Today is this semester’s last final exam, and this is the last big push of the semester, so I’m going to be mired in work for most of the day…but once I level the administrative mountain, I’ve got some new squid science to share. Until then, you’ll just have to chew over some of the usual American lunacy for a while.
-
Obama is gearing up to drape himself with Christian trappings. This will not make me happy. I’m planning to vote for him, but if he turns into yet another Christianist airhead, I will not be campaigning for him.
-
The reason Obama can’t lose my vote but can lose my enthusiasm is that the Republicans are just plain evil. Rumsfeld was saying the country needed another terrorist attack to keep the Democrats out of office? What a monster.
-
David Brooks thinks “science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other”, and that the future belongs to a fusion of science and Buddhism. David Brooks knows nothing of science. How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?
-
UC Berkeley is going to court this week over their Understanding Evolution web site (that’s an excellent resource, by the way, especially if you’re just trying to get up to speed on the science). At issue is the fact that the site dares to point out that some religions contradict the evidence, and other religions try to avoid conflict with science; that is interpreted to be a sectarian endorsement of certain religions over others. This is where separation of church and state becomes insane: when you are not allowed to point out obvious idiocies because they are protected religious beliefs. Here’s the offending section: I think it’s pretty namby-pamby and bends over backwards to give deference to superstitious nonsense, but some people are apparently irate over a simple, accurate truth statement: “some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science”. They do, but a university isn’t allowed to say so?
Now I unplug myself from the intertubes for a few hours and focus, focus, focus on a pile of stuff most of you will never see.
I read the piece by David Brooks yesterday, and while I disagree with his take, I think there is some very interesting things in the intersection of Buddhism and Science.
I’m currently reading this book on the subject, and I highly recommend it. It gets rid of all the superstitious bullshit in Buddhism, and focuses on what real science has to say about it all. If you’re interested in the subject at all, this is definitely the book to get.
The great thing about buddhism is that you can get rid of all the bullshit, and still have something that’s pretty great. When you have no Karma, no Reincarnations, no chants to the green tara, no mystical word / sound sequences, you still have the great meditation and introspective traditions that are highly valuable.
Although, my study of Buddhism is certainly akin to when other people knit ;)
Bad news. Obama’s voting record is so close to Hillary’s as makes no difference. But he does have a better PR team. So there ya go…
“some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science”
I would be surprised/outraged if this simple statement of truth is considered a breach of the Establishment Clause. There’s just no case for it. What part of the 1st Amendment (or the Constitution proper) suggests that the government prefer religions that are more easily reconciled with science over those that are not?
I mean, some of us would probably like it if the government did take such a position, but nevertheless the government can do no such thing. So the fact that someone is pointing out that some religions are more reconcilable with science than others violates no law whatsoever.
Irreducible Absurdity in action.
“some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science”. They do, but a university isn’t allowed to say so?
I agree. WTF??
This election’s biggest deciding issue is going to be whether Obama can convince enough idiots that he’s a Christian and so eligible for presidency.
It’s all so depressing. As Bill Maher says, in response to the somewhat rhetorical question
“Aren’t American’s smarter than that?”
“No, they’re not.”
Yeah, Obama is definitely looking more and more like a smaller beetle* and the Republicans are just getting more and more explicitly evil.
But for those in the market for a little encouragement, here is Keith Olbermann’s finest comment yet, and that’s saying something.
*lesser of two weevils; I wish it was original.
“David Brooks knows nothing of science.”
This may shock you, but David Brooks also knows nothing of Buddhism. Once again he’s writing about crap he knows nothing of. Shocker.
If he had a clue about what he’s speaking I might actually agree- Buddhism isn’t so much mysticism- or at least not in large, there are certainly those who take it to be despite what it teaches. For the most part it’s a “no magic” thing, no bringing people back from the dead, no god handing out beatings/favors, etc, etc. Also pleased to get new information and change old ways if it needs be done.
But instead he throws wild assertions, puts words in all our mouths, and in general hits it significantly wrong.
#1: “The great thing about buddhism is that you can get rid of all the bullshit, and still have something that’s pretty great. When you have no Karma, no Reincarnations, no chants to the green tara, no mystical word / sound sequences, you still have the great meditation and introspective traditions that are highly valuable.”
Bingo; and there are many flavors of Buddhism that do just that.
Spiv,
While Buddhism may be ‘better’ in some sense than other religions, it still contains quite a bit of pseudo-scientific bullshit, depending on who’s talking about it. I have a real soft spot for Buddhism, but still cringe when I hear a lama talking about how Buddhism has recognized things like subatomic particles and multiple universes long before ‘western science’ did. There are also whole branches of Buddhism that believe with meditative practice you can develop psychic powers.
As I’m sure you’re aware though, this helps highlight a strength of Buddhism, in that belief in these things is not required at all. If you don’t believe in Karma, for example, no problem! But it is still a real shame that some of this other stuff gets so much exposure.
Yep, I’ve already come to the same conclusion about Obama. I will vote for him, but will neither campaign for him or give him money. Period.
I hate the way Republicans like Rumsfeld talk.
On the one hand, he says that the Republican tactics are working! We haven’t been attacked! Go team us!
On the other hand, he thinks we need an attack to prove we need more of the same. Is it just me, or if we’re attacked again doesn’t that just prove that the tactics arn’t working?
“David Brooks knows nothing of science. How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?”
you shouldn’t put the answer before the question.
it might confuse people.
I think that columnist is over-analyzing. The flier used in Kentucky looks very similar to one that was used in South Carolina, and was probably used for the same reason: rumors that Obama is a Muslim were spreading through an ignorant electorate.
I’m not sure I understand this logic — if you believe Obama is significantly better than McCain, and you want him to win, and plan on voting for him yourself, why would you intentionally withhold efforts that would get other people to vote for him? That just undermines your desired outcome (an Obama win) and seems irrational to me.
Well which is the more appealing option?
i) Obama really is a happy clappy Christian, in the grand tradition of Bush 42,
or
ii) The electorate is so dense/racist that this election will be won or lost on the perception that Obama is actually a sleeper agent Muslim?
It would almost be a relief to find out that the first is true. Again, it’s really quite depressing to think that the US electorate really is so stupid that they need to see the phrase ‘I am a Christian’ repeated every 10 seconds in order to vote for a black man with a last name which sort of sounds like some foreign guy who we dimly remember had something to do with 9-11.
Actually, wait a second, I’m pretty sure it was Saddam who flew those planes into the World Trade Center- so remind me again, who was that Osama guy?
Oh I remember, Osama was Hitler- but then- who was Hitler?
Politics. It’s so confusing.
As an atheist, it doesn’t make much sense to me to make non-belief a political criterion. What I want in a politician with regard to religion is, first, that they strongly support separation of church and state, and second, that their religious views do not get in the way of their listening to the science on matters.
Good discussion of the David Brooks piece here:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=293
Don’t get stuck on side issues like whether Obama tries to shore up his Christian credentials. What matters is simple- that the Democrats control the White House and thus appointments all through the Executive Branch, regulatory bodies, and the courts.
Go ahead and fail to support Obama out of pique. You’ll get the thousands of Republican appointees that you deserve for your short-sightedness.
It’s the appointments, stupid!
Some of the West Virginia voters reasons for voting for Hillary:
“He has Hussein in his name. I’ve had enough of Hussein”
“He’s a Muslim”
“He’s the other race, we’ve had a lot of trouble with the other race around here”
I weep.
AlanSmithee writes:
Because of the transgressions of Bush’s “unitary executive,” Constitutional and process issues are on the front burner this election cycle. Differences there typically aren’t reflected in the kind of policy comparison various organizations make by comparing votes on major bills. Obama has promised that one of his first acts as president will be to institute a review of all of Bush’s executive orders, to find and rescind the ones that exceed constitutional limits. He is open to his justice department investigating the crimes the previous administration committed, with regard to torture. In short, he has promised to take positive steps to roll back the “unitary executive.” His history in pushing for procedural reforms gives some hope that this really is his intent, and not just electioneering.
In contrast, the only thing I can imagine Hillary as president doing with the “unitary executive” is silently thanking Bush for having created the powers she then will hold.
Anyone notice they’ve been attacking Obama by claiming his wife is a (gasp) atheist?
And I don’t care if Obama Holier than Huckabee, he isn’t that frothing, opportunistic loon McCain.
About Obama/religion;
While I think it’s deplorable that he needs to appeal to the evangelicals/religious by portraying himself in this manner, I don’t mind too much so long as his decisions in office represent separation of church and state. While it’s sad that politicians must go on about religion (and I do hope that changes), the simple fact is that to get elected at the moment one must do it, and we want to see someone in the white house who will appoint the right people to the supreme court.
