in the 1960’s. Thanks to others for pointing that out as well because I think that is the biggest lie that the rightwingers are promoting. They are only half a degree away froma actually attacking CHRIST when they attack him. The irony.
Did you guys see where the Vice President had his call girl killed so she wouldn’t ‘out’ him? They’re calling her death a suicide even though SHE PUBLICLY STATED she wasn’t suicidal and was looking forward to upsetting the apple cart.
Enjoy.
My hope is that when the Democratic party primary dance is over, they’ll focus more on what a nutbag McCain is.
you mean like how he admonished the republican party in 2000 for catering to the fundies, but in 2007, decided to change his religion from episcopalian to southern baptist?
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
I rather think the dems will keep harping on the “too old” thing instead, given their own religious skeletons.
Whenever some sanctimonious religious cretin, like Edward, opines about the immorality and danger of unrestrained atheists running amok, I always think about the problems Christianity has with child fucking.
(h/t to Maher for that catchy phrase)
I had just been typing a lengthy comment discoursing on the doltishness of jsn @36. But I’ve deleted all that because it seems to me I can say it far more pithily so: Etha for the Molly.
Why do fundies always get in a knot about profanity? The bible forbids taking the lord’s name in vain, it doesn’t say anything about George Carlin’s seven words, for fuck’s sakes.
Now, Kobayashi Maruing, that’s something to get upset over.
Far from being “odious” and “ignorant,” Wright is right about a number of things.
He is right that the USA was founded on racism. In my town, Denver, black people weren’t even permitted to buy homes outside of a specifically zoned enclave (read “ghetto”) until 1965. Our mayor in the 1920’s was an open Klansman. The American Revolution enfranchised only white males, and then, only those who owned property. And of course, the whole thing wouldn’t have been possible were it not for the “only good indian is a dead indian” racist ideology which justified stealing the real estate in the first place. The fact that Wright is called an “extremist” for making the obviously true statement that the USA was founded on racism just goes to show how much the USA still hasn’t gotten around to acknowledging and dealing with the racism in its past as well as its present. It is the people who try to shout him down who are the “odious” and “ignorant” ones.
And Wright’s statements that the 911 attacks were provoked by US foreign policy are also plainly true. Of course, this hasn’t prevented him from being unjustly pilloried as a lunatic for saying them. Osama bin Laden, in the months following the attacks, repeatedly made public statements explaining why he believed it was right to attack American civilians. He always gave the same three reasons, always in the same order. All three relate to US foreign policy:
1. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia near the muslim holy sites.
2. The 500,000 excess Iraqi child deaths resulting from the US-backed sanctions regime.
3. The massacres at Sabra, Shatilla, and Qana by the USA’s proxy, Israel.
In response to Bush’s silly propaganda pronouncements that the 911 attackers acted because “they hate freedom,” bin Laden retorted that if that were true, his people would have attacked Switzerland or Norway. It is not “freedom” they hate, but US foreign policy, and American people for electing the governments which pursue it. However despicable the 911 attacks, Wright is not “ignorant” for correctly pointing out their motivations.
Even Wright’s dubious claims that the US government created HIV and deliberately infected black people seem relatively less psychopathological when viewed in the context of the Tuskegee Experiment. In this infamous and all-too-real longitudinal study, black men were lied to for decades, prevented from receiving treatment, and allowed to slowly die of a preventable disease so that data could be collected about their deaths, all under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service. This ended in 1972 only when a leak to the media closed down the study due to adverse publicity. Is it any wonder then that many American black people such as Wright see something like AIDS arising in Africa, disproportionately affecting the poor and people of color in the USA, and jump too quickly to the conclusion that this is Tuskegee all over again? I think Wright is mistaken about AIDS, but he doesn’t deserve to be called an odious rat for getting this one wrong, under the circumstances.
Enough about Wright. He has received far more negative attention than he deserves, while Rev. Hagee has received far too little.
Hagee and Parsley are vile, but your criticism of Wright is over the top.
I agree with arjw 11 and was going to post Moyers comments. There is also this article on Wright.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,2263127,print.story
Here is a guy who in 1961 left his college deferment and joined the Marines and then the Navy as a corpsman. You don’t find many, well almost no, rightwing chickenhawks who would even consider such an option.
Is it any wonder then that many American black people such as Wright see something like AIDS arising in Africa, disproportionately affecting the poor and people of color in the USA, and jump too quickly to the conclusion that this is Tuskegee all over again? I think Wright is mistaken about AIDS, but he doesn’t deserve to be called an odious rat for getting this one wrong, under the circumstances.
Honestly, yes. After watching the homophobia of black churches (although, admittedly, said homophobia was pretty much society-wide) during the early days of AIDS, when it was just faggots dying…well…I have little patience for ministers like this who were fine with white faggots dying but noticed a government conspiracy later on.
I think much of the other stuff you wrote was fairly on the mark. But, I also realize that many black ministers were veeeeeeeery late in dealing with the AIDS crisis because of their institutions’ homophobia. (And I know that many of those pastors–particularly the ones involved with the Bush administration–would be particularly happy if the disease would have remained concentrated in gay male populations.)
Shorter Edward: You atheistic believers in the Darwinist religion are all going to hell.
Thanks Ed. But we already knew you were a mass murderer wannabe nut who hated freedom, America, and humanity in no particular order.
So how many rounds did you do on your exercise wheel? They do give you an exercise wheel in your padded cell, don’t they? If not, I’d complain. Even hamsters get one.
Just as you’re writing this, I’m seeing, unfair and unbalanced Faux News is having a one hour long special programme on Hannity’s America precisely dedicated to that subject. One hour entirely on Wright.
And they call that News.
Actually, I see that arjw 11 posted a different Moyers clip than I wanted. Here are Moyers comments.
Ic @82,
It’s been about a year since the last time there was any serious debate about [group selection, yea or nay] around here, hasn’t it?
Too feckin right!
There are many reasons to detest Ben Stein, the Disco Institute, Harun Yahya, John Hagee etc. etc. etc. The reasons usually brought up here (“they are idiots”, “they are madmen”, “they are lying hypocrites” etc.) are all no doubt valid. But these miss what might be the most compelling reason of all: they waste our time. There are a myriad fascinating and wonderful things that we can think and talk about during our short spell of existence; for example, whether and to what extent Sloan is right or wrong.
By contrast, it might be (politically, tactically, paedogogically) necessary to spend time swatting down witch doctors; but all that time is so many Krebs cycles spun in vain.
I no longer believe there is a personal God who cares what we do in our lives and will require us to answer for it. But if I am wrong about that, I feel certain that God would be far angrier with these people than with any Myers or Dawkins. “When I gave you a brain, I expected you to f*cking use it, not scoop it out and stuff the empty space in your skull with f*cking Jack Chick tracts!”
While I think Rev. Wright was correct about some of the things he said about America, I agree that American politicians have to learn to cut the connection to religionists. I long for the day when church membership would be something of which a politician might be ashamed.
There are a myriad fascinating and wonderful things that we can think and talk about during our short spell of existence; for example, whether and to what extent Sloan is right or wrong.
over all the time I have spent on various blogs, I think one of the main reasons open, deliberate, discussion of current articles doesn’t get much attention is because relatively few of the commenters (with backgrounds in the relevant fields or not) simply don’t have access to journals (unless they are open source).
I can’t count the number of times interesting online discussions about a specific article have started, only to quickly filter to nothing as contributions regarding the basic issues give way to debates that could only be solved by arguing the specifics of the paper itself.
bottom line, I think that all science bloggers who are interested in debating a relevant current topic running through the literature should choose open source articles (if at all possible) for continuing the discussion.
as an addendum, I still think that one of the things the publishing industry could readily do to help encourage better science literacy in this country (especially with the massive influence the net has now), is to work out better and cheaper access to scientific journals. I mean seriously, have you checked out how much it costs to download even a single article for many scientific journals these days? some of them run over 40.00 for a SINGLE article. It’s damn ridiculous.
shameless plug for open access:
http://www.doaj.org/
Huckabee might well be our next president. Seriously.
The USA lately, has scoured the country to find and elect the worst possible candidate for president.
McCain is 72. He has had cancer twice and reports are, his memory is showing signs of age. He could drop dead any time.
So McCain picks Huckabee as VP to lock in the wingnut christofascist block. The Huckster has been sticking close to JM. Wins the election,
godnature takes its course.The Dems had 8 years to pick some viable candidates and get them out in front. Neither Hillary nor Obama have much appeal to large segments of the population. That party must just have a death wish or something.
The usual, who is least likely to destroy the USA in the next 8 years. So far, it is None of the above.
…oh, and for those that have good institutional access to journals:
Don’t EVER take it for granted. Once away from regular institutional access, it’s a real pain to keep connected.
raven,
If you keep convincing yourself of the republican’s talking points, than for sure, the dems are going to loose…
“He [Jeremiah Wright] is right that the USA was founded on racism” – Chris
This is a lot like saying “yeah, David Duke was right, white people did invent modern civilization.”
No, not really. It’s not really “right” at all. Jeremiah Wright, and his church, promote a world vision that consists of a black “hemisphere” and a white one. In this imaginary world, all evil comes from white people, and all good comes from black people. God is on the side of black people, and spends his days plotting to destroy the evil of white people. The bits of Wright’s sermons circulating are from a DVD of Jeremiah Wright’s greatest hits selected by him and his church. They’re not only indicative of the church’s positions, but exemplary examples (in the opinion of the church itself). In Obama’s book about his father “dreams of my father” he describes the central spiritual moment in his life. Obama weeps when Jeremiah Wright lays the world’s problems at the feet of “white greed”. How touching.
Obama is not pandering. He’s the real deal. He’s a real life religious nut with a messiah complex. The “audacity of
wish-thinkinghope” indeed. Deflecting his idiocy onto McCain (who it seems actually IS just pandering – oh, how bad things have gotten when pandering can be described as “just” pandering) says nothing about the principal at hand. Imagining that Jeremiah Wright is getting some special or unfair attention is equally absurd. Racism has become a well policed taboo in American culture. Must I mention that Macacca guy, Micheal Richards, Mel Gibson, Don Imus, and an every growing list of people who’ve seen the dirty end of this stick. Racism will take you down faster than anything else in the political no-fly zone. Except, apparently, when you’re a black racist.Defending Wright is absurd. Minimizing Obama’s commitment to the principals of his church (and Wright’s most heinous visions) are equally absurd. It’s partisan wishful thinking.
Vote for whomever you want, there isn’t an atheist candidate anyway, but this pretense that Obama is being held too much to task, or that Wright is somehow defensible is simply garbage.
So far in national polls both Obama and Clinton are even statistically with McCain. And they’ve been poudning away at each other which drives down their numbers.
Once one is nominated… McCain will get the scrutiny and ridicule he deserves.
The election will be close but I suspect that McCain won’t function well under the pressure of a fierce campaign.
Plus he’s pretty much a stay the course guy in Iraq. And we know how popular that is.
Honestly, I’m fairly certain Obama is far less religious than he puts on for show. The timing of his joining of Trinity, and his run for Illinois congress coincide too perfectly for there not to be some other underlying motivation. It’s far more probably that Obama only joined the Church as a way of getting “street cred” in the Southside Chicago Black community.
So McCain picks Huckabee as VP to lock in the wingnut christofascist block. The Huckster has been sticking close to JM. Wins the election, god nature takes its course.
Uhh… McCain won’t pick Huckabee as his running mate in any conceivable scenario. McCain has already sucked enough dick of the fundie wing of the party for him to feel pretty safe there, and Huckabee is extremely weak on both immigration and economic issues which alienated alot of hardcore conservative support for McCain in the general election.
God damn right.
As it happens, the journal article I’d like to see the Pharyngula community dissect and thrash is C. Goodnight et al., “Evolution in spatial predator-prey models and the prudent predator: The inadequacy of steady-state organism fitness and the concept of individual and group selection” Complexity (27 Feb 2008). The journal is not open access, but PDF copies can be scared up here and there with a little Googling. A while back, windy and I chatted about this paper and some of the ones it cites, but the discussion never grew beyond that.
McCain will get the scrutiny and ridicule he deserves.
Won’t believe it until I see it. There has been plenty of opportunity to investigate his positions, to note that he’s an empty suit. But, the BBQs and access for the press corps win.
Scrutiny and ridicule are not forthcoming.
Gah! I was sure I closed that hyperlink tag!
Anyway, the topic also came up recently at Plektix, but in that case, the discussion was between a mathematician and a physicist, so I’m sure the biologists would look on in horror.
All of this reminds me that I really need to sit down and use the wonderful math support at my blog to write that post about how starting from the Price Equation, (some of the things called) kin selection are mathematically equivalent to (some of the things called) group selection.
re: #96 & #98 Ichthyic on journal access —
Does anyone know about the legality on asking people/offering to e-mail people non-OA journal articles (not for profit, of course)? That’s something that goes on a lot on one of the online science groups I’m part of, and I think it’s a good thing, but I’m never certain if it’s actually legal….
As a side note, I really wish there were more OA journals. In high school it was a pain in the ass to have to go down to the UCLA library and look through all the journal hard copies just to find an article I wanted to read.
Ic @96,
again, complete agreement. For about three years I subscribed to Nature. That was the most obscenely expensive hobby I have ever had. And that says a lot, given that I routinely snort staggering volumes of pure Bolivian flake cocaine and heat my house by burning mint copies of X-Men #94.
Eventually I gave it up, not because of the (for laypeople) low signal-to-noise ratio — I am willing to do quite a bit of homework — but because it cost so damned much. With no compelling professional reason to keep up, I simply couldn’t justify the expense. Some of the papers I read back then still make me sit up and breathe hard; if the same information were free (or even reasonably priced), I’d be more than pleased to engage it.
(I do still get Cladistics and three arachneological journals, but then much more of their content is much more accessible to me, plus they are vastly cheaper!)
Actually, thinking again about it, McCain/Huckabee might be a good ticket. A guy who doesn’t believe in evolution, and then a guy who witnessed it.
Etha @106,
a couple of years ago I asked an arachneological listserv for help finding an obscure but rather important paper (a revision of the Miturgidae, if you must know). Within 12 hours I was deluged with offers to fax, email or snailmail photocopies; among these helpful souls were two of the paper’s three authors. It might not have been strictly legal, but if the authors themselves were cool with it…
Edward #14: “atheists lose their moral foundation, when they jetison God, and eventually end up foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals”
I’m late to this blog (as usual, mainly due to the time difference as I’m in the UK), but as a card-carrying atheist and occasional poster here and plenty of other blogs, I’d like to challenge Edward to find anything I’ve posted anywhere that is foul-mouthed, pornographic or hate-filled. My online persona generally has a good healthy level of humour too. Go on. Do a search. My chosen Internet name is practically unique which makes my posts easy to find, and I stand by every one of them. You might even learn a thing or two on your travels.
@#109 Mrs. Tilton —
I know very few scientists who wouldn’t be delighted to know that someone would want to read their article, and happy to help with that; my main concern is the journals themselves. Basically…if, say, Nature found out that their articles were being e-mailed to non-subscribers online, would it be a legal issue? I could see it being covered for private/non-commercial research use, as is the case with photocopy regulations, but IANAL, so….
Hmmm…Rev. Wright’s church is a half hour bus/train ride from where I live…should I check it out? I’m actually kind of considering it…I think how Wright and his congregation would treat a white, atheist visitor would say as much (probably more) about them as any sound bites going ’round the news/internet.
The continuing Democratic primary has a lot to do with the fact that Wright was brought up, of course. And it took some time for it to get going, because I know I heard about it at least a month before it hit the evening news.
Still, I’m little concerned about all of this, wanting primarily to bring up the odd switch in explicitly bringing up God and religion between the respective parties. That is, McCain is the one who is reticent to discuss religion, while Clinton and Obama are not.
If this turns into a trend, especially what’s happening on the Democratic side, I doubt that secularism is likely to benefit.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
PZ wrote: Let’s not forget Hillary Clinton. She’s entangled with a far right-wing fellowship of fascists.
Just to let you know, this story that Barbara Ehrenreich wrote about in THE NATION was from “Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power [that]will be published in May.” Her link to his story came from something he published on blogger.com. This blog has mysteriously disappeared and the blog has vanished. Anyone know what is up?
Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.
Don’t know much about the blog, but a nice video can be found here.
Did anyone notice this hidden gem on Christiancrosstalk.com , edward’s wonderful website (the troll from post 14) :
Evidence of God is found in the mind of all paramecia
This argument, championed by Edward Gordon, co-founder or Christian Cross Talk, comes from observations he made of protozoa (namely paramecium) while studying them through a microscope in 2002. It goes like this:
If one examines a drop of pond water under a microscope, they will observe many types of algae and protozoa. One of these protozoa is called a paramecium. It’s a single-celled, ciliated creature that swims around in its aqueous environment. It’s the most common form of protozoa found in fresh water.
If one watches paramecia for more than a few seconds, one will notice a startling fact: the paramecia display behaviors that are unquestionably brought about by a conscious will. They swim and look for food in one algae patch, turn around and swim to another and look for food there, swim all the way across the drop and look for food there; they investigate this or that structure, and then swim all the way back to where they started.
None of this is particularly startling, until you realize these protozoa have no brain or nervous system of any kind. Their entire single-cell structure is nothing more than proteins, DNA, and maybe a few chemical enzymes. There’s nothing in their structure that can account for their undeniable conscious will.
Unless you subscribe to magic, the only place such a will can come from is the very mind of the Creator of the universe, Himself. Just as the background radiation of the universe is undeniable evidence of the Big Bang, so too is the consciousness of paramecia undeniable evidence of a present and conscious non-physical mind. Since all paramecia are contingent, this non-physical mind must have its genesis in an even greater non-physical mind. We call that mind, God.
@#22 Janine ID —
So I saw this “flow chart,” which claims that atheism’s inevitable consequence “Existential Despair,” which apparently leads one to one of three options: “battle religion,” “physical and mental hedonism,” or “return to christ.” Ummm…no. This is just projection, albeit a somewhat more sophisticated form of projection than that of creobots such as Kenny. Sartre said it best:
Etha @111,
Basically…if, say, Nature found out that their articles were being e-mailed to non-subscribers online, would it be a legal issue?
Well, IAAL, but this is so far from my field of practice that I am, in a very real sense; as much NAL as you here. That said: of course it’s a legal issue. The more important question is, is it a practical issue?
Let’s suppose there were a p2p app (we’ll call it “Natster”) that let people access free bootleg copies of Nature articles. If only there were such a thing, illicit copies of articles would doubtless flow as thick and fast as bootleg Robbie Williams singles. Under those circumstances, I should imagine that Nature, through its lawyers, might well indeed get mediaeval on one’s ass.
But on the much smaller scale on which this sort of thing undoubtedly happens in real life, I’d think that it is usually, if nothing else, simply not worth bothering about. Bar occasional egregious instances of copyright violation (e.g., large-scale, for-profit), in which cases I would expect a journal to consider legal action, some reasonable degree of “slippage” is: certain to occur; probably unharmful to the interests of the journal; and possibly even favourable to them.
The music industry has shown itself willing to be quite extraordinarily dickheaded about filesharing. SFAIK, the scientific journal publishing industry hasn’t. I don’t think the record labels intrinsically evil or the journals saints. I think it’s simply that the former see themselves faced with an existential threat whilst the latter don’t. Now, if some enterprising soul starts distributing free Natster client software, that might all change…
Well done Etha,beat me to it girl….
As we’ve said before in another thread,if those people would just care to look,all their questions of morality and hope have effectively been answered not by science,but by philosophy,and esp.existentialism.
It is accepted custom to write to authors and simply beg them for a pdf or reprint. This is what the concept of “reprint” exists for, and why authors get so many of them (50 for free at some journals).
I declare Edward a drive-by troll. Chances are he will never come back to this thread and will simply repeat the same nonsense when he comes to Pharyngula next time, where he will again ignore everything we might reply. Even that he… PUT YOUR IRONY METERS AWAY!!! most likely qualifies as having used God’s name in vain by saying he was going to run 10 miles in it.
On this, though, I openly side with the chickenhawks. 1961 means Vietnam, and if (like, say, Kerry) you considered it your sacred duty to fight for your country in Vietnam, you were ignorant and/or deluded.
(Of course, by definition, the chickenhawks are hypocrites who like sending other people to deeply stupid wars. This I cannot excuse.)
What is that supposed to be? I genuinely have no idea. Fear of death, perhaps?
Undoubtedly. <broad grin>
@#120 David Marjanovic —
To quote from the same Sartre lecture:
Stephen Colbert hit it right on the button on this one that relates to this thread.
Worth a watch for The Word.
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=164382
If anyone’s interested, there’s a somewhat more detailed description of Clinton’s religious/theological beliefs & affiliations in Mother Jones.
@#104:
Blake, speaking of not being able to access, that link is busted.
do you have a direct link to one of the PDFs of the article you mentioned?
(Evolution in spatial predator-prey models and the prudent predator…)
>The personality begins to deteriortate. It’s a mentally
>unhealthy state of mind. PZ Myers simple confirms it. He
>can’t be trusted in a theater, he’s a professor, but he
>can’t speak without vulgarity, and he appears to be a
>grossly self-centered individual.
All of this seems very true. However if he really does get upset like the way he types he might have something happen to him because of all the stress. Possiblility for a heart attack or stroke and that can lead to death and death can lead to the truth.
However, I am just happy people like this are in the minority at least at the moment. If you had more people like this it could lead to instability in their mental state and we might have some violence going on.
Relgion is still a protected right in the United States of America, but only for the moment. As soon as these Atheists get their way it will be ripped out of the constitution.
If you had more people like this it could lead to instability in their mental state and we might have some violence going on.
oops, too late.
the problem is, Kenny…
you’re projecting again.
…and you’ve gotten repetitious and boring, which I suppose was inevitable.
Relgion is still a protected right in the United States of America, but only for the moment. As soon as these Atheists get their way it will be ripped out of the constitution.
blah blah blah blah blah
Hey! Kenny just dropped by!
Oh, Keeennnn-nnnnyyyy! You still have not answered my two simple questions. Here they are.
1) Did the town of Nazareth exist at the time Christ was supposed to be alive?
2) Did any of what is now called the New Testament exist before the Third Century CE?
After all, you keep saying there is a lot of proof for your religion. Please provide them for those questions.
And appeals to NDE do not count.
Ichthyic (#126):
Eit. It worked for me earlier today, but now I’m on a different computer and I discovered that Wiley’s website requires cookies even to view the abstract of a paper. Great bolshy yarblockos! Anyway, I found a PDF copy here (the name of the PDF file is considerably farther over the top than the title or contents of the paper itself, oddly enough).
got it, thanks.
I had read it before, but my copy of it was lost with my last hard drive crash, and I forgot where I even got it from.
@#127 Kenny —
NDEs (which I am assuming is what you hope will happen to PZ, since if he simply dies your worldview states that he’ll go straight to hell…”truth” of a sort, but not the kind that would make a difference in his life) can be reproduced using ketamine, a drug (sometimes used recreationally) that simulates the excitotoxic conditions that occur after clinical death but before brain death. What you are saying, then, is that the knowledge of the existence of your “true” god can be attributed to dissociative drugs and conditions that lead to brain damage. I’m afraid that’s not terribly convincing.
Also, that you would wish a heart attack or stroke — which could very well cause permanent physical and/or mental damage or DEATH without giving a NDE — on someone is quite simply vile.
Excuse me, I need to have the shrapnel wounds from my late irony meter attended to.
quotemining fun:
god can be attributed… to brain damage.
:p
…and not that far off from the original, anyway.
…and funny cause it’s probably true.
>NDEs (which I am assuming is what you hope will happen to
>PZ, since if he simply dies your worldview states that
>he’ll go straight to hell…”truth” of a sort, but not the
>kind that would make a difference in his life) can be
>reproduced using ketamine, a drug…
Well, how are these people seeing these things and then not only that but seeing people that they are unaware of? Finally not having any brain activity?
I will do some research on that drug, but you need to do some real research, use google and search for NDE studies. There are scientific studies on this and it is not a drug for the brain as the brain has zero activity.
It’s real not just because of eyewitness accounts but because without brain activity they come back and tell of people who they did not know here on earth (relatives of theirs, before their time).
You can make up whatever story you want, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what you make up in your mind that it is not real, however it does not change the facts that it is real. However, some of you will bend-over-backwards just to hold on to your faith of there being no God.
You can make up whatever story you want
nope, that’s your job.
@#137 Kenny —
Please, Kenny…after all we have told you about the “google” argument…can’t you just give us a link? I gave you a link to the excitotoxicity/ketamine article (which has information on ketamine; if you don’t have access to it, I would even be willing to send you a pdf). I’m not going to go through all the articles and try to figure out which one you’ve construed as “evidence” for your view of NDE experiences. If I found one and picked it apart, you’d probably just say it wasn’t the “real research” you were talking about.
Atheism is not faith. It’s the rational consequence of the total lack of evidence for God/gods/etc.
Adding to my #139 re: faith —
Kenny, I don’t think you have “faith” either, since you keep bending over backwards to give “evidence” for the existence of your god. If you actually had faith, you wouldn’t feel this need to twist and make up facts to support your belief, to see “evidence” where it does not exist. To quote Hebrews: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”.
I will do some research on that drug, but you need to do some real research, use google and search for NDE studies. There are scientific studies on this and it is not a drug for the brain as the brain has zero activity.
Kenny, you did not understand what Etha said. The NDE that you go off about is the result of the brain being deprived of oxygen. Without oxygen, the brain malfunctions. Ketamine produces a similar result.
Seeing that you believe the intelligence is overrate, brain damage is proof of god. Terry Schiavo in her brain dead vegetative state was the ideal christian.
It would be nice if you answered my two simple questions.
Wright is a nut, but a least he had the guts to stand up and criticize the government. I found that refreshing.
More power to him.
Wright also said to Obama:
“If you get elected, November the 5th, I’m coming after you, because you’ll be representing a government whose policies grind under people.”
Good for him.
Obama is an idiot for caving to the right wing.
So is Hillary:
O’Reilly: “Can you believe this Rev. Wright guy? Can you believe this guy?”
Clinton: “Well, I’m going to leave it up to voters to decide.”
O’Reilly: “Well, what do you think as an American?”
Clinton: “Well, what I said when I was asked directly is that I would not have stayed in the church.
O’Reilly: “You’re an American citizen, I’m an American citizen, He’s an American citizen, Rev. Wright. What do you think when you hear a fellow American citizen say that kind of stuff about America.”
Clinton: “Well, I take offense. I think it’s offensive and outrageous. I’m going to express my opinion, others can express theirs. It is part of just, you know, an atmosphere we’re in today.”