If you haven’t watched Eddie Tabash’s speech “The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms”, it’s worth watching. It doesn’t truly matter what a politician says (though hopefully with changing attitudes in society the need to appeal to religion to get elected will slowly fade), what matters is really the moves they make to determine future laws – who they put on the supreme court when there are vacancies. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u1S3C5yWjc)
Why is that even controversial? The fundies themselves assert this very same criticism.
For instance, Ken Ham states “No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
So only creationist are allowed to point this out?
I’m pretty sure it’s just a North Texas thing, but we have a local car dealership around these parts–Central Kia–that are doing these car commercials using a black actor with big ears, speaking from a podium in front of an audience with lots of red, white, and blue, and with the pitch phrase “Yes YOU can” (buy a new Kia). The allusions are obvious and it borders on the surreal.
I voted for the dude in the Texas Primary…or at least thought I did (I voted absentee, but thus wasn’t able to vote in that caucus thingy)…I still haven’t made up my mind if I’d vote for him in the general election if he is the Democratic candidate, though I will NOT vote for John McCain under any circumstances. If Hillary wins the nod by surprise upset, I’m boycotting the election altogether or voting for Nader or McKinney or myself as a write-in candidate.
The Daily Show last night had a hilarious take on the WV primary results, with actual (scary) interviews with real life WV voters… teh st00Pid runneth over…
RE: SC #17 – I agree. The piece by Steven Novella is a good analysis of Brooks’ piece. I strongly suspect Brooks may be a Ken Wilber fan. They certainly think alike.
#18 –
Exactly!
We don’t need to vote based on religion/non-belief, we need to vote based on what appointments they’ll make.
How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?
The product sold is not news, it’s us. Media sell “views” or “eyeballs” or “customers” to advertisers. The quality of the “news” matters not at all. If someone, however ill-informed and full of it, can attract eyeballs, that is the gold standard. Since the population is mostly ignorant and badly educated, a “twit” can write whatever crap he likes so long as lots of people read it. A “Journalist” can be wrong about everything he’s ever written and still hold down a 6 figure salary. News has never been the product.
The Democratic victory in a special election in Mississippi to fill a vacant congressional seat is the latest example of the GOP losing a district that had long been a stalwart Republican stronghold. It demonstrated that the GOP campaign book of smearing the Democratic candidate as an “Obama clone” isn’t stirring up the hoped-for antipathy among conservative voters. I haven’t been a big Obama booster (that’s right, I voted for Sen. Clinton), but I will cheerfully vote for him over McCain. I’m old enough to remember the last time the GOP lost a string of special elections while a hugely unpopular Republican president was hunkered down in the White House. It was 1974 and the president was Nixon.
V:
Yeah, it’s not like we live in a pluralistic democracy in which we’re given the option of voting for a candidate who doesn’t continually brag about his adherence to our officially preferred 2000 year old desert cult.
So go ahead America. Go through the motions and perform your civic duty. If you so wish, then vote for the guy who’s one millimeter to the political left of the other guy. It’s not much of a choice, but you should be happy that you’re still allowed to observe the voting ritual at all.
(Is it just me, or am I sounding more and more like a (completely non-violent version of) Theodore Kaczynski? Gee, maybe I should switch my coffee brand. (I can’t quite remember, but isn’t double nesting of parentheses a sure sign of a diseased mind?))
…but some people are apparently irate over a simple, accurate truth statement: “some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science”. They do, but a university isn’t allowed to say so?
PZ: There’s potentially more at stake here than academic freedom in the universities. If the court rules that the UCMP site is protected because of academic freedom, but does not spell out that the complaint has no merit in and of itself, then people like Larry Caldwell will continue to argue that public school teachers like myself are violating the Establishment Clause.
Why will the carnival of suits behind this action attempt to go after teachers like me? Because teachers like me:
1) direct students to the UCMP site or to NCSE, and encourage students to use these sites as resources in writing essays;
2) show the PBS documentary series ‘Evolution’ to their class;
3) point out that (gasp!) the author of their textbook is an observant Catholic, or that John Paul II remarked that evolution is more than a hypothesis
Remember, these are the same bunch of clowns who declined to interview Ken Miller for the film ‘Expelled’ because they felt it would CONFUSE people.
I don’t think quantum mechanics is really discussed in Buddhism and the Llama was overstating. However, for me the understanding of Buddhism actually helps me wrapp my head around the concept
to quote Oppenheimer
“If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say ‘no;’ if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say ‘no.’ The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man’s self after his death”
I have run into a Buddhist creationist once, that was very weird because the Buddha stresses the importance of hypothesis and experiment (Kalama sutra) before coming to a conclusion, even logic alone doesn’t suffice.
Translation :
The questions I would like to ask Mr Obama:
1. what does a “beckoning of the spirit” feel like ? Can you please describe this sensation and explain what made you realise that something really special was going on, that it was a clear evidence, for you, of a supernatural spirit, and that this spirit was the one described by the Christian faith ?
2. Please explain what having “accepted Jesus Christ into your life” means, in precise concrete understandable terms.
Has that acceptance changed anything concrete about your life ?
3. Are you still in contact with that said spirit and does this influence your decisions in any way ?
4. Can you think of a way to demonstrate that you are being entirely honest about this and not saying all of this for electoral gains ? If not, wouldn’t you agree that it would be advisable to keep this kind of declarations completely out of politics ?
Re: David Brooks … one of the definitions of mysticism is “obscure thought or speculation”, which essentially sums up his entire column.
But would Obama be consider a
President Apostate?
The benefit of Obama is that maybe he’ll come out of the closet as an atheist (His father was) once he’s an ex-prez. That would shock the pants off some Americans, but on the downside they might get hyper-focused on finding out if the next candidate is truly a cultist or not.
The NY Times science writer has nothing better to write about in science than…religion? There’s really nothing going on in science right now?
JJR:
So, maybe not Obama, definitely not McCain, definitely not Hillary… but Nader, fuck yeah!
“The stupid runneth over,” indeed…
Christianjb@28:
only if you use them (but not in small doses (AND ESPECIALLY INSTEAD OF OTHER PUCTUATION)) in all of YOUR COMUNICATION with others (and especially with POOR SPELING(but not by intent) and your aim is to make a point(that you then DISMIS IN TEH SAME SENTANCE))
;)
Please explain what having “accepted Jesus Christ into your life” means, in precise concrete understandable terms.
The thing is, it doesn’t matter. It’s a dog whistle to the evangelists. If he can throw out a few phrases in their lingo, it will appease some of them. He can say whatever he wants to pander right now, as long as he acts properly when in office. Given the alternative of McCain, I’ll vote for anything with a pulse that the Democratic party puts up, because McCain would fuck up this country to an extent that we can’t imagine even with Bush as an example.
Politics and religion. Reading about how voter disenfranchisement law is affecting a lot of nuns. Wondering to myself if maybe one of them would consider the Buddhist self-immolation we saw in Vietnam as a protest to wake people up to the totalitarian wankers at the helm.
Young people don’t seem to be as enthusiastic in affronting any authority figure above their parents these days, so somebody has to pick up the protest slack.
They could draw lots amongst only the oldest nuns. If such a thing were to happen, I would have to say that I would consider it truly miraculous…..and hopefully trend setting.
Enjoy.
One day, young monk asked master, ‘tell me, does quantum theory have the Zen?’
The master thought for a moment and then sharply hit the young pupil across the head with a cane.
“One must be careful” the master said, “for the fish belongs in water”
Later that day, the pupil died of multiple concussions.
———————–
Interpretation:
The pupil was wrong. He had failed to take the trace over the density matrix, and so was calculating off-diagonal matrix elements. In the canonical ensemble, all functions of position can be related to trace averages in the position basis of the thermal density matrix.
You missed the punchline on the Berkely case. The Pacific Justice Institute, which is busy trumpeting their actions in press releases, dropped the ball on the case. Here is footnote 4 from the decision dismissing the case:
In other words, they screwed the pooch. They waived any argument against the Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, the 9th Circuit will say, very simply, “Go away. You waived. Now it’s our turn to wave. Bye bye.”
What a hoot. These people are actually trumpeting their own incompetence.
To any immanent theology science is simply the exploration of God itself. It is the transcendent theologies that separate the spiritual and the material.
This is not a damn separation issue! Truth is the one absolute defense against a charge of defamation, and I think the same principle applies here. This is not a question of the government advocating some particular (religious) value set over another, but rather one of taking a position on an empirical matter. If some religion chooses to make false empirically testable claims, that’s on them, and I see no reason why their petulant stupidity should receive any more protection than anyone else’s. With respect to values, it’s a different matter. The point, I think, of the first amendment’s establishment clause is to protect equal liberty of conscience: our right to hold what values we choose to (with of course the caveat that our actions must be consistent with equal freedom for all).