Pitiful.
What do you think when you hear a fellow American citizen say that kind of stuff about America.”
she should have said:
“You mean like the things Robertson said after 9/11, Bill?”
Kenny, I don’t think you have “faith” either, since you keep bending over backwards to give “evidence” for the existence of your god.
which of course also explains the popularity of ID to poor schmucks like Kenny.
So god is reduced to directing a zillion Paramecium and Amoebas around now, is he? Sounds pretty boring. I thought he was planting fossils in the earth for paleontologists to find.
Hey, Kenny? Are aliens real, since there are eyewitness accounts of them? Inquiring minds want to know!
I thought he was planting fossils in the earth for paleontologists to find.
I thought he was busy fixing sporting events, and saving people from accidents and disasters he caused?
sure gets around, eh?
What Jonathan said at #1.
Kenny:
I wish you luck in your quest for the truth.
Etha: If you’re mailing things to trolls, don’t forget to send from a throw-away address. Who knows what might come back upstream.
From the site with the ‘addicted to atheism’ flowchart, linked in #22:
*BOGGLE* There are jokes about this in IT circles, I never expected to see it in real life.
Re copies of articles.
ASTM has gotten really strict on this. I recently purchased a certain standard and opted for the email delivery. It required an approval of the copyright restrictions to order. Upon getting it I noticed that the footer at the bottom of each page says:
It refers to the exact time I downloaded it. According to the rules, I can share my physical copy with co-workers, but not make a copy for a coworker.
Did any of what is now called the New Testament exist before the Third Century CE?
Quite a bit of the beginning was. Most of the Gospels were written well after Christ’s death but Paul’s letters (which are believed to be fragments as many as 13 letters) were written just after the Resurrection.
According to Garry Wills in What Paul Meant “the Gospels,none written by their putative authors,all drawing on second-or third- or fourth-hand accounts and all written from a quarter to a half century after Paul’s letters.”
“His (Paul’s)letters were written roughly two decades after the death of Jesus.”
As to Nazareth,the only one I know is near Easton and has a race course. It was not there in the third century C.E.
Hey PZ,
You said:
Are you talking about the PZ Myers who has been faithfully married to one woman for thirty years, has 3 college-educated children, who doesn’t drink to excess, doesn’t gamble, doesn’t smoke, and who lives a life of such bland middle-class probity that he would make a Southern Baptist swoon with envy?
Edward: I’m just going by what you write in your bolg. I’m just going by what hit me in the face as soon as I checked out the very first post–this one. And you know, Jesus said that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
And let’s not forget one fact: You reject the Creator of the universe with your free will. That act, if God exists, and I know He does, is the worst possible evil a human being can do. It’s the worst possible sin. Do you really think God cares about smoking and drinking and middle class probity? Do you really think he cares if you sit at a one-armed bandit with a cigarrette dangling and a Jameson in your hand? Cheating on your wife, which I’m glad you don’t, has it’s own consequences in this life, so we don’t even need to go there.
No, no, no: That piddly junk you mention to prove how “moral” you are as an atheist is for the simpletons to worry about. You, my friend, reject the Creator of the universe, and you spit on the very people who do not. You reject Him, and you’re a biologist for crying out loud! You’re in charge of students, fresh young minds. You’re not a good person. You might be in the eyes of the perishing people that surround you. You might have the fooled. But you can’t fool your maker. No way.
PZ: As for the theater incident, there was no cause — I was talking quietly with my friends in line. The arbitrary actions of Mark Mathis ought to worry you more, because that’s what we’ll see more of in an authoritarian theocracy. Atheists might be less inhibited about saying “damn”, but we won’t burn you at the stake.
Edward: Well, I don’t your reputation. Even though I think I’ve come across your name (I’ll check Amazon for your books.). But Mark Mathis obviously does. I mean, he let in Richard Dawkins and not you?
You’ve got a very busy blog, so I doubt you’ll get to this response, but if you do, I hope you turn around, like Anthony Flew. He turned around, sort of. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Hasta La Vista.
Ed
–Mrs. Tilton does so make her Molly sparkle!
Ed, it must be pleasant to live a life unencumbered by facts.
The reason why Richard Dawkins got in is because Mark Mathis did not recognize him.
…I hope you turn around, like Anthony Flew. He turned around, sort of. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
The reason why Anthony Flew sort of turned around is because his mind has gone to waste. This is not meant to be disparaging of Flew, it is the sad fact of his (and most of ours if we live long enough) existence.
Speaking just for myself; Edward, you are an arrogant ass. Just like the many other fundies who stop by here, you come by in order to inform us that we are oh so wicked and need to be shut up for the good of all true believers. You have no interest in conversing or learning. If you took just a little bit of time to research, you would realize that everything you said was with out merit.
Wait, the vapors of god floating in head is more substantive then any knowledge that we collectively may have.
Enjoy your life, Edward, you self deluded moron.
McCain has a long record in public office, so in contrast to Obama we don’t have to read the tea leaves to figure out who he really is. No one thinks McCain is anti-Catholic or anti-EU just because Hagee endorsed him. As an athiest, you’re posing someone who’s defending Catholicism from McCain? What a load!
Hm. Let me follow this “reasoning” a bit. Apparently atheists are “foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless individuals” regardless of whether they have ever used profanity, viewed pornography, hated a person, or laughed at a joke, because they “reject the Creator of the universe with [their] free will [which is] the worst possible evil a human being can do.”
I think this is why so many religious people have severely skewed morals. Their very basis for good and evil derives not from ethics and compassion, but from belief. An atheist is by definition an evil person, so said religious person (i.e., Edward) feels no compunction in throwing whatever other criticisms enter his head, deserved or not. And apparently he admits as much.
Edward, you have just accused all atheists of “the worst possible evil a human being can do.” Therefore, you have just claimed that a lack of belief in an invisible, imperceptible ghost is worse than, for instance, what Josef Fritzl did. Worse than kidnapping, worse than rape. Worse than murder or torture.
I hope that you can at least begin to see why so many atheists view people like you as so, so misguided.
Do you really think he cares if you sit at a one-armed bandit with a cigarrette dangling and a Jameson in your hand?
do you really sit at home constantly trying to figure out what your fictional god cares about?
sad.
I think this is why so many religious people have severely skewed morals. Their very basis for good and evil derives not from ethics and compassion, but from belief.
indeed. which is why there are about a thousand different sects of xianity at this point.
as Rufus sez:
You think he doesn’t care?
we don’t have to read the tea leaves to figure out who he really is.
the hell you say.
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
Edward: Re post #153. You can’t go about arguing that atheism leads to immorality and then turn around and try to claim that atheism is immorality! That is what is known as a circular argument.
And think of what you are saying: that disbelief, a private thought and nothing more, is the worst sin? Worse than murder, torture, child abuse, stealing, cheating, and lying? That being a loving father and husband, and caring for your fellow man count for nothing?
If this is the morality that your religion provides you, then your religion is false. It would be an abomination in the eyes of any truly benevolent god. And any god that demanded such things is an insecure, egomaniacal tyrant unworthy of anybody’s worship even if he really did create a universe.
If god exists, and if god is good, you do not know him.
Sorry, that should have been referenced Edward #153 – as if anyone could mistake his inimitable style.
I hope you turn around, like Anthony Flew.
you mean THIS Anthony Flew?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html
what a deluded sot you are, eddie.
Edward —
If you would like to read about how your flow chart got atheism and existentialism all wrong, please see my detailed blog post on the subject.
just to be crystal clear, Eddie, Flew absolutely rejected your god, even after he went from pure atheism to a spinoza-like deism.
I’m shocked to hear you ask a fellow human being to save themselves by becoming a deist.
what would your god think?
one to puzzle over the slot machines, while you down whiskeys and puff a few ciggies.
The only thing NDEs show is that something interesting is happening in an individual’s brain. And we cannot say “no” brain activity, either, only that our available instruments could not detect any brain activity. Frankly, the best instruments we currently have available to us for measuring brain activity are still quite crude. All manner of important phenomena could be going on below our present detection threshold.
>The only thing NDEs show is that something interesting is
>happening in an individual’s brain. And we cannot say “no”
>brain activity, either, only that our available
>instruments could not detect any brain activity.
I am not trying to be mean, but you have got to be kidding me! Denial is a serious problem with you atheists.
Either your as dumb as a redneck or you deny everything because you don’t want it to be true. There is no way you can argue with ignorance. I mean wow! Just wow!
@#168 Kenny —
Actually, ignorance is simply “the fact or condition of being ignorant; want of knowledge (general or special)” (OED), so yes, there is a way to argue against ignorance: provide the relevant information. (This involves more than “just google it”, btw.) What you are trying to say, though, is that there is no way to argue against willful ignorance; and on that point, you will get no disagreement from me….
I am not trying to be mean, but you have got to be kidding me! Denial is a serious problem with you atheists.
says the projecting brainwashed xian troll.
What would happen if one of the candidates announced their atheism after being elected President? Could they lose their position somehow (despite freedom from religion laws etc)?
Wouldn’t that be the easiest way for the USA to get used to the idea of having atheist politicians?
Could they lose their position somehow (despite freedom from religion laws etc)?
No, not legally – the Constitution guarantees that there will be “no religious tests” as a condition of holding public office (elected or appointed) – but a lot of people would be PISSED OFF. I have to wonder if (s)he’d survive the four years without a contrived impeachment attempt or an assassination attempt.
It’s not as if a candidate hasn’t ever misrepresented his or her position or background in a campaign before, but you have to admit, this would be profoundly different in the minds of many here in this nominally secular nation.
The current brand of the Kennys and Edwards frequenting this blog are a fine example of the obvious thought disorder these people are suffering from,and I mean that in a clinical,pathological sense,a collection of clinical symptoms that we would be able to find a number in the DSM for.
There is lack of insight which is the hallmark of schizophrenia,delusions of various kind as in e.g. a distorted view of reality,illusions and/or hallucinations,the formal thought disorder of schizophrenia with inability to concentrate or focus on one topic,rapid fragmented thoughts,inability to see whats relevant,jumping from topic to topic,and there is the lack of emotion,social withdrawal and blunted expressiveness we see as well.
I have long been of the opinion that religious fundementalists and creobots are mentally ill in a clinical sense,and those two confirm my opinion.
Kenny, a malfunctioning brain is not proof of a christian god.
As for not being mean, you came in condemning the lot of us. But I will be mean and do it with a smile. Fuck you Kenny. Numerous people laid out why your pet NDE theory is silly and filled with holes. You cannot accept that and accuse us of denying the obvious.
Tedious twit.
>Hey, Kenny? Are aliens real, since there are eyewitness
>accounts of them? Inquiring minds want to know!
Well are there millions of people all over that have seen aliens? Probably not. However, that doesn’t mean that they might not exist. Dawkin’s even said it was possible.
Well are there millions of people all over that have seen aliens? Probably not. However, that doesn’t mean that they might not exist. Dawkin’s even said it was possible.
Posted by: Kenny
Tedious dumdass knows not what he talks about.
Hey, maybe if a person comes back from a NDE talking about aliens…
jsn, 34: “Gosh, I hope you cleaned the spittle from your computer screen after that, PZ.”
-PZ’s response was calm and rational. Much more so than the post he was responding to. Also, I don’t know about you, but I type with my mouth closed.
Relgious belief does mimic delusional disorder, but there’s a specific exemption for it, and for other cultural beliefs that are widely held by the majority within the given culture. Context matters. All those Greeks who worshipped Zeus weren’t delusional – they were just mistaken. (Everyone now knows that Apollo is a far more powerful god. The rise of Heliocentricism changed everything.)
@ Kseniya No 178 :
True,context matters.But if our brain ,say,was just not equipped to cope with its own evolution or human development from stone age hunting/gathering to spending the day on Wall Street or behind a Supermarket checkout,and was just prone to delusions or escapism in the form of you know,just wishing for someone supernatural to love you and look after you,that would explain a lot of what we are seeing these days.Im not saying all religous people are schizophrenic,Im saying I think those parallels in symptoms and signs between the 2 groups might be an indication of an inability of our brain to cope with the socioeconomic changes that have occurred over the last,say 100000 years.
sorry to say, that’s a pretty poor argument coming from you, Kseniya.
It’s basically handwaiving away all of psychology.
no, it’s worse.
it’s handwaiving away all of medical science by saying that if a majority suffer similar symptoms, a disease does not exist.
aside from that, creationists do not represent all religious thought, so one can’t simply equate the behavior of those like Kenny and Edward, or Mark Mathis, or Kent Hovind, with ALL religious believers.
there are multiple things going on here; you can’t simply group them all together.
and yes, creationists DO tend to exhibit very similar pyschological defense mechanisms that are usually lacking in say, most Catholics, for example.
It’s not the religion that’s the problem here, it’s the underlying psychology of particular groups that are employing it.
…and besides, everyone knows Dagon could kick Apollo’s ass.
Yeah. Well, the exemptions were put in the DSM for a reason: without them, many religious beliefs would qualify as delusions, and strongly-held beliefs would qualify one for a diagnosis of Delusional Disorder. (There’s a weird little circular irony in there somewhere.) I agree with your point… Our ability to imagine and our need to answer important questions have conspired to outpace our willingness to rationally assess reality. The ability is there, but in many people it’s latent. Or suppressed, or repressed, discouraged by ones guardians.
Context is important Kseniya,but I dont think the ad populum argument works here,Im sure there was widespread child indoctrination in religious matters with the greeks just as there is today,and there is always mass psychology,so to say that plenty of greeks worshipped Zeus therefore they couldnt have been delusional doesnt hold up I reckon.
For the neuropsychological basis of it all,see my post above,its my theory anyway lol….
Uh… say what? The argument comes from the APA, not from me. I didn’t write the book, I’m just citing it. C’mon, you know this. (Don’t you?)
Sigh.
Take it up with the APA, guys. I’m going to bed.
>you came in condemning the lot of us. But I will be mean
>and do it with a smile.
Who is condemning whom? Have you taken a look at the blog and the posts in the forum here? Give me a break. It isn’t my fault some of the people here can’t even attempt to use google and do some research on their own. There are studies being done and the research is being put online.
How did they say it was full of holes? Because they denied that a lot of these people had zero brain activity? Seriously? That says it’s full of holes? Seriously?
I can pull some random garbage claim out of my butt as well, but that does not make it true. You say you are smart, but you really lack common sense.
When I was having dinner before nightshift last night I was watching bits of “Enemies of Reason” on the telly here in Australia,and it occurred to me again that I had never actually even seen an ad for psychics or faith healing or the like in my home country Germany or anywhere else in continental Europe,it was only in the UK and AUstralia that I ever saw stuff like that.I wonder what it is with the english-speaking countries lol,this delusional belief in the supernatural seems very much an english thing,same with creationism/christian fundementalism,which is pretty much unknown where I come from.
Sorry Kenny,I wont be entertaining ya tonight,youre too far gone mate.
P.S. – Ok after a bite of cold lo mein, I have to say I agree with where you guys are coming from – but it we’re talking about what’s likely to be diagnosible, that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame. I guess you already know that. Of course I agree that YEC belief systems and the defenses erected around them are pretty whack, and I guess you already know I do. Ok NOW bed. Nitol. :-)
Or suppressed, or repressed, discouraged by ones guardians.
or peers.
which is probably why the greek pantheon lasted so long, too.
still, I’ve always viewed religion like alcohol. It’s not the alcohol that’s the real problem, it’s an individual’s predisposition for abusing it.
let’s face facts, Kenny is abusing his own religion. while doing so, he exhibits classic symptoms of projection and denial.
these suggest an underlying problem.
that it is so common amongst creationists suggests it’s the very cognitive dissonance caused by such an extremely out-of-synch worldview that generates the psychological defense mechanisms to begin with.
I’ve often wondered if real group therapy sessions would work to help those employing such rampant psychological defense mechanisms.
sort of a “creationists anonymous”.
but one has to, in fact, get over the hump of “social acceptability” that being part of the “majority” as you point out, lends.
which is why specifically the argument of exemption put forward by you particularly stuck in my craw; it’s like granting an exemption for schizophrenia because a large group of schizophrenics could easily reinforce each others delusions.
I’m saying it IS that bad, that creationism in the US is very much like if large groups of schizophrenics were simply given exemptions to reinforce each others’ delusions for generation after generation.
I simply don’t see how ignoring it is going to make it go away.
re: the delusional disorder/religion debate —
There are certain maladaptive psychological processes underlying the behavior of creationists (denial, projection, etc), but generally these stem from the difficulty of reconciling their beliefs with reality. At least they recognize that reality on some level. People with real psychotic disorders have no sense that there is any reality apart from the one that exists in their own head.
With religion itself, there are so many different forms it takes that it is impossible to apply one psychological statement to all religious people. In some cases we see people who try to come up with “evidence” for their “faith” (an contradiction in terms), which leads to cognitive dissonance and to projection/denial; in some cases the religion itself is a maladaptive coping mechanism for dealing with difficulties in life; in some cases it *is* off-the-wall psychosis (David Mabus et al)…it’s impossible to make a single sweeping generalization.
>”…that creationism in the US is very much like if large groups of schizophrenics were simply given exemptions to reinforce each others’ delusions for generation after generation.”
Ichthyic,that is really a great point you make here,and exactly what part of the problem is.We have a large group of deluded people,and yeah yeah,I concede you cant recommend them all and lock them away,but they get exemption on religious grounds and are free to pass on and reinforce their delusions,and worse,spread them to indoctrinate more of the gullible,see the recent thread.
“Creationists anonymous”,snicker…..
Uh… say what? The argument comes from the APA, not from me.
I think you are misrepresenting what THAT argument says, vs. what I’m saying Kenny represents.
just to be clear.
for example, we don’t compare the behavior of Kenny in general to the behavior of say, Ken Miller, even though both are putatively “religious”.
However, the umbrella of religion DOES tend to cause (yes even the APA) to underestimate how it is utilized by those with underlying psychological issues to begin with.
you could also think of it as comparing “cultism” to religion in general. Religion is the umbrella that grants “validity” to various cult behaviors.
like Scientology, for example.
or how about the FLDS? the FLDS got away with abusing kids for YEARS because they were just viewed as another religion.
pentecostal snake handlers…
etc.
I hope that’s clearer.
Etha,
youre right,we shouldnt generalize,the fundies fill a whole spectrum from outright psychotic to mildly deluded,however I think if you look at Kenny and Ed,I reckon it would be safe to say that those two had no insight whatsoever into their delusions,and they were the 2 I was referring to above.
Just FTR — I agree with you guys when you say that religious belief is a thought disorder. But it’s a different type of thought disorder than schizophrenia, etc; and like with any psychological disorder, it is important to try to distinguish it from other similar psych disorders in order to properly treat it.
>I agree with you guys when you say that religious belief
>is a thought disorder. But it’s a different type of
>thought disorder than schizophrenia.
You can say the exact same thing about you being bi-sexual. See, I can do that too.
but generally these stem from the difficulty of reconciling their beliefs with reality
actually, that’s been my assumption, and while it seems reasonable (especially looking at the religionauts we get around here), it still suffers from a lack of rigorous support in the literature (AFAICT, anyway).
all i have is anecdotal data, and indirect support from the heritability and social transmission studies I’ve looked at.
like those who add “IANAL” after doing pop-legal commentary, I would add “IANACS” (I am not a clinical psychologist). I’ve only taken a year of basic psych, and a year of behavioral psych (mostly relating to animal behavior).
One of these days I’m going to really do a serious search again to see if there is anything new in the psych journals on the subject.
And that,young Ken,lifts the veil of civility from your face and reveals the putrid ugly face underneath.And I hope it earns you a ban from this blog,never to be seen again matey.
But it’s a different type of thought disorder than schizophrenia
oh most assuredly, I was comparing symptoms, not equating diseases.
Who says they are making any attempt to reconcile their beliefs with reality? That would require insight,would it not?
You can say the exact same thing about you being bi-sexual. See, I can do that too.
hey, let’s roll with that, even though you don’t have a clue what you said.
there are studies that support the idea of a heritable component to sexual orientation, and there are studies suggesting a heritable component to extreme religious behavior too.
the difference is, being bisexual doesn’t seem to preclude one from being rational. Nor does having blond hair vs. red, for that matter.
whatever your condition is, it seems to have precluded you from being rational. So, even if there is a heritable component to your inanity and bisexuality and even hair color, the comparison pretty much stops there.
“But it’s a different type of thought disorder than schizophrenia, etc”
Right; in fact in many cases creationism is the manifestation of a normally functioning brain – the result of socialization, peer pressure, absorbing cultural paradigms etc. It may be a thought disorder in that it is irrational and aberrant in the context of 21st century world, but so are a lot of social and subcultural beliefs and practices.
A normally functioning brain is by no means a rational brain, much less scientifically oriented one. Science had to be invented and refined over generations, and requires methods for its maintenance that attempt to reduce ubiquitous and often unconscious human bias, preconceptions, and error. By the standards of idealized rationality, the normal human mind has a high propensity of thought disorder.
Who is next for the DSM treatment? UFO enthusiasts? Objectivists? Leninists? Anarcho-communists? Homeopathy users? Pro-lifers? Anti-vivisectionists? Sure, you might well find higher than mean rates of mental illness in some of these groups. Which of us is entirely free of irrationality or small willful delusions? (e.g. “My girlfriend/boyfriend is the most beautiful woman/man on earth.”)
Certainly creationism, or pro-Stalin revisionism, may be caused by an underlying mental illness. But let’s not confuse deviance with madness. I have my problems with Not In Our Genes, but it does rightfully warn about the medicalization of deviance.
Etha @ #118,#120 et al.
Espousal of Sartre rather undermines the high moral standards claimed around here.
He was an evil, unrepentant stalinist till the very end (no death-bed recantation there!), through whose salons some of history’s worst mass-murderers passed (Mao, Pol-Pot). He was utterly indifferent to the millions of deaths involved in trying to implement his political beliefs.
Existentialism? – pure metaphysics i.e. meaningless word-mongering, mountebankery, and it doesn’t do credit to anyone’s claims to scientific objectivity to be associated with it. It started, incidentally, with Heidegger, who found the Nazi’s policies quite alluring..
Peter
Who says they are making any attempt to reconcile their beliefs with reality? That would require insight,would it not?
yes.
…and when that happens, you get the likes of Francis Collins and Ken Miller.
when the “attempt to reconcile” (meaning an attempt to address cognitive dissonance) takes the reverse direction (an attempt to force reality to conform to your beliefs), you get Kenny.
one is far more problematic than the other.
>And that,young Ken,lifts the veil of civility from your
>face and reveals the putrid ugly face underneath.
Not at all. I don’t believe that being bi-sexual is a disorder at all. I was making a point. If you can call religion that you can surely call someone who is bi-sexual.
Way to not understand simple concepts clinteas. If only the majority of people here were half as intelligent that they claim to be.
Which of us is entirely free of irrationality or small willful delusions? (e.g. “My girlfriend/boyfriend is the most beautiful woman/man on earth.”)
who ever claimed such?
In fact, I rather think the knee-jerk fear of self-analysis in this country (especially), has caused the attempt to provide exemptions for specific groups.
It’s like saying just because I don’t exhibit obvious symptoms of a particular malady, I should never get a medical exam.
@#196 Kenny —
Wow. I think I mentioned this once, in passing, on a thread that I don’t remember you even being involved in. That you should have paid such great attention to my sexual orientation is both amusing and disturbing.
Also, please explain what kind of disordered thought is indicated by bisexuality. Daddy issues? Mommy issues? God issues? (I tried googling homosexuality + “thought disorder” and bisexuality + “thought disorder” but alas, came up with nothing of great informative power.)
If only the majority of people here were half as intelligent that they claim to be.
O.o
YAYYYYYY,and now for some real fun !!!
@ raging Peter No 203 who said :
“He was an evil, unrepentant stalinist till the very end (no death-bed recantation there!), through whose salons some of history’s worst mass-murderers passed (Mao, Pol-Pot). He was utterly indifferent to the millions of deaths involved in trying to implement his political beliefs.
Existentialism? – pure metaphysics i.e. meaningless word-mongering, mountebankery, and it doesn’t do credit to anyone’s claims to scientific objectivity to be associated with it. It started, incidentally, with Heidegger, who found the Nazi’s policies quite alluring..”
Youre obviously wrong,but I have a feeling from your rant that I might have problems to rationally argue the point with you…And I hope Etha has gone to bed,because I dont want her to waste her time on defending that which does not need defending from the Peters of this world in the first place.
Maybe just one comment Peter:Noone here is claiming “high moral standards” as far as Im aware,whatever that might mean anyway,and citing a Philosopher who had your lil Christian dilemma of morality,hope,sense etc in life without a god to hold your hand figured out 70 years ago I think just shows that people here are not confined to a delusional worldview that requires an omnipotent dog to give your poor pitiful existence a sense and purpose.
Next….
Of course, homosexuality/bisexuality was once categorized as a disorder in the DSM. Psychiatric categories are to a large degree socially constructed and hence bound to the cultures of particular eras and regions. (No, I’m no Szaz nor Scientologist – schizophrenia, to name one, is a very real neurological disorder.) The history of psychiatry is littered with “psychosomatic” migraines, masturbation as disorder, and all kinds of other embarrassments. This heritage of diagnostic failure is due to two dubious rules of thumb: 1) If it’s socially deviant, it must be due to an illness; 2) If a physical cause cannot be determined, it must be psychosomatic in origin.
Espousal of Sartre rather undermines the high moral standards claimed around here.
hey, regardless of what you think of the man personally, Sartre did indeed have interesting things to say.
In fact, you could pick any major historical figure and say the same thing (well, maybe excluding our current administrative head).
It hardly reflects on the “moral standards” of anybody.
to suggest such would mean I could judge your moral standards by anybody you ever chose to quote to make a point.
do you really wish to be that inane?
Psychiatric categories are to a large degree socially constructed and hence bound to the cultures of particular eras and regions.
and to the science as well.
should we NOT do so, in such constant fear of error that no progress is ever made?
This heritage of diagnostic failure
could easily be compared to the history of diagnostic failure in any area of medicine as well, btw.
1) If it’s socially deviant, it must be due to an illness; 2) If a physical cause cannot be determined, it must be psychosomatic in origin.
a gross oversimplification of the history of pyschology, at best, and you know it.
>says the projecting brainwashed xian troll.
No, I am not brainwashed. I see the obvious (along with millions of people) and you see your own delusional mind.
Only Atheists can say that millions of people have been brainwashed. I mean agnostics are much more intelligent than that.
This is why most people think Atheists are a joke and that they can’t be trusted.