If Berkeley loses this case, I am sorely tempted to just up and quit.
Quit what, exactly, you ask?
Ah hell, I’m so disheartened by this crap that I’m not even sure.
Brooks does not exist. He is simply a straw man (I must believe this, as there is no other explanation for his credibility). In this column, a straw man jousting with dust bunnies.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Berkeley site:
“…while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.”
Wrong! Time for a rewrite.
…plaintiff’s opposition fails to address the substance of any argument made by the federal defendants, stating instead in summary fashion that plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint curing all deficiencies.
Failure to address the substance of any arguments? Vague promises that substantive deficiencies will be remedied at some undisclosed future date? Why does this sound so familiar…?
Regarding the science-Buddhism connection, I am interested to know what you think of Sharon Begley’s work (and also Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz’s work) pertaining to neuroplasticity and the brain? Do you feel that David Brooks is not qualified to write about this subject, do you disagree with his views, or do you think that the topic itself has no merit?
Buddhism is not mysticism. It’s really quite scientific. Unfortunately, over 2000 years, lots of superfluous, superstitious nonsense has been added to the original concepts. Why do westerners so often associate mysticism with this lifestyle, is it just because it comes from Asia?
“Don’t take my word for it.”
“Talking about the soul is a waste of time.”
“Only personal experience is valuable.”
-Buddha
Does this sound like a religion?
Carlie #38,
ok, but why did he have to do it ? How many votes will he gain from this ? Peanuts ? They’ll all vote either for McCain, or won’t vote at all.
Meanwhile, by doing this, he shows to many that he’s not trustworthy, not the real agent of change they are waiting for. Oh, they’ll vote for him, but he loses their conviction, their battling spirit, and that is showing right now. Elections get won by motivating opinion leaders who convince their friends, relatives, colleagues to go and vote. People always forget that participation is the number one factor that gets an election won or lost.
I find it amsuing that in the Obama atricle about his flyers, they mention “how Obama hasn’t done as well with Catholics compared to Clinton” and then that “Obama has a story to tell about how Jesus came into his life”, implying that this will help him with the Catholic vote.
Having been brought up Catholic, this strikes me as odd, because all of the Catholics I know were Christian from birth and never talk about Jesus being part of their lives. The accepting of Jesus as a big life event always seemed to belong to other flavors of Christianity… and talking about a conversion experience definitely wouldn’t win over any of my Catholic friends or family members.
Anyway, I’m confident this is a publicity stunt of sorts. It disgusts me that it has to be done, but I see it as forgivable if he gets to the White House and, by his actions, supports a seperation of chirch and state. He is going to do that, right? Please?
John Derbyshire, National Review’s The Corner (5/13/08), remarks on Brooks’ ‘Neural Buddhism’:
“Brooks’ remarks about institutional religion are, I think, sensible. Human beings are spiritual creatures, and that side of our nature must find nourishment. That the big old institutional faiths — Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism — will continue to provide that nourishment is open to reasonable doubt. … Each of us has his own threshold of credulity, of course, but it’s hard to believe the average hasn’t been creeping up, and will continue to do so. This saps away at faith in the magical and miraculous, without which the big old religions are holed below the water line.
Probably Brooks is right, or part-right. Reflective people will indeed turn to a sort of “neural Buddhism,” some kind of organized system of spirituality that doesn’t require us to believe in incredible occurrences in the remote past, or in the individual personality surviving death. For the unreflective, Chesterton’s rule will kick in, and people will drift off into Wiccanism, Scientology, or The Secret.
This could be an interesting century for religion; and not necessarily (David Brook’s guess, and mine) in ways that would gladden the heart of either Richard Dawkins or Benedict XVI.”
Derbyshire is on to something; what we have seen in Europe with the decline of traditional faith institutions is not so much a surge in atheistic rationalism as a rise in New Age thinking and altie medicine.
Educated professionals in the West, including America, who reject their birth religions and are distrustful of crude and faddish cults sometimes seek out new outlets of spirituality, sacralization, transcendence, whatever that combines cognitive science with the esoteric. For example, Sam Harris’ musings on the great wisdom of Buddhism, or Hofstadter’s (problematic) notion of differential ensoulment. (‘Neural esotericism’ rather than ‘neural Buddism’?)
But a more remarkable example of the emergence of a new faith within self-professed atheistic scientific rationalist circles is transhumanism – human physical and moral perfectibility, the paradisical technotopia, inevitable transcendence of biological limitations. Seems pretty religious.
(.)(.)
Actually the Berkley case is a good thing. if The religiobots get to cite separation of church and state because of a benign, neutral, truthful statement that our side made…I mean if the meter is set to that degree of sensitivity, we got ’em by the yarbles.
Re: religious sensitivity run amok
I was reading the other day that notable gasbag Bill Donohue managed to get an apology from crazy pastor John Hagee (not a man I normally side with), because Hagee made a statement pointing out that the Catholich Church had a history of anti-semitism. So, we can’t comment on established historical facts about religion anymore, either, it would seem.
For some reason, I rather like wÒÓ†.
The brain is living tissue. That it can in some circumstances repair damage or compensate for failures should not be surprising. Jeffrey Schwartz, I recall, has a tendency to embrace the quantum woo, but neuroplasticity is no more evidence for a mysterious influence of consciousness over matter than the scabbed knees of childhood are evidence for “quantum skin”.
You can make any branch of science, old or new, sound like any mystical hodgepodge you’d like, given enough effort. Consider Newtonian mechanics: it’s often taken as a product of Newton’s time, described with words like “clockwork universe” and made to sound compatible with a vaguely deistic revision of the Christian God, who becomes the Great Clockmaker. But we could with equal ease turn around and make Newtonian physics sound like late ’60s acidhead wisdom: “All who are touched must touch in return [Newton’s Third Law], but one can touch without touching [action at a distance].”
And as for whether Buddhism “really” requires superstition and mysticism. . . .
I’ve grown accustomed to self-identified Christians declaring that the actions of some other self-identified Christians, say the Westboro Baptist Church, reveal that those others are “not true Christians”. On the one hand, I’m more likely to enjoy the company of somebody who thinks Fred Phelps is repulsive, but at the same time, I have to acknowledge that we can’t identify any one faction of Christianity as the true form on secular, empirico-rationalist grounds. Never mind asking “What Would Jesus Do,” we can’t even figure out what Jesus actually did — not from the records we’ve got, which were written decades after the events they purportedly describe, and survive only in manuscript copies dating decades or centuries after that. (And even then, you’re sure to find somebody who self-identifies as Christian but proclaims that one must be “open to the entire history of revelation”. On the “fundamentalist” side, you’ve got the King James Only folks, some of whom believe that God spaketh unto the translators of the KJV, making their English words even more inspired than their Hebrew and Greek sources. Similar attitudes to text and translation could be found among believers who are more socially liberal, too.)
So, as far as Christianity goes, saying that we’ll just stick to the words of Jesus is a non-starter.
AFAIK, the life story of Siddhārtha Gautama has also been embroidered with legend and presented differently by various schools. Even his birth and death dates are uncertain. I confess myself ignorant of large swaths of Buddhist history, philosophy and factionalism, so I don’t know if looking for the “historical Buddha” is truly a thankless endeavor; however, I suspect that in the final reckoning, we do not know the Buddha, but have only a flux of representations of the ten thousand Buddhas — some of which would be quite cool with that fact.
If you simply say that religion and science agree, they complain. If you acknowledge that some religion does conflict with biology, they complain.
I’d be shocked if any court agreed with a complaint about that. You have groups telling the public that religion isn’t compatible with religion, and UC counters with the most innocuous truthful statement possible in such a situation.
If they listed the sects which disagree with science they probably would have a case against UC Berkeley. Even this seems obnoxious when the facts are truthful, but probably it is necessary to parse the 1st Amendment satisfactorily.
Here’s the most hypocritical BS of all: Expelled and the DI whine that religious apologetics (including unusual criticism of a theory being introduced to the naive) isn’t allowed into the science classroom. Meanwhile, their side is trying to expel even an honest characterization of this political conflict, as they continue to demand that their side must have its partisan view presented in the classroom. That is, they won’t even allow a discussion of what’s at stake, if they win the case.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Yeah, I already had my rant about Brooks.
Brooks’ science is just shoddy. Science and mysticism aren’t embracing, unless you want to claim that science’s slow, inexorable chomping down and de-mystifying the way the brain works is an “embrace.” His comments on the dynamism of the brain during development are 30 years out of date.
Brooks’ discussion of Buddhism is so far off the mark it boggles my mind.
Derbyshire, quoted by Colugo:
Grrrr. It’s not Chesterton’s rule.
I ask myself this question about almost every Times columnist. Particularly Kristol and Dowd.
Christianjb, #5:
Thank you for this ill-punctuated bit of irony.
Epistaxis
That’s a cheap shot! I’m a lover, not a grammarian.
Elf M. Sternberg (#59):
Your link is broken; this one might work. Oh, and — well said.
Hang on now, Rumsfeld didn’t say that America needs another terrorist attack, he said (in answer to a question about American’s perception of the terrorist threat) that for the average American to percieve the scale of the terrorist threat would require another attack.
Which is something else entirely.
thanks for the Chesterton’s rule correction. Someone could write a book on misattributed and bogus quotes.
“When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun.” – derived from a line by a character in a Nazi play, not a statement by a high ranking Nazi (variously, Himmler, Goring, or Goebbels)
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.” – Not Sinclair Lewis; Huey Long made similar statements
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” – Howard Zinn, not Thomas Jefferson
How embarrassing; I botched the spelling of my own alias. A doofus am I.
Dear FSM, people, grasp the essentials of politics – a candidate has to speak to his/her audience. Obama’s been forced by those rumours that he is a Muslim to emphasise the Christian thing; that’s what the electorate wants in a President. We all know that even a mere agnostic would not be electable in this country; the majority of public demands outside affirmation of its own belief system. They can’t even trust someone of a minority religion whose tenets contradict theirs – hence, no Jewish president, no Muslim, no Buddhist president. [I remember the controversy over JFK – the man was a Catholic!!, could he be trusted not to sell the US out to the Pope…]
Give the man money, campaign for him, vote for him – because the alternative is John McCain. If McCain gets to appoint a Supreme Court Justice – and the next president will – we’ll end up with a Court whose antipathy to science, to stem cell research, to women’s reproductive rights, etc. will set this country back into the Dark Ages. [Not to mention the hundreds of other federal judicial appointees…]
Democrats. IMO, throw themselves under the bus all too often. One has to be realistic about the candidates – they will pander, to some extent – and, frankly, Obama’s been pandering less than many – because that is how they get elected. Voting for someone with no chance at all – Nader, writing in Hillary/John Edwards/Bugs Bunny – is an affirmative vote for McCain. That’s the reality, invisible friends aside. Obama’s not the perfect candidate; that person doesn’t exist. But he’s a damn sight better than McCain, with his buddy Hagee and others of that ilk. Think of campaigning for Obama as campaigning against the GOP. Because we are fucking doomed if the GOP gets into the White House.
As depressing as it is to have to vote defensively, you can see why you have to if you follow the links on the Obama piece to here and read the comments.
So I suppose stating that devout Hindus believe in Kali, Shiva and Krishna would be a breach of separation of C/S as well.
All this devout pious handwringing in politics has got me ill! Never in all my years of political awareness have I seen such maudlin displays of bootlicking and asskissing. None of them beleive this shit. why can’t they just STFU and get on with the real busyness at hand. Last I checked we were having a WAR, the beginnings of catostrophic weather changes, etc. won’t just one of these sorry f@#$s stand up and be brave enough to call off this bullshit session. Why Obama, why???
Sublunary,
Well, it really depends what you mean with “to support a separation of church and state”. My guess is he’ll definitely support it much more than GWB or Ronald Reagan, but exactly to which extent is still very vague.
This is what is currently on his website :
I see nothing historically inaccurate about those extracts (it’s a real tragedy that the Southern Baptist Convention, once a clarion voice for separation, was taken over by political operatives.) And I also take no offense from it since it repeatedly includes unbelievers in the fold.
So while Obama’s religiosity (which by the way seems to me entirely sincere) very definitely grates on me, it would be politically immature for me to allow that to affect my support for him. Far more important things are at stake.
Sorry, messed up the format of my last post…
This is what is currently on Obama’s website :
“David Brooks knows nothing of science. How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?”
We might also ask how Maureen Dowd got a gig at the NY Times. As bad as Brooks is, Dowd is far worse in the stupidity department.
The only slight problem I see with this sentence is that Obama seems to think it’s a good thing, that religious practices have been thriving. He has, it seems, no intention to change this.
As PZ mentionned in an earlier thread, the separation of church and state protected the stupidest practices from scrutiny and created a completely deregulated market where anything goes, lies, unscrupulous advertising, and all of course exonerated of taxes. So, yes indeed they have been thriving !
RE: #65
I happen to think all politicians are evil, but the Rumsfeld “quote” strikes me as likely quote-mining, even without looking up the context. the 9/11 attacks have spawned the most odious collection of conspiracy theorists and nut cases since the Kennedy assassination.
How many Democrats have wished for something really bad in Iraq that would turn a presidential election?
Part of me is glad Berkeley is being taken to court for this, it will be fun when the judge (ie, someone intelligent) laughs in their faces.
But then, of course, it will just be another example of an “activist judge” who is “expelling” good ideas.
Sighhh.
ARGH! “emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking” is an argument against materialism?
First, you can argue the opposite: emotions are to some extent obviously physical (dopamine and the like) so if they are getting in your thoughts it points to the thoughts being a physical process.
More importantly though, it bloody obvious that emotions effect thought processes. It doesn’t need new advances in neuroscience. A six year old kid who gets the idea to pull his sisters hair when he is angry (but not when happy) knows that. Does he imagine that Dan Dennett (say) doesn’t, and that he argues for a material brain believing it to be just like a computer.
It’s just such bollocks.
I’ll admit, as an atheist, I hate that politicians have to jump through such absurd hoops like proving that they are this (good Christian soldier!) and aren’t that (scary Muslim! even scarier atheist! ahh!).
But I’m all-in for Obama and think he’s potentially one of the best leaders we have seen in generations. It’s sad that he has to be so overt about his beliefs to win over the backwoods yokelry, but such is American politics (and the stupidity of large swaths of the electorate).
“David Brooks knows nothing of science. How did this twit get a gig at the NY Times?”
Probably the same way William Kristol did …
Also, this from Bob: “Anyone notice they’ve been attacking Obama by claiming his wife is a (gasp) atheist?”
No, I haven’t. Got any links, Bob, ’cause this I’ve gotta see.
Sucking up to the religious majority in this country is one thing, but is anyone else bothered by the fact that Obama seems to think that “forbearer” means “ancestor”?
I’ll save my money and energy for a candidate who can speak English correctly, thank you.
*** Pssst. The alternative is John McCain. ***
Or not.
Re: #41
Here is footnote 4 from the decision …
Footnotes are dicta. Not controlling.
“I’m planning to vote for him, but if he turns into yet another Christianist airhead, I will not be campaigning for him.”
This makes no sense. Either get behind him because you believe he’s the best the candidate, or don’t.
Whether or not he genuinely buys in to the Zombie Death Cult, the political reality is that he needs to pander to it. Sadly, it’s going to be a *long* time before “I hold no belief in gods” isn’t the equivalent of a candidate saying “I have sex with goats” amongst a very large portion of the USA electorate.
Worth an hour of anyone’s time in forming an opinion on Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo. Somewhere in that film, Obama says something about the importance of science-based thinking. Good enough for me.
negentropyeater #32:
Henri IV, French king, was protestant, but converted to catholicism, to become a king, saying: “Paris vaut bien une messe” (“Paris is well worth a Mass”).
I don’t particularly care what a politician’s religious beliefs are, nor how he uses them to market himself. All I care about (at least as far as religion goes) is, will he uphold the separation of church and state? If the answer is yes, then he passes my religious test for office.
Unfortunately, the ignorant yahoos have made it necessary for Obama to play up the Christian angle. Sad, yes, but it’s hardly his own fault. I, for one, will continue to actively support him, and strongly encourage anyone who doesn’t want John McSame in the White House to do the same.
@Blake: Although it’s hard to define a “real” Buddhism for purposes of figuring out whether it’s mystical or not, it’s at least true that far more Buddhists than Christians treat it as a philosophy. And even many Buddhists with superstitions lack the peculiar ethics, dogmatism, and intolerance marking many Christians. I think it’s essentially true that Buddhism has a different relationship with science than Christianity, because Buddhism as she is spoke is sometimes philosophically flawed but at least rarely actively stands in the way of science.
That’s one half of why Brooks’s assertions are meaningless: like many others, he’s trying to link science and religion by saying it’s consistent with a “religion” that’s nothing like what most people practice. Then, he tries to use that to sell the notion that science, properly understood, means you should go on believing and practicing most of the stuff that makes you comfortable, which simply isn’t true, unless non-mystical Buddhism is your cup of tea.
The other half of the problem — reply ends and rant begins here — is that he misrepresents both scientific findings and the personal beliefs of scientists.