I see the obvious (along with millions of people)
didn’t we tell you what an argumentum ad populum was before?
whatever.
I just said YOU had been brainwashed Kenny, and you immediately extrapolated it to everyone you self-identify with, just like any good cult member would.
go away, you’re interrupting an actually semi-interesting discussion with your inanity.
@#203 Peter —
Although my impression from the limited biographical reading I have done on him suggests the issue is somewhat more complex than this, I am more interested in the philosophy itself than in Sartre’s success or failure at implementing it in his own life.
Ichthyic:
Your points are well taken. Such error is not unique to psychiatry, though I believe that since resides at the intersection of hard science, soft science, and public policy it is particularly susceptible to cultural biases. So I suppose my conclusion is that not that we should never medicalize beliefs related to cultural systems, but that we ought to tread very carefully.
I do sympathize with your complaint about certain groups getting a pass, particularly in the realm of religion. In situations like the Texas Mormon cult, their overt behavior, mental illness or not (and they are nuts in terms of social psychology at the very least, in my nonprofessional opinion), is more than enough reason for state intervention.
though I believe that since resides at the intersection of hard science, soft science, and public policy it is particularly susceptible to cultural biases.
I would completely agree that caution is warranted.
@ Kenny No 215 :
YAWN
@ Colugo No 210:
That might have been true in parts in the 19th century,but certainly not today,and in that regard it is indeed a gross oversimplification.
I am more interested in the philosophy itself
oh, but wasn’t Peter equally dismissive of that as well:
Existentialism? – pure metaphysics i.e. meaningless word-mongering, mountebankery, and it doesn’t do credit to anyone’s claims to scientific objectivity to be associated with it.
yes, he was. He meant to insult you, and anybody who would ever consider Nietsche, Sarte, Camus, etc., to have ever said anything worth thinking about.
Moreover, he directly equated quoting a specific philosopher with having that philosopher’s PoV and “moral standards”.
I’m doubting Peter is even worth addressing, but at least let’s flush out the full scope of the insult to intelligence and logic his post represents if we are going to respond, eh?
The inclusion (and exclusion) of things in the DSM is very much political, and there are psychologists who may treat things not listed therein, or who might not treat things that are listed. (For example, particularly later in the DSM-II’s period of use, many psychologists did not treat homosexuality as an illness.) Various forms of religious delusion may *never* make it into the DSM; nevertheless, they are still often symptomatic of disordered thought (the amount of defense that goes into protecting one’s cherished beliefs from cognitive dissonance cannot be healthy) and as such the language of abnormal psych is useful in talking about them.
Etha,
im not the guys biographer,but if you read Sartres letters to Simone de Beauvoir after 1945,which is when he got onto the Marxist trip(literally,taking way too many pills to stay awake to write L’EXISTENTIALISME EST UN HUMANISME and CRITIQUE DE LA RAISON DIALECTIQUE) it is pretty easy to see that he was in no way whatsoever a Stalinist(thats just ludicruous lol) or indeed indifferent to “millions of deaths”.
Therefore no detailed response to Peter,whose mind is closed on the issue.
clinteas, you can yawn about it all you want. However, it is true. Your lack of response tells a lot.
they are still often symptomatic of disordered thought (the amount of defense that goes into protecting one’s cherished beliefs from cognitive dissonance cannot be healthy) and as such the language of abnormal psych is useful in talking about them.
you do have a way of turning a phrase.
yes, that’s a very good way to put it, IMO.
Your lack of response tells a lot.
it wasn’t a lack of response, now, was it.
In fact, the response was quite clear in its implication, and I agree 100%
go away, you bore me.
@#221 Ichthyic —
Yeah, I’m just not sure where to *start* in addressing the claim that existentialism (and metaphysics in general) is “meaningless word-mongering, [and] mountebankery.” Such a broad, sweeping claim….
Yeah, I’m just not sure where to *start* in addressing the claim that existentialism (and metaphysics in general) is “meaningless word-mongering, [and] mountebankery.” Such a broad, sweeping claim….
why don’t we start with who would use the word mountebankery?
seriously, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone use this word in place of the more common synonyms (even charlatanism) before.
Mounte what??
Mounte what??
no, don’t go there, we’re not talking about intercourse with a savings and loan.
:p
clinteas #209
” youre obviously wrong…” – ok let’s have some facts then.
Etha #217,Ichthyic #221 –
my post was provocative, in the spirit of this blog. Most important point though, is the philosophy of these people any different in its objective basis from religion? I call Popper to the stand..his analysis of “oracular philosophy” clinches it. Where’s the falsifiability?
Peter
ok let’s have some facts then.
did you miss 223?
@#228 Ichthyic —
Yeah, I just googled it and got 5,710 results. The first 10 results were all various dictionary-type sites. The next four pages after that (at least) were on average something around 90% dictionary-type sites.
Charlatanism has much better results — 86,700 results, with only 60% dictionary sites in the first ten results and a majority of non-dictionary results in the next four pages.
I should really sleep instead of wasting time with such useless faux-research.
Paging John Wilkins…….
John Wilkins to the rescue !!!
Theres a Peter that needs his philosophical compass reset..
LOL
Most important point though, is the philosophy of these people any different in its objective basis from religion?
um, yes. quite a lot, actually.
which is why we don’t find the Evangelical Church of Existentialism in downtown Los Angeles, for example.
Where’s the falsifiability?
I can’t count the number of philosophers that believe they have put arguments forward that falsify existentialism.
were they all deluded, do you suppose?
seriously, if you are going to argue philosophy, you should actually know something about it. I’m no big fan of philosophy myself these days, but even I wouldn’t say the things you seem to be trying to say.
there are people hanging around here who will squash you like a little bug.
but hey, it’s your funeral.
Etha,
i told you that 2 hours ago….:-)
Peter (#203):
An idea isn’t responsible for those who believe in it.
There’s a quote from somebody famous to that effect; I don’t really care who it was, the spirit is what counts.
Ichthyic #235
I have quite a bit of respect for your posts, but I wonder here if you have quite understood falsifiability. The point is not that the propositions of these people have or have not been falsified, but that they are inherently not falsifiable, and therefore worthless.
My philosophy doesn’t go beyond Popper, but he clears you from reading the rest.
clinteas #232..yes I had missed #213
That quote of yours can’t possibily negate the fact that he was a lifelong member of the stalinist French communist party.
Did you mean this John Wilkins? :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkins
That looks more abstruse than my mountebankery – and I thought, by the way that recherché vocabulary was also part of the spirit of this blog. But you have to be on the side of the angels to avoid having it picked apart, I suppose.
Anyway, this Wilkins is 17th Cent, and that must be worth folllowing up when time permits.
Peter
Peter (#203):
An idea is not responsible for those who believe in it.
There is a quote from someone famous to that effect, but I do not care who it was except to attribute a good idea.
Peter,
im by no means a philosopher,im a physician,but i think there is a certain similarity between religious faith and philosophy,as in that philosophical theories are not verifiable nor falsifiable,but that doesnt make them worthless,now does it?
And the fact that one is a member of a communist party does not make one a condoner of mass murder,last time i looked,whether you like communists or not.
And I was talking about this John Wilkins
I have quite a bit of respect for your posts
that’s nice, if entirely irrelevant.
The point is not that the propositions of these people have or have not been falsified, but that they are inherently not falsifiable, and therefore worthless.
huh?
that makes no sense whatsoever.
first, if they have been falsified, then they are, de facto, falsifiable, at least within the realm of logic.
second, falsifiability of a philosophical position does not define the worth of the argument itself. Even blatantly false premises can still have worth in a debate.
as a philosophical argument, even deism is certainly not entirely worthless; it in fact has generated endless interesting debates of one form or another. However, as a pragmatic argument, it most certainly IS worthless IMO.
The point is, there IS a difference here. What is interesting to debate philosophically can often lead to new insights, even practical ones, even if the ideas at the core of the philosophies are not necessarily themselves pragmatic.
Moreover, the claim that existentialism is nothing but chicanery is a rather unfalsifiable claim in and of itself, is it not?
I accuse you of little more than masturbating for effect.
as in that philosophical theories are not verifiable nor falsifiable,but that doesnt make them worthless,now does it?
heh, i see we were thinking the exact same thing.
peter: Where’s the falsifiability?
Ichthyic: I can’t count the number of philosophers that believe they have put arguments forward that falsify existentialism.
Since when did a moral philosophy need to be falsifiable anyway? It’s not science.
Its just blatantly obvious mate….
time to hang it up for tonight.
cheers
Ichthyic,its all been said,lets watch some Ann Coulter porn hahaha,its that time of the night….(well,its just past 7pm here really lol)
@ Peter No 237 :
>My philosophy doesn’t go beyond Popper, but he clears you from reading the rest.
Thanks for the incentive mate,im actually not quite sure what you mean by that,but I will get my Popper out and have a read !
Oh, great so I finally catch an interesting conversation I can actually contribute to in the act, and I’ve done something to provoke the spam filter. I guess I’ll see you guys when PZ gets out of bed. *pokes tongue out*
Moral philosophies don’t need to be falsifiable because they specifically cover the act of putting value on human action – the domain that science specifically doesn’t cover.
Yes, religious moral philosophies are covered the same way, but religions don’t distinguish between ‘killing is bad’ (moral judgement) and ‘the almighty creator will torture you forever if you kill… unjustly’ (statement about the world).
ok, clinteas has got the point in 1st para of #238, and whether worthless or not is PoV.
Ichthyic #235
department of petty point-scoring :
..being slow on the uptake, it’s only now that the delicious irony of this strikes me:
“were they all deluded, do you suppose?”
You guys spend all your time arguing that billions of people, including most of the greatest brains of their time, were deluded about religion, and now you defend (oracular) philosophy like that.
Peter
Peter,
im unfamiliar with the term,what is oracular philosophy?
And I cant seem to remember arguing that any “great brains” were deluded about religion,sorry….And the fact that a ,say scientist or philosopher is religious does not invalidate their claims or theories,as far as Im concerned.
being slow on the uptake
yes, I’ve noticed.
You guys spend all your time arguing that billions of people, including most of the greatest brains of their time, were deluded about religion, and now you defend (oracular) philosophy like that.
last time, for effect, since I’m just repeating myself at this point:
I think existentialism is entirely worthless from a pragmatic point of view, just like deism. However, I’ve often enjoyed examining the philosophies constructed around the Greek Pantheon, once spent a lot of time examining both negative and positive existentialism, wrote papers on Jungian synchronicity and mandala symbolism. They were interesting arguments; they had value in and of themselves. That hardly makes me constrained to think them pragmatic in any way, shape or form. Two entirely separate issues you keep seeming to want to force into mindless congruence.
I rather think you are misapplying Popper’s argument.
I’m just wondering if it’s purposeful, or if it’s as I suspect, an exercise in mere masturbation on your part.
So much fun – sorry I could not play
Kenny #215 – “see the obvious” as in Church Confirms Virgin Mary Apparitions? And if this is not obvious to you are the millions of RC’s that believe such delusional? But then all delusion bubbles are the ONLY portal THE Truth.
As to the main topic: they are all sickening and scary in their own way – with their pandering, distortions, shallowness, and need for power. Obama just being the one MUCH less so to me, because at least he seems to have a base more in reality.
clinteas –
the term is Popper’s, and he applies it to virtually everyone between Hegel and Nietzsche. I can’t recall if he got on to Heidegger and Sartre, but I’m sure he would have done.
The point is that they just say it, and we’re supposed to swallow it.
Disappointed I got the wrong Wilkins, the 17th Cent. is where I come from.
You gentlemen were going to bed, and spring’s now arrived in central Europe, so apologies in advance if I don’t respond any more.
Peter
I see that Jesus boy, Edward, not only suffers from the god delusion, he also suffers from the “free will” delusion.
“You reject the Creator of the universe with your free will.”
Sure, there are also a number of atheists who suffer from the latter, notably objectivists(what a misnomer).
Hey Etha,
You said:
If you would like to read about how your flow chart got atheism and existentialism all wrong, please see my detailed blog post on the subject.
Edward: I’m on my way to print it out now and give it a good read. I’ll comment on it in your blog.
Take care.
Ed
Back to the topic- when Wright talks about the state of this sorry-ass country, rather than about his invisible friend in the sky or about viruses of which he knows less than nothing, he generally makes quite a bit of sense. He also is most definitely not a hater (being angry is not at all the same thing.) Both of which are a lot more than I can say for the other side’s crazy preachers.
For me, Obama would be a more attractive candidate if he HAD absorbed a bit more of Wright’s world-view. (But then he’d just be another “extremist, angry” black politician, i.e. one who tells the unvarnished truth. Can’t have that!)
>> Here is a guy who in 1961 left his college deferment and
>> joined the Marines and then the Navy as a corpsman. You
>> don’t find many, well almost no, rightwing chickenhawks
>> who would even consider such an option.
> On this, though, I openly side with the chickenhawks.
> 1961 means Vietnam, and if (like, say, Kerry) you
> considered it your sacred duty to fight for your
> country in Vietnam, you were ignorant and/or deluded.
1961 was the year of the Cuban missile crisis (large scale American involvement in Vietnam was still in the future), and those geniuses and martyred saints, Kennedy and Che Guevara, came pretty close to blowing up the world. In this case, it would not have mattered if you were a soldier or a civilian, you would have died anyway.
>(Of course, by definition, the chickenhawks are hypocrites
> who like sending other people to deeply stupid wars. This
> I cannot excuse.)