Science hasn’t found that materialism is wrong, or that the brain “does not operate like a computer” but instead works “mysteriously.” Indeed, science is making the brain less mysterious with each passing year; by “not a computer” Brooks seems to mean that the brain has emotions, which is neither a particularly new finding (heh) nor inconsistent with Dawkins’ views or with Strong AI; and unless the Hubble finds a grey-bearded dude up there smitin’ folks and tellin’ people what to do, no scientific finding will ever have much bearing on the theory or practice of materialism, because materialism is a philosophy and attitude, not a hypothesis based on observations.
And it’s no wonder Brooks avoids addressing most scientists’ personal beliefs. If you want to preview what a science-educated public is going to believe, you should look at what the science-educated elite believes now — and by and large it ain’t Buddhism or Unitarianism. But Brooks wants to think that public understanding of science will lead people to remain essentially religious, and he wouldn’t want to let facts get in the way of his story, so he simply ignores the facts and asserts that his cherry-picked set of vaguely science-related assertions about the brain will become popular. That’s what passes for intellectual honesty these days.
The filling in of the blanks in our understanding of the brain, and the spread of scientific literacy, is going to lead to the public of tomorrow becoming a bit more like the scientists of today. Not to Brooks’ wet-dream trendy hybrid theories, no matter how proud he is of them.
Now, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and a generally materialist world-view are the least bit detrimental to feeling comfortable in the universe and living an altruistic, emotionally satisfying, examined life. But if you’re going to reach a full, frank understanding of the world as it is, you’re going to have to have to throw out a lot of superstitions and rebuild your beliefs from rational premises. It may cause us some discomfort, individually or collectively, but it’s necessary. This is not a hard conclusion for an honest thinker to reach. And it would be best for this society’s present and especially its future if anyone had the courage to say that out loud.
Daniel #84,
c’est quand même dingue que les américains ne sont guerre plus avancés en politique, qu’on en était en 1589 !
People who see the Berkeley site as endorsing one religious view over another should reexamine their own beliefs. All the Berkeley site says is that some religious beliefs are compatible with science, and others are not. One only reads that as “endorsing” one form of religion over another if one goes in with the belief that a religion that is compatible with science is preferable to one that isn’t. In contrast to the religion/homosexuality case, where the material in question made theological claims (that reading the bible as being against homosexuality is a misinterpretation), no such claims were made here.
Oui, c’est — wait, I mean, Terrorists!!
Ironically, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot when we bend over backwards to say something nice about religion. In doing so, we inevitably step onto religion’s turf. It’s wiser to say that religion ventures onto science’s turf when it makes a claim about the world that we can test.
Here’s how I’d rewrite the offending section:
We can apply the scientific method to any claim about the world we share, regardless of the claim’s origins. If the weight of scientific evidence happens to fall against a claim held to be true by certain religious groups, that does not mean that the practice of science is incompatible with religion generally.
In the words of Seneca: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
My hope is that Obama won’t use religion any further than is necessary to get the support of the common people, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if he uses it beyond that necessity as well (to drum up support for policies, etc). “God on our side” is a lot easier a justification than…you know, an actual justification.
This will not make me happy. I’m planning to vote for him, but if he turns into yet another Christianist airhead, I will not be campaigning for him.
Who are you kidding, PZ Meyers…If there is a serious threat of McCain winning the election, the beliefs of Obama is not going to matter and your going to do what you can to try and get him elected. Your not just going to vote for him while holding back any campaigning for him because your unhappy over his religious beliefs. It’s the same sort of mentality of giving the farmers more government money while the prices of crops like corn are going through the roof, because it is what Bush doesn’t want…Not because it’s a logical decision to do so or not.
Other than party, McCain is very much different from traditional republicans. He’s way more liberal, but he is similar on the issue of Iraq, and is in favor of keeping the current structure of tax cuts which he opposed in the beginning. But that is pretty much it. McCain opposes more drilling for oil or building another refinery in the United States. He’s in favor of so-called man-made “Global Warming”. He’s also in favor of giving farmers government money while the prices of crops do not warrant such a gift from taxpayers who are paying more for food.
It’s always interesting to observe the influence of a label when there’s not much difference in substance.
Etha,
What happens when a common person becomes a ruler ? Did Seneca think of this possibility ? Then he regards it as true and useful ? Is that the case of our current ruler maximus ?
Mind you, I never believed that GWB was a true believer, neither that he was common, nor that he was dumm. I think he’s been very good at exploiting the fact that people underestimate him.
All this hypocrisy with this religious pandering is just flabbergasting. How can people tolerate it ? Whether they are believers or not, isn’t hypocrisy unacceptable ?
How can one trust such politicians ?
As said in my provocative comment #86, reminds me the way politics used to be done in France in 1589.
Oh come on PZ, I don’t like Rumsfeld either, but you’re definitely twisting his words.
You’re using the exact same tactics creationists use. Don’t be so hysterical, in future.
At least the Berkeley site doesn’t name particular groups, like the Catholics, the Baptists, etc., as in that other case. But it does say
Many believers would dispute the government’s definition of religion here. Are those believers now excluded from the government-approved, established religion as defined above?
Saying nice things about some religions is strategically unnecessary and risky. Better to re-define the religious claim as a scientific claim, and attack it as such.
Perhaps the distinction I’m trying to make is too subtle to be practical, and exists only in my head.
Michael: It’s always interesting to observe the influence of a label when there’s not much difference in substance.
Mike, are you new to the American political system? We have a duopoly, so even though the public claim is that you are voting for an individual, for those in the know, you are voting for a party. Now, if we were a one-party state, it would make sense to actually give a damn about the individual, but in systems where you are actually voting for members of alliances, what you really care about is the alliance.
I don’t give a damn about McSame’s personal viewpoints – what matters is his cabinet, his appointments, his congressional alliances – you know, who is actually going to be in power, not the figurehead at the center of the mess.
We’d be better of with an explicitly proportional and party-based system, so the simpletons would understand the system better. As it is, elections are obfuscatory, by misleading people into believing that personal positions matter in the least for the functioning of government. But I guess that’s the function of our constitutional system – to obfuscate the working of government.
Obama fans are a different breed. They always find excuses for their candidate. But if Clinton does something similar, she is a cynical power-hungry bitch. You see the double standard on the recent Daily Show. If the people in WV voted against Obama, it must be because they are racist. But if people vote against Clinton, it is never suggested that they might be misogynist.
I will vote for Obama inspite of Obama supporters who I find to be among the worst evangelists(secular or not).
Madness! This is also America, at least Bush America.
“Eighteen American war veterans kill themselves every day. One thousand former soldiers receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs attempt suicide every month. More veterans are committing suicide than are dying in combat overseas.
These are statistics that most Americans don’t know, because the Bush administration has refused to tell them. Since the start of the Iraq War, the government has tried to present it as a war without casualties.”
http://alterx.blogspot.com/2008/05/truth-about-veteran-suicides.html
J,
I am sorry, but I don’t think PZ is twisting Rumsfeld’s words…
In the context, “that” refers to the Democrats victory in the 2006 election.
So I don’t see any twisting here.
I don’t think that means Rumsfeld wish there be an attack, just that he thinks it is necessary for the dems to loose.
Brooks: bad at writing, bad at science, and bad at religion.
The whole article is a garbled bunch of nonsense, and it’s really hard to see where some of his conclusions derive from some of his ill-defined premises. (Eg, “Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.” Huh? How is this any different from scientists showing that religious experiences can be neurally induced? How is this not a materialistic view? Where is the “larger presence” in this research?)
But he’s writing nonsense that a lot of the Times’ readers wants to read, stuff that makes them feel “enlightened” and “educated,” and journalism is part of the market economy like anything else. People pay to read what they want to read, and if a hack like Brooks (who is self-admittedly “not qualified to take sides”…how ’bout changing that to just plain “not qualified”?) will write that, they’ll pay him for it.
Obama would appoint the kind of Supreme Court justices who would uphold Roe v Wade and protect my right to choice. McCain would not. Enough said.
@#97 bernarda —
And from the article linked to in the post:
That’s just horrible. Not only because it’s hiding the human cost of the war from the public, but also because it’s preventing troubled soldiers from hearing these stories and realizing that they are not alone. Maybe if the VA MH division had been more up-front about this problem, it could have saved one of those soldier’s lives. Or maybe not. But because they are more concerned about saving face than saving lives, we’ll never know.
@ #56 Dennis N
Me too! It took months and months for me to actually click on the links, as I was convinced it would take me somewhere I didn’t want to go. Boy was I wrong! Count me in as another wÒÓ† fan. :)
In the context, “that” refers to the Democrats victory in the 2006 election.
So I don’t see any twisting here.
That’s bullshit and you know it. He wasn’t talking about the Democrats or the election, he was talking about the public’s “low threat assessment”. And from what he says, it’s quite plausible that he means something along the lines of, “Unless we’re careful, this mistaken viewpoint will be corrected by another terrorist attack.”
If you’re going to resort to these tactics yourself, quit whining when the creationists do it. It’s exceedingly dangerous to make legitimate such free interpretation of quotations.
Second sentence is supposed to be in italics.
Madness?!
I’m celebrating the decision in California. Suspect classification baby!
I hope Kenny is crying his eyes out!!!!
@#105 MAJeff —
To quote Kenny:
DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you’re not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there.
RUMSFELD: That’s what I was just going to say. This President’s pretty much a victim of success. We haven’t had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it’s not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing’s in Europe, there’s a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.
They are talking about what is in the R’s political interest. PZ’s comment is fully in line with the political subtext. But once again J shows how he is a Concern troll. I prefer the Kenny style honesty.
@ #6: Wow! that’s the best rant I’ve ever heard. Amazing, too, that it came from an American, and on TV as well. Astonishing. If only GW had actually heard it.
They are talking about what is in the R’s political interest. PZ’s comment is fully in line with the political subtext. But once again J shows how he is a Concern troll. I prefer the Kenny style honesty.
I’m not a concern troll, fuck you. This is another fundamentalist tactic I’m noticing: Anyone with a slightly dissenting opinion is labelled pejoratively and accused of ulterior motive.
“Political subtext” is so broad as to render your claim dubious at best. The fact of the matter is that it’s far from clear Rumsfeld meant what PZ attributed to him.
re: #82
Not in this particular instance. This is the decision of the lower court, not an appellate court being cited for a legal proposition. Here, the trial court is stating a fact, that the Plaintiff failed to timely file a responsive brief. You are thinking of footnotes in court decisions attorneys cite to support their arguments, not factual statements by trial courts.
Re: David Brooks’ article.
I have been thinking extensively on this Mr. Myers (and followers), and I honestly think that Mr. Brooks may be doing the best thing for science here.
I don’t think it’s his intention to excuse mysticism by making false claims that it is supported by science (as some have). Sure, he does say “science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other” but in the article he defines mysticism as a physical process in the brain. If you read the article, it seems he is trying to defuse damage which may have been done by “militant atheists” (and yes, this would be yourself and Mr. Dawkins, but remember that he is using the language of the audience he is trying to reach) to the acceptance of scientific explanations by the general public.
The ‘Expelled’ team chose to interview yourself and Dawkins for a reason. They want to portray atheists as the intolerant ones. Notice the language in Brooks’ article again. In his portrayal, the intolerant ones are those who insist on literal interpretations of religious teachings, the “orthodox believers.” Scientists are just like all good folks: they believe in consciousness and emotions and love, see?
Maybe I’m giving him too much credit, but I wonder if his approach is actually better for the advancement of scientific thinking. If you can convince people to open their minds to what science has to say and judge it on its merits, they will find that it is the best explanation. Most people will. Brooks’ approach is to marginalize the fundamentalists (whose minds are sealed off to scientififc arguments) and win over the bulk of the population by pitching science in a friendly way.
This may be the best way to reach that point you describe yourself, where for most people religion is a “side dish” in the bigger picture of their lives.
Let sum up:
DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you’re not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there.
RUMSFELD: That’s what I was just going to say. This President’s pretty much a victim of success. We haven’t had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it’s not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing’s in Europe, there’s a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.
So, Delong is asking about the political challenge of a “low threat assesment”. And Rumsfeld respondes that the correction for that assesment and the challenge it poses “I suppose, is an attack.”
Then:
PZ: Rumsfeld was saying the country needed another terrorist attack to keep the Democrats out of office?
That’s a pithy summation, by anyone’s measure.
Then:
J: You’re using the exact same tactics creationists use. Don’t be so hysterical, in future.
That response isn’t dissent. It’s the “I’m worried about you, and trying to help you out.” It’s not an analytical description of how PZ is wrong – that’s not possible, because it’s a self-evident description of that piece of the conversation. It doesn’t attack the factual accuracy, but instead calls it “hysterical” (and we all know about the sub-text to that – the Mommy/Daddy party images in the culture, and the sexist images of “hysteria”).
The problem with J is that he just can’t help leaking. Every “I’m on your side” statement is always laced with the incorrect language – in other threads, he swears that he’s an atheist, but just can’t help talking about mankinds inherent “sinfullness”. By the way J, “sin” always connotes religiosity, as it’s primary meaning in most usage is “a transgression against the law of God”. I’ve never heard an atheist who had a minimal mastery of English use it, when there are just so many other words to describe moral failures; and the “original sin” implications just make no sense without a religious backing.
J, it’s not your fault. Lying is just really hard to do well.
I loathe Medved, has he ever stopped to ponder that, for many of us, our ancestors’ emigration to ‘Merka had more to do with potato genetics than human genetics? Oh, and the fact that a murderous, sociopathic aristocracy was exporting foodstuffs in an effort to kill off the peasantry…
The meme that “slavery wasn’t so bad for Africans” is getting a lot of play lately among repugs, probably because of B.O.’s melanin. Pat Buchanan, America’s Racist Uncle (TM) had a piece about a month ago to this effect. Concerning Medved, this is what I wrote:
“Medved’s attitude toward slavery begs the question- at the Medved family Seder, do you suppose he serves not-so-bitter herbs to commemorate the enslavement of the Israelites?”
Townhall’s latest John Birch screed about red-blooded ‘Merkins can be found here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/05/14/getting_bubba
I hope Kenny is crying his eyes out!!!!
if he is, I’m sure he has convinced himself he is crying “for you”.
blech.
“Unless we’re careful, this mistaken viewpoint will be corrected by another terrorist attack.”
the best J has done here is to summarize Rummy’s argument as one of rethuglicans utilizing fear in order to push the issue of “terrorism” in front of voters again.
It wouldn’t be the first time they have done it, nor the last.
In fact, I wouldn’t even accuse J of being “hysterical”.
disingenuous, maybe.
Regarding Obama finding Jesus… we don’t live in an ideal world, we live in America. Two things are obvious:
1. The U.S. will never elect a non-Christian president in my lifetime.
2. A disturbing number of Americans think Obama is a Muslim.
Given this, I say bring on the Jesus talk and thump your bible Barack.
Ah, Etha, thanks for reminding me of this gem. (After the Curious George thread I was starting to think of Kenny as halfway reasonable.)
I still have trouble believing that’s not satire. Cuz hey, yanno, those people who support marriage equality for same-sex couples? They’re always so strongly pro-capital-punishment, aren’t they?!
Kenny, you gabbling limpet!
Oh yeah – and when are you going to acknowledge your mistake on the ACLU and publicly accept the truth?
UC Berkeley is being taken to court over a factual statement?
Damn… Myers, on the off chance that you read this, I’ve been silently lurking around you blog for a while. I haven’t posted before. And the Understanding Evolution thing is as frightening as it is outrageous.
It’s a fantastic resource. I’ve been coming across a great many creationists online recently. Some of them are flat-out nutjobs – but a few of them deny evolution simply because they don’t understand it.
“If humans came from monkeys,” they say, “why are there still monkeys around? Evolution is silly.”
So it’s a very careful explanation that, no, humans didn’t evolve from monkeys – humans and monkeys each evolved from a common ancestor that was neither human nor monkey, and is no longer around. Then a quick link into the Understanding Evolution site to back that up. A couple of posts down the track, the creationist catches on, and thus starts the delicate process whereby they begin to think and reason against their instruction. They usually remain religious believers, but they learn to question young earth creationism. This doesn’t happen very often, but when it does it’s literally beautiful to read through these people’s thoughts as they teach themselves to really think… It’s a amazing how a human mind that spends it’s entire life in chains of irrational belief can suddenly kick into action. The potential is definitely there, and this gives me great hope for the future of the western world.
That’s why resources such as Understanding Evolution are so important. A lot of religious people are very much capable of rational thought. It’s just that they’ve been denied the real evidence. They’re intentionaly underinformed, and denied the chance to experience the magic of genuine free thought that all the rest of us take so very much for granted.
This is what outrages me about the Understanding Evolution site being taken to court over something so trivial as “ome religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days);”.
That’s not why UC Berkeley is being taken to court – everyone knows by now that science and religion don’t always agree. They’re being taken to court because religious nutjobs don’t want the intelligent people who have been duped by creationist nonsense (and I suspect that there’s more of these people than most of us in the reality-based belief system gives religion credit for) to have access to first-rate information explaining evolution in a clear form that can be easily understood by anyone.