Not that wars would be better if politicians would actually run around in the front lines, playing officer. This usually leads to disaster. There are some examples of former generals becoming successful politicians, but politicians as generals – it just doesn’t work.
Well, it worked for the Romans… sometimes. Occasionally you got a Caesar, but at least as often you got Crassus.
“[…] , he generally makes quite a bit of sense. He also is most definitely not a hater […]” – Steve LaBonne
I’m not sure how one defines “not a hater”, but I think anyone who holds one race of people in the world responsible for every unsavory thing any person of that race at any point in history has ever done (or has been -imagined- to do), while simultaneously ignoring or denying any and all accomplishments of members of that race is a true blue “hater”. Because really, if fallacious justifications for collective punishment are not hate, then what is?
Wright has, how should I say it, “blood on his hands”.
P.S. Kseniya is right, the medical definition of delusion excludes popularly held beliefs. Ichthyic is wrong. I also disagree with the notion that religious belief is indicative of a mental disorder. Being superstitious is by all accounts, perfectly normal human behaviour. Holding logically coherant beliefs is NOT normal. In fact, it’s very difficult.
Wrong. Ever hear of Kitcher, Laudan, Koertge, Haack, Langmuir, Bricmont, Rissanen, Solomonoff. . . ?
Evidently you depend largely on Fox News for your information. (Where did you get this idiotic delusion about “collective punishment”?) Come back when you’ve actually acquainted yourself with a significant sample of Wright’s words. If you can read, that is.
Oh, and in general fsck all whining from “oppressed” white folks.
@#248 peter —
It would help if, for those of us who haven’t read Popper, you gave a brief explanation of the argument (unfortunately, google is of little help for; you get some references to popper, but no definitions) rather than just saying that it is an argument Popper makes. Philosophies describe various ways of looking at the world and are not falsifiable (though the worth of their practical implications to society may be). How is your claim that non-falsifiable = worthlessness falsifiable?
Oopsie.
Good point.
I didn’t say they should. I’ve always been proud of being a confessing coward, and I think more people should come out of that closet, heh heh.
——————-
Kenny, are you still here? If so, did you read what I told you last time? Not all NDEs are Christian. Some are Muslim, complete with the paradise with the 4 rivers where milk, coffee, and I forgot what else flow. How is this possible?
And (turning away from NDEs) why are there cases, especially in India, where people claim to remember a former life? There’s at least one where it’s reported that a little girl acted like a relative who had died young before her birth and even wanted to be called by the relative’s nickname. Doesn’t this prove reincarnation?
Would you like an explanation of why NDEs always include a bright light?
You know, I have some respect for you. Others here have pointed out that, rather than striving for faith, you strive for knowledge. You try to base your convictions on evidence, not on just believing at whim what someone said or wrote. The problem is that the part of the evidence that you know is too small. You need to read more.
Oh, and in general fsck all whining from “oppressed” white folks.
Uh, no. The world is far more complex than that. I would say that white folks in the hollers of West Virginia, who are having their ground water poisoned through mountaintop removal techniques of coal mining are suffering from a bit of oppression. Likewise the gay kid tossed out of his parents’ home and tricking on the streets in order to survive.
Whiteness may not be the reason these folks are being oppressed, but white people may suffer from these.
A bit more complexity is a good thing here, as race isn’t the only system of domination operating in our society. It’s a biggie. But there’s a lot of other stuff at work, too.
They’re certainly not being oppressed by black people, which was my point.
Not that wars would be better if politicians would actually run around in the front lines, playing officer.
Not that anybody’s actually saying that. Nice strawman; did you buy those old clothes retail? The chickenhawks are the ones who have not served in any capacity who are nevertheless advocating that other people’s children (never their own) be sent off to die in wars when they themselves know nothing about war (except that it might fatten their stock portfolio). Nobody’s saying anything about “generals” becoming politicians, either; there are an awful lot of military veterans who aren’t anywhere near being generals.
On the other hand, when speaking on the subject of war, a politician who’s actually been in one is oftentimes (not always) more credible than one whose contributions consist entirely of “having other priorities,” as Dick Cheney famously said.
Etha #257 , Blake Stacey #255
Etha: I can’t here-and-now reproduce Popper’s arguments in “The Open Society”: they start with an analysis of Hegelian dialectic which I found devastating, and the rest follows on from there.
I think his arguments apply to all members of the metaphysical club, and however much they would deny it, that applies to Heidegger and Sartre and their existentialism.
Blake, in the heat of the moment I may have swept up the whole of philosophy, about which I don’t know a great deal, and of course I don’t know any of the people you name. But the fact is, there’s an awful lot of meaningless verbiage out there.
Peter
F. Ayer: ‘existentialism is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the verb “to be”‘
Sartre: ‘Ayer est un con’
Edward – if you’re still around, I’d like to draw your attention to this extract from “Inside the mind of Gene Roddenberry” by Yvonne Fern (which I just happen to be reading right now for the third time):
“Gene Roddenberry’s favorite description of humanity was ‘a child race’… (but) whatever the metaphor, it was clear to him that to reach maturity as a species we must rely on something that he felt was bred in our bones: goodness. It is that simple, and that complex. Perhaps the very reason for its magnetism is the fact that Star Trek has a message … Until we grow up (my bold) just a little too far past a luminous infancy, and not far enough into the sagacity of experience. Star Trek reaches into the kindergarten and kitchen tables of our minds and says: To survive, you must be good. There is such a thing as goodness. It is the hallmark of the human race.”
This wonderful philopsophy came from a (your words) “foul-mouthed, pornographic, hate-filled, humorless” atheist.
Yvonne Fern’s books on Gene are my idea of an atheist’s Bible. If atheists could nominate saints, I’d nominate Roddenberry for sainthood in an instant. Read Yvonne’s books and find out why. He was the exact opposite of your extreme negative idea of what an atheist is. He realized that Humanity would only progress once it had shaken off the shackles of superstition and took responsibility for its own fate. Whatever we become, it will be of our own making, not through subservience to (and fear of) a non-existent deity.
Oh – and I’m not a “trekkie” – at least I wasn’t until I read those books.
You know, someone has to rule this country, and we better all hope it’s a Christian who honestly tries to behave like Jesus Christ. Because if the atheists ever get in power, I can only imagine the horrors.
Roight. Because no Christian president ever bugged his opponent’s campaign headquarters, sold arms to ayatollahs to fund terrorists in Latin America or invaded a foreign country over nonexistent WMDs.
For the record: someone has commented throughout this thread as jsn. Very confusing.
I have never seen anyone use my ID before. The jsn who has commented today is not the Jsn of many other threads. So jsn, please distinguish yourself with a new ID, I was here first. -Jsn
Peter (#262):
Of course. As a physics person, I come with a trained distaste for all things philozawfigal. That’s why I picked out names attached to people who have said what I consider interesting things, including pointing out the fallacies in straight-up Popperianism. A nuanced view of falsification is not a bad place to begin understanding what separates science from non-science, but as Mr. Spock would say, that is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.
Blake –
that’s certainly food for thought what you say.
In the department of cheap jibes, is this known in the States?:
..the head of the physics faculty is with the Dean of the college, he wants a new particle accelerator: the Dean: 100 million dollars for your toy, always you **** physicists – why can’t you be like the history faculty, they just need paper, pencils and a wastepaper basket….or like philosophy, they just need paper and pencils..
Peter
Good one, Peter – that’s new to me. (I can’t speak for anyone else.)
“There’s at least one where it’s reported that a little girl acted like a relative who had died young before her birth and even wanted to be called by the relative’s nickname.”
If you ask a math question, does she tap the ground?
“Doesn’t this prove reincarnation?”
Clever Hans has returned!
John Hagee is also an insane dispensational premillenialist Zionist, and Joe Liebermann considers him a “man of God”:
http://jeanneshade.blogspot.com/2008/05/terrifying-religious-insanity.html
Peter,
If you’re going to cite Popper, you really ought to try and get him right. Falsifiability is the property he thought distinguished science from nonscience (he was wrong, but never mind that for now). He did not say, or believe, that anything unfalsifiable is meaningless, or useless. That would mean the whole of mathematics, not to mention his own work, was meaningless or useless. Furthermore, although he had a pretty gigantic ego, I think he would have been disgusted at your saying that reading him excused you from the rest of philosophy – even in jest, as I hope it was.
Kenny, it is evident that anyone who recounts an NDE has some brain activity at the time they are recounting it, so even if all brain activity had stopped at some point (incidentally, you have not told us how you know brain activity will always be detected if present), it must have restarted. So, how do we know the reported NDE is not from the time after this resumption? If there are really specific papers or reports you believe show that this is not the case, then cite them. Your failure to do so convinces me, and I am sure many others here, that there are no such sources which you are confident would survive critical scrutiny.
Blake, in the heat of the moment I may have swept up the whole of philosophy, about which I don’t know a great deal, and of course I don’t know any of the people you name. But the fact is, there’s an awful lot of meaningless verbiage out there.
as i suspected.
translated peter:
“I haven’t the slightest clue what I’m talking about, but I’m going to try and force a false analogy between religion and philosophy anyway, and make blanket claims about falsifiability that I can’t support at all.”
thanks for playing.
next time, why not try starting from the SPECIFIC arguments you wish to compare (if you want to start by analyzing something popper said, best you quote it directly) rather than some nebulous projection of the arguments you have constructed in your own mind.
then, we might have had an interesting discussion, instead of playing ring-around-the-rosie with you.
well, there’s always tomorrow, if you would like to start over again by dissecting the specific argument of Popper’s that you seem to feel is so relevant to whatever point (of which I still have no clear idea) you are trying to make.
also, try not to conflate TOO many issues at once, eh?
If you ask a math question, does she tap the ground?
LOL
Kseniya is right, the medical definition of delusion excludes popularly held beliefs. Ichthyic is wrong.
then you misunderstood what was being said.
1. I specifically defined religion as separate from the behavior of creationists.
2. I was also attacking the way the APA had decided to address the issue.
it’s not an issue of the definition, but the application.
thanks for playing.
1. Behaviors are not delusional, beliefs are. I don’t see how this makes any difference. One cannot open a door delusional-ly. However, one can be under the delusion that one opened a door.
2. Someone else has a clinical definition of delusion that doesn’t exempt popularly held beliefs? You know, besides you.
I am interested in the difference between definition and application though. Feel free to expand on that theme.
As I understood it, you were attempting to argue that there is no reasonable difference between an individual who holds a mistaken belief that only they believe, and an individual who holds a mistaken belief that many people hold. Clearly, this is an argument without merit. I’m sorry if this isn’t what you’re arguing.
“thanks for playing.” – Ichthyic
Now that is an embarrassing cliche. Come on. You can do better than that.
Po, Po, Poe.
Eddy: “That piddly junk you mention to prove how “moral” you are as an atheist is for the simpletons to worry about.” After PZ speaks about his moral life (children, wife, human decency).
Human decency is for “simpletons” — Po, Po, Poe.
I guess sugar-coated cookies is for the weak (the oh-so lamented Alexander Lebed after a press conference).
Damn, I hate the vein of fascism in the world.
Behaviors are not delusional, beliefs are.
Exactly, you seem to have missed me pointing out that I was focusing on the symptoms (the behaviors of projection and denial), instead of on the beliefs. Hence the separation of religion itself (delusional or not) from the behaviors that extend from those who claim to be religious.
was it your intention to restate my point as your own?
it’s not the definition of religion as delusion or not that is at issue for (1.), it is the behavior of creationists, that mask obvious issues of projection and denial with religion that is at issue here.
The issue addressed secondarily is the problem that arises when we allow any agency to exempt an entire set of potentially unhealthy thought memes simply because it falls under under the umbrella of “religion” (which is the issue addressed in the second point).
it’s why i compared Kenny to Ken Miller, for example. Whether or not Ken Miller is suffering from a delusion wrt his religious beliefs is not (by definition) relevant to whether he expresses serious psychological defense mechanisms on a regular basis like Kenny does. For example, if we consider that Miller’s religious beliefs are delusional, maybe Miller is able to compartmentalize better than Kenny. Does that make it healthy?
What if the kinds of rampant psychological defense mechanisms being exhibited by the likes of say, Kenny and Kent Hovind, really are due to extreme cognitive dissonance, combined with a rather poor ability to compartmentalize?
Would you still agree with the conclusion of the APA that religious beliefs are exempt as a causal factor in that dissonance?
colugo brought up the point that psychology (and I added all medicine) has had a history of stumbling diagostics. We aren’t really far along still wrt to psychological diagnostics compared to general medical. who is to say the APA isn’t making a mistake?
As I understood it, you were attempting to argue that there is no reasonable difference between an individual who holds a mistaken belief that only they believe, and an individual who holds a mistaken belief that many people hold.
how is attaching an argumentum ad populum an absolute defense of delusional thinking?
if that were true, the anti-semitic attitudes and beliefs that were so prevalent in the first half of the 20th century in europe were entirely justified and rational, yes?
what about the concept of slavery?
what you are in essence saying, is that there is no way to symptomatically track delusional thought processes. Somehow, I don’t think that was the intent of the APA in providing for exclusions.
Clearly, this is an argument without merit.
just to repeat what you said, as it would then be accurate.
johanes #256: “generals – it just doesn’t work.”
Let me just pull out the gist there for you.
what about the concept of slavery?
meh, strike that one, that’s a poor example.
@#282 Ichthyic —
What is it with these names? Kenny, Kent, Kenneth…coincidence? Well, probably, but mildly amusing anyway.