That’s what they’re after. You can just see a bunch of religious wackos all outraged by the Understanding Evolution website. “Hey, Dave! There’s this website out that informs people about some of the evidence for why God didn’t create us in seven days! This is so evil! We’ll lose numbers! Let’s look through this website and see if there’s anything we can throw against these heathens. There’s got to be something we can cause a stink over!”
Wedge Strategy my ass.
This makes me angry – but not in the bile and vitriol way. This goes beyond that into the peaceful land of quiet rage. This shouldn’t be stood for. They made a proven, factual statement. It is true that some religious beliefs contradict science.
Cults Hate Truth.
To 1 & 8 & other “Buddhism is great” people:
If you remove everything religious, what you call “superstitious bullshit,” from Buddhism you no longer have Buddhism. Although many Western Buddhists claim that Buddhism is a philosophy that is rather ignorant of Buddhism and its history. It is a religion, plain and simple. Karma and reincarnation are essential parts of it: meditation is used to reach enlightenment, which is getting off the birth-rebirth wheel. Also, Buddhism is far from a peaceful religion – see Zen at War for a careful analysis of Japanese Zen’s support of several wars. This book also addresses a lot of double talk by Buddhist teachers: they said one thing to a Western audience and something entirely different (often contradicting the Westernized message) to a non-Western audience.
To 49: You quote presumably from the Buddha: “Only personal experience is valuable.” That is a rather unscientific statement. Based on personal experience, homeopathy, ESP, and other nonsense works.
That said, meditation might be useful (although it’s difficult to test scientifically because of self-selection bias). However, meditation does not equal Buddhism. You can be a meditator without being a Buddhist. I think it’s time for us skeptics to disentangle the two: we can keep what works (as supported by scientific evidence) but let’s not claim that what’s left is the “real” Buddhism.
Frog is a fundamentalist crackpot, just as totally out of it as any evangelical. He is, as usual, attempting to make up for the flimsiness of his arguments by turning up the volume right up. I hope this despicably vile creature lost what little credibility he had after maintaining in a recent thread that anyone who’s British (no matter how young) is “morally responsible” for the colonial acts of long-dead fellow countrymen. (He even called me “amoral scum” for disagreeing with him.)
the best J has done here is to summarize Rummy’s argument as one of rethuglicans utilizing fear in order to push the issue of “terrorism” in front of voters again.
I was drawing one possible interpretation of the Rumsfeld quotation. Admit it: What he said was (typical of a politician) vague and full of room for weaseling out of whatever meaning you might impute to it. Unless you know something I don’t, there’s no way you can be so confident he meant “the country [needs] another terrorist attack to keep the Democrats out of office”.
I really shouldn’t have to point out that you have no evidence whatever that I’m on the Right. (In fact, for what it’s worth, Left is a lot closer to my general position.) All I said is that I think Rumsfeld is being misrepresented on this one particular occasion. The rest of PZ’s post is fine.
Frog will probably label me a liar again. Well it’s easy to simply assert that someone is lying; whether such a characterization is true is a another story. Don’t pay any attention to him. My description of his position concerning “the moral responsibility for colonialism” is quite fair.
Transcendentalism my ass. Another way of saying you don’t know what the f### is going on so you fall back on spiritualist BS.
Straight out of the Steven Segal school of intellectual comprehension.
Past time these so-called “enlightened” buddhist, orange-cloth-wearing elitists superiorists were exposed. It’s not the common view, but China is spot-on in its attitude to Tibet.
At least communism released the common people there from an insufferable form of serfdom. 97% of Tibet’s population lived in grueling poverty until this Dali Lama wanker was shipped out. No wonder he wants back – who wouldn’t want to be a “god”? Even if it’s just to a bunch of illiterate peasants?
Time is past when we bow the knee to gods, kings, queens, popes, bishops, or “enlightened” types of any self-ordained sort.
NOT saying communism is a good system! But it released Tibet from a worse one.
. Admit it: What he said was (typical of a politician) vague and full of room for weaseling out of whatever meaning you might impute to it.
If one ignores the history of everything rummy has ever said, or the republican party has ever utilized as a political tool over the last 40 years.
sure.
do you want to play that dumb, though?
I really shouldn’t have to point out that you have no evidence whatever that I’m on the Right
well that’s good, since calling you disengenous had nothing to do with thinking you were.
or that you were paranoid.
On the Buddhist thing.
There’s two major forms of Buddhism. Theravada (or Hinayana) which is the “Lesser Vehicle” because it’s very monastic and taxing – not everyone can be expected to do it. This is not what most people think of when they think of Buddhism.
When most people think of Buddhism, they think of Mahayana, or “Greater Vehicle” which is so named because you can follow Mahanaya without neccesarily being a monastic.
I’ve always considered the secularization of Buddhism to be something like the “Greatest Cart” – where science and reason are used to support the central theme of Buddhism (compassion is the cure for suffering) without recourse to the supernatural.
Thoughts, anybody?
They’re being taken to court because religious nutjobs don’t want the intelligent people who have been duped by creationist nonsense (and I suspect that there’s more of these people than most of us in the reality-based belief system gives religion credit for) to have access to first-rate information explaining evolution in a clear form that can be easily understood by anyone.
shorter:
They’re being taken to court out of spite.
To 125: What do you mean by “compassion is the cure for suffering”? If I suffer from hunger, I need food, not compassion.
andrew #82:
Not sure where you got that rule.
Footnotes often contain dicta, but that does not mean that everything in a footnote is necessarily dicta. The footnote we’re discussing from the Berkeley case sure sounds like a holding to me. Caldwell v. Caldwell, 420 F. Sup. 2d 1102, 1106 n.4 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“defendants prevail on their arguments for the additional reason that . . . .”).
I also don’t know what you mean by “not controlling,” since it’s a district court decision and would, therefore, not be binding on any other court.
If you mean that the Ninth Circuit cannot rely on the reasoning in the district court’s footnote in affirming, that is incorrect. For an example of the Ninth Circuit doing just that seeWagner v. Prof’l Eng’rs in Cal. Gov’t , 354 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir. 2004).
I dunno, I think Rummy’s words – that an attack would serve as a “correction” to the national state of mind, which he clearly believed was in error – was an accurate indication of what he meant, and where he was coming from, and where he always comes from.
This is Donald Rumsfeld, after all.
To 125 and in support of 127: “compassion is the cure for suffering” . Sums it up, really. Think it better and it will be better… or possibly not.
Action is the cure for suffering. Sticking your hand in your pocket to find your wallet is the physical manifestation of compassion. Keep your “lesser vehicles” and “greater carts” for dinner parties.
The Buddist maxim of “the sound of one hand slapping” can be manifested by slapping anyone vacuous enough to say this to you in the face! (Metaphorically of course.)
127:
I was just mentioning one of the central themes of Buddhism – that compassion is the cure for suffering (which is one of the central themes). It’s a good one, too.
The hunger thing is a good point – but that wasn’t the context I was intending.
The idea is very simple. Everyone wants to be happy and doesn’t want to suffer. That’s a good thing. But if everyone pursues their own happiness to the total detriment of people around them, the end result is suffering for all. Think of it as a Nash equilibrium, or the prisoner’s dillemma.
So we’re all better off if we acknowledge that mutual regard for one another’s suffering is a good thing. The problem lies in convincing the people who don’t want to play nice, such as extremist Islam.
Better?
130:
“Action is the cure for suffering.”
Obviously action is a big part of it. The inaction bred by the some of the supernatural beliefs in Buddhism is a an excellent reason to disregard those beliefs (additional to the fact that they’re untrue).
But if you’re taking action to cure suffering – that’s a compassionate action. The will to act to reduce suffering is basically what compassion is. I’d agree that compassion without action is kinda flaccid. But you need both. Action without compassion – that’s where you get extremist Islam.
Better? :D
Daniel (131):
The suffering most Buddhists talk about is essentially mental suffering, like in the Second Noble Truth (note all the capital letters, btw…). That is the only suffering addressed by Buddhism and I don’t think it’s addressed in the cooperative way you’re talking about (possibly in “compassionate action” but take a look at Zen at War, which I mentioned in #120, Buddhism isn’t the peaceful religion many claim it is). Again, say I am suffering from hunger. I could add to that a layer of suffering by saying things like “I shouldn’t be hungry” and also define myself through my hunger, i.e., I become attached to hunger.
As I mentioned above (# 120), I don’t think we can pick and choose what we call Buddhism and what we don’t (that’s just what a lot of Christians are doing and most of us don’t like it then, so why do we let Buddhists get away with it? Granted they don’t have one book but they do have some core beliefs). If you want to explain “compassion is the cure for suffering” as you did that’s great (I actually agree with your longer explanation) but I don’t think that’s Buddhism anymore. At best you’re taking an idea that is also talked about within Buddhism and using it. There’s no need for an appeal to some ancient dude who may or may not have lived. It just makes common sense and is the basis of our morality, which developed despite religions.
which he clearly believed was in error
IOW: not fearful enough for easy manipulation.