Icthyic,
There’s a distinction to be made between an individual being delusional, and a society being delusional. It is quite different for an individual to be insane in an idiosyncratic way, which most likely is completely non-adaptive psychologically, and an individual going along with a social insanity, which may be very adaptive for the individual.
Hell, sometimes it’s even a survival trait for an idea to be delusional (as in a survival trait for the idea, but not necessarily for the society or the individual who are victims). Whitey didn’t conquer the world without being batshit nuts, now did he?
David: ” You try to base your convictions on evidence, not on just believing at whim what someone said or wrote. The problem is that the part of the evidence that you know is too small. You need to read more.”
It’s nice to be nice. But you’re wrong – ad hoc usage of data is not trying to use evidence, but rationalization in the service of faith (the size of the data set is irrelevant). On the other hand, in the dark of night going down the road of rationalization, one may accidentally stumble upon reason.
Well, probably, but mildly amusing anyway.
meh, I think it’s more has to do with those being first to come to mind after seeing “Kenny”.
I could have used: Jerry (Fallwell), Ted (Haggard), Ken (Ham)…
wait a minute, maybe you’re right.
maybe in addition to project Steve, there should be the creationist version:
project Ken.
:p
Hell, sometimes it’s even a survival trait for an idea to be delusional (as in a survival trait for the idea, but not necessarily for the society or the individual who are victims).
irrelevant to whether we can track delusional thinking via symptomatic behavior though, right?
whether the behaviors resulting from delusional thinking are “right” or “wrong”, from a moral perspective, is a separate issue yet again, yes?
Eddy: “You know, someone has to rule this country”
That’s says it all. That there you got the entire Christian right-wing fundy nut-case ideology in a nut-shell: straight out fascism in a candy-coated theocracy.
Whitey didn’t conquer the world without being batshit nuts, now did he?
that’s a good question, actually.
let’s assume a clean slate.
given what we know now, should “whitey” (as represented by the “manifest destiny” believers, say), be given a free pass by the APA because there are so many that believe in the idea of manifest destiny?
what if it were the case that “whitey” exhibited classic symptoms of schizophrenia?
translate it to a physical, communicable disease like smallpox.
if most “whiteys” had smallpox, should we give it a whiff?
I’m simply attacking the logic behind the exclusion principle here, and asking how it differs from an argument ad populum in essence.
*pokes head into thread for the first time, looks around*
Sartre-check
Popper-check
Kenny-check! Man, I missed all the serious philosophizing!
But following up on some of the posts above (re: Sartre, Nietzsche, Roddenberry) allow me to share what I truly feel is one of the funniest things ever: SARTREK!
You’re welcome.
Icthyic: “irrelevant to whether we can track delusional thinking via symptomatic behavior though, right?
whether the behaviors resulting from delusional thinking are “right” or “wrong”, from a moral perspective, is a separate issue yet again, yes?”
On 1, mostly. It simplifies diagnoses when it’s mal-adaptive and counter-cultural. In other words, trying to track symptomatic behavior is much more difficult, in practice, when the diagnosticator is themselves delusional in the same way. So in practice it may make sense to side step the issue by excluding culturally common delusions. Also, practically, idiosyncratic delusions are more likely to be dangerous to the carrier, and more likely to be caused by gross abnormalities in mental functioning.
2) Morality of the delusion is a tough one. Morality is so situational, that I can imagine where it would be more moral to have the same delusions under conditions where it’s common, than just when it’s idiosyncratic. For example, the morality of killing in war because you believe that the enemy is Eeevviil is not quite the same thing as going around chopping heads because you personally think “some other” people are Eeeviil.
I don’t think there’s a general rule to be followed for 2, but depends specifically on the delusion. In the same way, the morality of being under the delusion you are helpless isn’t very problematic when it’s idiosyncratic; but when it becomes social, it can lead to very dangerous pathologies (see US, circa 2000).
Icthyic: given what we know now, should “whitey” (as represented by the “manifest destiny” believers, say), be given a free pass by the APA because there are so many that believe in the idea of manifest destiny?
It’s not just that many people believe in manifest destiny; it’s that an entire delusional culture has been created. APA isn’t in the business of treating cultures.
if most “whiteys” had smallpox, should we give it a whiff?
I’m simply attacking the logic behind the exclusion principle here, and asking how it differs from an argument ad populum in essence.
The difference is between a GP and an epidemiologist. The GP is treating one case of smallpox at a time. The epidemiologist is treating the epidemic – different tools, different goals, different analyses. At bottom, different scales. The former is “caused” by the infection of an individual with the smallpox virus; the latter is caused only secondarily by the smallpox virus itself, but usually primarily by economic and social structural factors. You can get rid of the smallpox, but if you don’t get rid of those other factors, something very similar to smallpox will re-emerge; a better example of that is TB.
trying to track symptomatic behavior is much more difficult, in practice, when the diagnosticator is themselves delusional in the same way.
hence, the scientific method, which in theory (at least) is an attempt to control for just such a potential bias.
Still, extending your point a bit, while tracking symptoms is one thing (and in the particular case of creationists, I think you would agree that there is a common set of symptoms that is quite easy to track), I understand the difficulty in establishing a causal link between exhibited symptoms and underlying causality with mental health issues.
again, I would mention I recognize that we aren’t nearly as far along wrt to diagnostics in mental health as we are with physical health. I still think that does not mean that when symptoms are readily recognizable, we dismiss the potential underlying causal factors simply because they have been classified under the umbrella of ‘shared delusions’.
For example, the morality of killing in war because you believe that the enemy is Eeevviil is not quite the same thing as going around chopping heads because you personally think “some other” people are Eeeviil.
hmm, I’m not sure I find that particular example convincing.
I give you Goering:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg
if we exclude a particular delusional meme because it is common, then it can also be easily exploited.
Is the source of what triggered the delusion that the “other” is “evil” more important in determining morality than the actions resulting from the delusion itself?
Both lead to a murder committed from a projection of a delusion.
if one is tried for war crimes based on convincing your populace to acts of slaughter, is that morally different from being tried for the murders you yourself personally committed?
this is becoming an interesting discussion, and so much more refreshing than putting the flamethrower to the resident trolls, btw.
APA isn’t in the business of treating cultures.
but is that a practical limitation, or a methodological one?
again, compare to any particular physical ailment.
The epidemiologist is treating the epidemic
interesting.
practically, this is of course accurate. However, how does one compare this to the realm of mental health care?
where is the mental health version of the epidemiologist?
APA isn’t in the business of treating cultures.
but is that a practical limitation, or a methodological one? again, compare to any particular physical ailment.
I do think it’s methodological. Both treatments require the application of an empirical mindset – but since the scales differ, and some of the underlying pathologies differ, the methods should differ. In the case of an idiosyncratic madness, you have a good chance of gross failure; i.e., pharmacology may be sufficient. In terms of talk therapy, you can try to put the individual in context of “society”.
But for a cultural malady? I think you’re talking about attacking delusion at the philosophical level – the individual can only recognize the madness by becoming, to some extent, “mad” (see the old Soviet ploy of putting dissident in asylums – it wasn’t always cynical).
Let’s go with the TB metaphor. TB has two levels of treatment: the individual and the social. The individual treatment of antibiotics can help an individual recover, but are difficult to apply in mass, and misapplied can actually cause a worsening of the epidemiological conditions. You have to treat the living conditions under which TB spreads.
Another example: AIDS. The fundies are right that you can’t catch AIDS if you never have sex – as an individual treatment, abstinence can work. As a social response, it is the worst possible response. The communities that have been most resistant to AIDS are those with the most generally sexually open communities, where you don’t have central nodes to act as infection points. Compare the African american community to the Jewish community. Jews have more partners before marriage, both male and female, but lower rates of AIDS (at least this was true in the early ’90s). The difference is that African Americans are much more sexually conservative in general, which leads to a few women having sex with many men, a few men having sex with many women, which creates a short network length between any two people. In the Jewish community, the “spread” is much smaller, creating greater network lengths.
I’d be curious to know whether the gay community is structured like the AA community – a few members with over-active sex lives amid a community that is actually not very sexually active.
My point is, individual treatment is often very different, or the exact reverse, of epidemiological treatment.
“practically, this is of course accurate. However, how does one compare this to the realm of mental health care?
where is the mental health version of the epidemiologist?”
Well, this is where it get scary. In historical terms, who has it been who treats community derangements? The preacher! Since he’s completely cynical about madness, and has spent a life-time controlling the madness of others, he’s the usual suspect. And in earlier societies, he kept thing from getting too out of hand, since for the sheep to be shorn, they must be healthy.
With evangelical religions, it’s completely different. The low-level preachers are just as mad as the flock (the “good” priests with their “Jesus-love-crazy eyes”), and the top preachers don’t have a common interest with the flock – they can strip the ground bare and move on. The model is like that of an army living off the land.
We don’t have modern mental health epidemiologists. The anthros that should be collecting data have, to a large extent, been compromised by the PoMos. The philosophers and mathematicians seem to have given up since Russell and Wittgenstein. And where would you get funding? It would gore too many oxen.
Also, to actually treat madness on a social scale, empirical understanding is insufficient – you have to be able to move people, and that’s an irrational process. You can’t stand outside the disease (as we tend to do as scientists), but get inside the madness and lead it.
So we’re left with the artists, but the rationalists have been split off from the artists for almost a century now.
The people who do understand madness at a national level are PR guys – but they’re eeviiil. I guess like everything else, it takes organization. But we’ve become so atomized into sub-sub-sub disciplines, that I see little way to get a funded, empirical but active approach to recognizing and treating social madness. Dawkins might be a prophet, but prophets are usually worse than useless in practice. It’s really ambitious, rational and intelligent politicians we need. Where are we going to find one of those?
What is it with these names? Kenny, Kent, Kenneth… coincidence?
What are you saying here, exactly?
;-)
But for a cultural malady?
If we are dealing with a matter of scale, think: cults vs. individual.
In cults you get group reinforcing delusion, combined with a strong authoritarian reinforcement sometimes as well (e.g., David Koresh).
Moreover, dangerous results oftimes.
what would be the best methodological approach?
Well, this is where it get scary. In historical terms, who has it been who treats community derangements? The preacher!
I’m glad you said it, and not me.
;)
again, what you describe afterwards differs little from the standard definitions of cults.
The anthros that should be collecting data have, to a large extent, been compromised by the PoMos. The philosophers and mathematicians seem to have given up since Russell and Wittgenstein. And where would you get funding? It would gore too many oxen.
which is a practical instead of a methodological consideration, though.
I say:
“Damn the torpedoes!”
the reality and practicality of the situation shouldn’t dictate the direction of theory itself. Stem cell research would be a good example, right?
Also, to actually treat madness on a social scale, empirical understanding is insufficient – you have to be able to move people, and that’s an irrational process. You can’t stand outside the disease (as we tend to do as scientists), but get inside the madness and lead it.
hmm, interesting. This reminds me of Nesbit’s arguments in favor of framing (leaving aside all negative connotation for the moment, and simply focusing on the paper he published in Science). There is a similar issue involved: How would you gather evidence to support the idea that this method would be productive?
Dawkins might be a prophet, but prophets are usually worse than useless in practice.
IMO, they primarily serve to shift the frame of discussion, which IS valuable in and of itself. It opens up new potential avenues of debate; in essence helping them to become more “socially acceptable”, since at least one public figure is willing to risk his social status to espouse the ideas to begin with.
In the sense you are suggesting, of motivating a meme-shift via manipulation at the group dynamic level, I would think firebrands would play a useful role.
History suggests it that one person can take advantage of the group dynamic to shift it to serve his own goals (without godwinning the thread, there are several good examples), so one should be able to shift the group dynamic the other way too, yes?
that said…
But we’ve become so atomized into sub-sub-sub disciplines, that I see little way to get a funded, empirical but active approach to recognizing and treating social madness.
there is always the “one at a time” approach as well. which is really all I’m suggesting at this point, though the contemplation of an epidemiological approach has been an interesting discussion.
I wouldn’t lump Ken Miller with Ken Ham, but I wouldn’t blithely dismiss the connection they might share at some fundamental level, either.
hmm, I guess I’m just thinking a more productive approach to mental health would be preventative in nature; a recommendation for everyone to get a regular checkup, for example.
Miller’s compartmentalization obviously works for him for most intents and purposes, even on cursory examination. Kenny’s OTOH, has failed him completely, and would readily be recognizable by any even remotely competent mental health care professional. I’d like to add that I am not saying that a breakdown in the ability to compartmentalize, and the exhibition of symptoms of extreme projection and denial, are by themselves “serious illnesses”, just like the sudden appearance of melanin spots on the skin isn’t always a sign of serious illness. Still a good thing to get checked out, though.
see #288.
I think we are implicitly suggesting a “project Ken”.
:p
For example, the morality of killing in war because you believe that the enemy is Eeevviil is not quite the same thing as going around chopping heads because you personally think “some other” people are Eeeviil.
hmm, I’m not sure I find that particular example convincing.
Well, not everything and everyone is Goering. The American civil war was clearly madness – most people ended up worse than they started, many of those who ended up better quickly lost their gains, and in the end it was just a few industrialists who really won (see the Grant administration). All in all, immoral and monstrous on both sides, and the putative people to be rescued in the end were left in practical slavery for another century.
But the immorality of the whole is different from that of the individuals. Of course, the best thing would just to have headed out West and said pox on both your houses. But for those unwilling to abandon their extended families, the delusion of a moral war wasn’t close to as evil as the social delusion that lead to the war. In the end, the war was on-going, and by taking part they were, to some extent, defending their communities. Some really did believe in abolition or states rights. But with the cultural madness of racism and classism underpinning the whole system, even the best of intentions were bound to go awry (ie, the North didn’t heavily supply the freed slaves with the weaponry to defend themselves after the war.)
And of course the on-going mythologizing of the war is much more corrosive than any particular dumb-ass redneck, or crazed libertarian neo-constitutionalist, who almost sucked us into another civil war in the 60s.
@#291 Sven DiMilo —
This is so how Star Trek V: TFF should have gone…none of that overblown “I NEED MY PAIN!!!” “what does God need with a starship?!” etc…just: “He’s dead, Jim.”
Brilliant.
Of course, the best thing would just to have headed out West and said pox on both your houses.
IIRC, didn’t a lot of people try that?
Along the line of “nothing new under the sun”, there have been attempts at examining the value of an epidemiological approach to mental health care:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/115806944/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200303/ai_n9195957/pg_5
of course, I should have guessed there’s even courses devoted to the topic:
http://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/PsychiatricEpidemiology/
this is where the “IANACP” (I am not a clinical psychologist) comes into play. if I was, I’m sure I already would have known about that.
Making up an hypothesis is not the same as testing it. Obvious, isn’t it? Except that outside science, people aren’t routinely making this distinction. Inability or refusal to make it might be fertilizer for religious delusions. The more frequent and pedestrial refusal version would perhaps explain the affinity between clerics and the prevalent crop of politicians. Inability as the more severe condition might give us the Kenneys and Edwards. Maybe we can sneak this into the next DSM if we can find a catchy name.
“it is the behavior of creationists, that mask obvious issues of projection and denial with religion that is at issue here” – Ichthyic
Ok, I’m starting to see what you’re getting at, but it’s still foggy. Projection is projection. Denial is denial. Delusion is something else entirely. Hence, you know, the different words. But that aside for a moment, here is where you’re running into problems I think…
“how is attaching an argumentum ad populum an absolute defense of delusional thinking?” – Ichthyic
Is the word “crowd” an argumentum ad populum attached to an individual? Delusion is a classification of symptoms characterized in part by beliefs that conflict with the beliefs of everyone but the delusional person.
Two things that might help you out with your cognitive problem here:
1) One is neither justified nor rational simply by virtue of not being delusional.
2) One isn’t necessarily delusional just because noone around them shares their beliefs.
“if that were true, the anti-semitic attitudes and beliefs that were so prevalent in the first half of the 20th century in europe were entirely justified and rational, yes?” – Ichthyic
Actually, that’s a pretty good example. After hundreds of years of mostly Christian inspired anti-semiticism, German nationalism and pride, combined with poor economic conditions and a general European furvor for revolution, one needn’t be delusional to have been a Nazi. Far from it. It almost seems like one could hardly be anything but.
However, if you were a German at the same time, but instead held the belief that you were Napolean, and went on to take a doctor hostage because he had surgically elongated your bones while you slept, well, that would be a different matter entirely.
Neither are “justified”. One is just categorically different than the other. The later is delusional, the former is something else.
Or, you can think of it this way: even though an argument to popularity isn’t a “good argument”, we understand that it’s normal human behaviour to *think* that it’s a good argument. And thus, it’s not mental illness.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that creationists aren’t mentally ill – even delusional. I’m just say’in.
Is the word “crowd” an argumentum ad populum attached to an individual?
huh?
that’s hardly a useful analogy.
since “crowd” is a grouping term like “flock” and has absolutely nothing to do with the logic of an argument.
can’t figure out for the life of me why you used it.
Delusion is a classification of symptoms characterized in part by beliefs that conflict with the beliefs of everyone but the delusional person.
do you have problems scaling up to more than one individual?
do you know what a cult is?
1) One is neither justified nor rational simply by virtue of not being delusional.
nobody said anything about this issue, in any post before you raised it.
2) One isn’t necessarily delusional just because noone around them shares their beliefs.
again, this is totally missing the point. I’m not trying to redefine the very definition of delusional, eh?
German nationalism and pride, combined with poor economic conditions and a general European furvor for revolution, one needn’t be delusional to have been a Nazi. Far from it. It almost seems like one could hardly be anything but.
again, you missed the point. I was raising the aspect of antisemitism as a delusional belief set, you are raising an entirely DIFFERENT issue.
It is just so much fun racing against someone who isn’t even on the same racetrack.
*sigh*
don’t take offense, seriously, as you present some interesting points, I just don’t feel them particularly relevant.
frog (#300):
OT, but isn’t this ‘American myth’ history? I forget where I was reading about it unfortunately, so I can’t cite. IIRC the American Civil War was actually about the right to leave the Union and slavery was merely a side issue before the grade school history books got hold of it. Any comments? I’d like to know if I’ve got this wrong.
Also, I made a comment upthread which got held in moderation last night, I’ll repeat the important bit here in case it revives the conversation which I was rather enjoying.
I said (#247):
There’s an interesting (albeit old) article about religion and mental pathology that may (or may not) follow therefrom:
G. Lea Religion, Mental Health, and Clinical Issues. J Relig and Health 21(4) 336-351 (1982).
The article primarily presents pathological vs non-pathological belief in terms of what it calls “immature vs mature” religiosity. One of the listed possible hallmarks of immature (and often pathological) beliefs is quite interesting and relevant to this discussion:
This seems to be getting at the issues of projection/denial we’ve been discussing — the result of a religion that is out of touch with modern thought, creating cognitive dissonance, and that does not permit critical exploration of its own assumptions, preventing an adequate resolution of that cognitive dissonance.
The whole article is a quite interesting review of studies done on the relation between mental health and various forms of religious belief (it also has a section on “neurotic conversion” that is quite interesting). Unfortunately, it requires institutional access…you could try begging the author, though the paper is so old I don’t know how much good that would do, or if you would even be able to get in touch with him. E-mailing ethaspublicemail at gmail dot com may just provide results, though ;).
Damn! Girl! When do you study?!
(Hey, I am only half kidding.)
sounds like an interesting paper, Etha. I’ll add it to the list of things to track down next time I access the library.
32.00 for a pdf copy.
*sigh*
@#307 Hematite —
You are correct (and the claim that the Lincoln administration and the CW were always vehemently anti-slavery is one of the worst over-simplifications/outright lies still perpetuated in most American history classes here…along with the Columbus flat earth myth…). Lincoln was a great president, but he was also a pragmatist. In his inaugural address, in an attempt to stop the secession movement that had begun after his election, he assured the people that he was not going to try to abolish slavery where it existed and that he would uphold the Fugitive Slave Act. He maintained this position during the beginning of the civil war and also did not allow African Americans into the Union Army. The goal here was to continue the position that this was not a war about freeing slaves/African-American rights, but rather a war to prevent the secession of the southern states. During this part of the war fugitive slave laws were sometimes enforced and sometimes not.
However, by 1862 Lincoln was beginning to realize this might be a strategic error — the Confederacy was using slave labor to help the war effort, while the Union was actively preventing African-Americans from enlisting. This led to the Emancipation Proclamation 1/1/1863. However, the EP only freed slaves in rebelling states; there were some border states in the Union which still permitted slavery, and the EP did not affect the status of those slaves. The 13th Amendment (abolishing all slavery) was not passed until Jan 1865, about three months before the war completely ended.
At the same time as the EP, blacks were officially allowed into the army (though before then some individual field commanders had been recruiting them already). They were nonetheless stuck in all black units and did not receive pay, benefits etc comparable to white soldiers. Equal pay was not established until 1864.
So in short — primarily a war about the pragmatics of preventing slavery, secondarily (and only gradually) a war about ending slavery.
@#309 Janine ID —
I’m sure a lot of my professors would like to know the same thing.
Still, given that I found plenty of ways to fritter away all my time before Pharyngula, I think my recent Pharyngula-addiction is a symptom of a larger problem.
(Meanwhile, a sadly neglected review sheet for tomorrow’s mol neurobio midterm awaits…:)
Gah…in the last sentence of my #312, I meant to say “primarily a war about the pragmatics of preventing secession, secondarily (and only gradually) a war about ending slavery”…not “primarily a war about the pragmatics of preventing slavery…”. That completely changes the meaning. I need to learn how to proofread.
“if that were true, the anti-semitic attitudes and beliefs that were so prevalent in the first half of the 20th century in europe were entirely justified and rational, yes?” – Ichthyic
“1) One is neither justified nor rational simply by virtue of not being delusional.” – me
“nobody said anything about this issue, in any post before you raised it.” – Ichthyic
You should read yourself sometime. You might come off a little more cogent on the subject of what you have and haven’t said. It seemed to me, in the first part, you claimed that antisemitism was rational and justified simply because it wasn’t delusional (by my definition). This can only be true if all things which are not delusional are rational and justified. Which they aren’t. Your premise is wrong, and so is your defense.
“I was raising the aspect of antisemitism as a delusional belief set, you are raising an entirely DIFFERENT issue.” – Ichthyic
Am I? I don’t see the difference. I also find your use of “aspect” and “belief set” confusing. It appears you are saying that there is a belief set called antisemitism that has an aspect of itself that has delusions of its own – whatever those may be.
Which seems a little strange to me. But let’s put that aside and focus on more coherant statements.
“do you have problems scaling up to more than one individual?
do you know what a cult is?” – Ichthyic
There is a problem with scaling. I think I put it pretty succinctly when I said, “even though an argument to popularity isn’t a ‘good argument’, we understand that it’s normal human behaviour to *think* that it’s a good argument.” It isn’t simply scaling. Two people who believe the same thing is radically different than one person who believes something. Social reinforcement and agreement matter. Not because it’s logically sound, but because that’s how humans seem to work.
Cult members, I’m sorry to say, are not necessarily delusional. Social reinforcement is (and should be) an important part of diagnosing delusion. At the very least we should observe that there is a radical (and it is radical) difference between someone who holds a belief without social reinforcement and one who holds a belief with social reinforcement.
We should also consider that the later is not only something very different from delusion, but may actually be an essential part of human evolution (just to tie it into the theme of the blog).
Etha, yes thank you, that’s what I was thinking of.
On one hand I am impressed and humbled that you came up with such a succinct but content-laden post, so quickly and in relation to a casual question. On the other hand, GET SOME SLEEP, YOU HAVE A MID-TERM. Proper sleep is essential to the learning process and brain function in general. Are you on Pharyngula Standard Time? This is madness!
Hematite #307: OT, but isn’t this ‘American myth’ history? I forget where I was reading about it unfortunately, so I can’t cite. IIRC the American Civil War was actually about the right to leave the Union and slavery was merely a side issue before the grade school history books got hold of it. Any comments? I’d like to know if I’ve got this wrong.
Most of history is myth – so the safe bet is that anything that is the common wisdom is unrelated to reality.
My understanding is that it was primarily a question of secession – but secession itself is a weasel word to avoid talking about authoritarianism, and the associated economic systems. Lincoln was an outright racist – as most people of his era and culture were. His initial “solution” to the problem of slavery was to ship the slaves back to Africa (and hence the nation of Liberia exists).
The north was in the process of industrializing on the British model, and believed that a strong (and relatively authoritarian) central government was required – in other words, the North wanted to become a new British Empire. The South, on the other hand, wanted to keep an agrarian economy, which meant keeping government in local (but authoritarian) hands – the south wanted to build an empire more like the early, 18th century incarnation of the British empire (the American colonies, the Caribbean colonies, the sovereign trading companies and such).
This argument was foundational – it was the same argument that the Federalists and their opposition had been having since 1787. But the power brokers on both sides agreed that the spirit of ’76 had to be kept out of the game, which was significantly more anti-authoritarian than either post-Constitution model. Remember, Washington’s army elected their own officers – not quite an acceptable ideology in the post ’87 world, not quite fitting either the New Rome model of Washington, Hamilton and their ilk, or the agrarian, America as the center of the third world model of the slavery business.
> Well, it worked for the Romans… sometimes.
At a price. Cannae saw the greatest slaughter of human beings in one day until the Somme offensive.
Republican Rome, unlike the hellenist world, believed in drill and discipline, not in strategy and generalship. But even Rome finally switched to a professional officer corps, a process that began at the time of Marius and culminated in the imperial era.
> Occasionally you got a Caesar, but at least as often you got
> Crassus.
To be fair to poor old Crassus, few first contacts between settled agricultural outer Eurasian and nomadic inner Eurasian armies had a different outcome, at least before the introduction of firearms. Of course, economy and demography gave the agriculturalists the edge on the long run.
You should read yourself sometime. You might come off a little more cogent on the subject of what you have and haven’t said. It seemed to me, in the first part, you claimed that antisemitism was rational and justified simply because it wasn’t delusional (by my definition).
enough.
you seem to insist on getting everything I say exactly 180 degrees backward.
what i said was exactly the reverse. I claimed that antisemitism wasn’t rational AND was delusional.
now do you get why I’m growing weary of responding to you?
Cult members, I’m sorry to say, are not necessarily delusional.
tell it to the Heaven’s gaters.
oh wait, you can’t, can you.
We should also consider that the later is not only something very different from delusion, but may actually be an essential part of human evolution (just to tie it into the theme of the blog).
now you want to conflate cultural evolution with natural selection?
seriously that’s NOT a theme of this blog.
where the hell do you think you are?