J,
I see your point.
I think there is a certain ambiguity and it is true that it could also be interpreted in the way you suggest.
And you’d probably be right about that. The “Greater Vehicle” thing is just an idea. :D
As you can probably tel, I’ve had a brush with Buddhism, so I can agree that you’re right when you say that translating ‘dukkha’ as suffering is misleading.
I’d heard about it and found it interesting, so I let myself wander into it a little just to test it out. It made some pretty outrageous claims, but some of it made a kind of sense. So I gave it a go to see what I found. And what I found was that there was a few central ideas that were pretty cool to think about. Note that I’m not saying that they were true or that they were good ideas. I’m only saying that, in the spirit of free thought, it was delightful to entertain them for a while and see where they led. It was just unfortunate that these ideas were largely supported by a network of superstition.
So I dropped the superstition, and at first the ideas seemed pretty flimsy. So I’ve been trying to work out if these ideas have any merit. I’m still thinking about most of them – my opinions aren’t fully formed. That’s one of the reasons I’m posting about them online. Good critical feedback is important.
I’ve been looking around. Daniel Dennett’s explanation of consciousness as the flow of executive control in the brain is brilliant. I love it! But the weird thing is that you can reconfigure some of the ideas I’ve been having – one of which is that the development of the kind of compassion I’m talking is important, others relating to the practical benefits of meditation practice – and they actually sit very nicely within Dennett’s maximally bland computational framework. Surprizingly well, in fact.
Bah! But I’m blathering.
Essentially, all I really wanted to point out was that Buddhism has some ideas that are worth thinking about, even if only so you can decide for yourself that they’re wrong.
If you’re interested in the idea of consciousness, you might also want to check out Timothy Wilson’s book Strangers to Ourselves. Wilson is providing an interesting journey through the adaptive unconscious. It is also a cautionary tale about what we cannot learn from introspection. I haven’t yet read Dennett but his book is on my list…
“Buddhism has some ideas that are worth thinking about, even if only so you can decide for yourself that they’re wrong.” (from #136). I agree: there are ideas and also techniques used within Buddhism (and other religions, actually) that might be worth thinking about and testing out. I just want to caution us from claiming that what we’re trying out is still Buddhism. This doesn’t make the ideas any less interesting but it keeps us from muddling back into religion (and I have yet to find a place that teaches meditation that does not let karma and reincarnation seep back into the discussions; Thich Nhat Hanh’s writing is probably the closest).
J: I hope this despicably vile creature lost what little credibility he had after maintaining in a recent thread that anyone who’s British (no matter how young) is “morally responsible” for the colonial acts of long-dead fellow countrymen. (He even called me “amoral scum” for disagreeing with him.)
Ah, the endless strawmen and lies. Of course, my point earlier was that British society has a current geopolitical advantage due to it’s imperial history, and therefore the current real economic and cultural advantage of British citizens over the denizens of the worlds backwater is due to historical crimes. Therefore, it’s a little tough to take credit for the advantages of the system without taking “credit” for the crimes that gave you those advantages. That’s what I called you amoral scum – for taking credit for things that are available to you, without taking “credit” for the crimes that created the context. You know, cake and eating it too.
Admit it: What he said was (typical of a politician) vague and full of room for weaseling out of whatever meaning you might impute to it. Unless you know something I don’t, there’s no way you can be so confident he meant “the country [needs] another terrorist attack to keep the Democrats out of office”.
Of course, then no statement can be interpreted, since any public statement outside of mathematics is multi-valent with many possible interpretation — when you don’t take the context into account. When you analyze a political statement, you have to consider that all reasonable interpretations are intended. You want to advance the claim that Rummy isn’t an expert in sending multi-level signals?
Since you are clearly well spoken, I assume that you understand that political statements are intended to have multiple interpretations, and that the practitioners of the art are masters at sending such messages. Therefore unless I have misjudged your intellectual capacity, you must be lying in an attempt to apologize for certain agendas by misrepresenting your position.
And J, please improve your vocabulary if you don’t want to be labelled a concern troll: Frog is a fundamentalist crackpot, just as totally out of it as any evangelical. See, this confusion of radicalism with fundamentalism is a common mistake in religious circles. I may arguably be a radical crackpot, or an extremist nutcase, or even a doctrinaire ideologue, but fundamentalism is a specific subset of ideological commitment – the belief in the literal and fundamental truth of sacred literature.
I know, I know, it’s tough when you’re trying to create false equivalences in an attempt to normalize certain positions.
I’ll look it up. I haven’t read Consciousness Explained yet – Dennett’s main book on consciousness – but there’s a really good article by Dennett online called ‘Are we explaining consciousness yet?’ Try and find a nicely-formatted version on google. If you can slog through the first half, the second half’s a really good read.
That last bit – keeps us from muddling back into religion – is actually a really good point.
Anyway, I’m meant to be working so I’d better get back to it. :P
That’s what I called you amoral scum – for taking credit for things that are available to you, without taking “credit” for the crimes that created the context. You know, cake and eating it too.
I haven’t a clue what you mean by “credit” — looks like content-free bullshit to me. At any rate, I think it’s quite clear from your posts that you were holding me “morally responsible” for the past deeds of my country (which you undeniably felt were somehow material to my ability to criticize Islam).
As I correctly predicted, you yet again branded me a liar. To quote Tolkein: “That word comes too oft and too easily from your lips.”
Of course, then no statement can be interpreted, since any public statement outside of mathematics is multi-valent with many possible interpretation — when you don’t take the context into account. When you analyze a political statement, you have to consider that all reasonable interpretations are intended. You want to advance the claim that Rummy isn’t an expert in sending multi-level signals?
Eh, what? One possible interpretation of a vague statement is X, therefore we should act as if the real meaning is X? What a laughably absurd idea.
…I assume that you understand that political statements are intended to have multiple interpretations, and that the practitioners of the art are masters at sending such messages.
I find it highly doubtful that Rumsfeld’s simple little comment was ingeiously Machiavellian and multi-layered. At least there’s no reason to assume that without good support.
The most basic explanation is that it was just a vague comment intended to warn people about the dangers of “low threat assessment”. You’re reading too far into it.
Thanks, Daniel! I’ll try to find Dennett’s article tomorrow. It’s time for me to go home ;-).
I find it highly doubtful that Rumsfeld’s simple little comment was ingeiously Machiavellian and multi-layered. At least there’s no reason to assume that without good support.
Let see… The same thing’s in Europe, there’s a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. You think that “I suppose” is just a slip of the tongue? That it’s not an intentional hedge to signal that Rummy understands that such an attack would give a political advantage, but that he’s not “hoping” for one? Can you not read English? Why do you think he said “suppose” — because he had never thought about it?
See, here’s the sign of your apologism. Where PZ is wrong is that Rummy did imply that another terrorist attack would be to his political parties advantage — but it’s not vile because it’s true! It’s a simple statement of fact that he hedges over, since he doesn’t want it explicitly on paper. I’d love to hear the audio, if it were to exist — I expect that the whole thing was filled with pregnant pauses.
See, if you had said that, it would have ended the conversation – but that wasn’t your goal, now was it? It’s not pretty to say that, but much more propagandistically useful to claim that things don’t mean what they appear to mean, or even more laughably that politicians don’t dog-whistle.
Really, you’re trying to claim that a high-ranking politician in a group discussion with notes which will eventually go public isn’t weighing every word he said, isn’t using language to it’s fullest extent, isn’t Machiavellian at every moment? It’s second nature for a successful politician — we’re not talking about Bob over at the convenience store after a couple of beers commenting on the war while playing PS3, we’re talking about Rummy attempting to direct his PR minions in the face of an overwhelming political defeat from the Democrats.
Really, do you think we’re stupid? Yes, yes, I know you think we’re stupid.
negentropyeater #87
Tiens ? Y cause français, le mangeur de néguentropie ? Sont intéressants, les américains, dans leur façon d’aborder l’athéisme, c’est rigolo. Ça castagne sec, dis-donc ! Faut dire que les créationistes/dessein-intelligentistes sont vraiment tarés. On verrait pas ça en France. En tous cas, moi, ça me fait plaisir de voir qu’il y a une communauté active d’athées, là-bas. Que Dieu les bénisse.
I’ve travelled in several parts of Asia and I can plainly see that popular Buddhism is thoroughly religious. Incense and rituals and bowing and holy water and blessings and and offerings and chants and saints and miracles and gods and heavens and hells; you’ve got the lot.
There are some good bits in the philosophy. I particularly like the stress on testing everything for yourself; not even Buddha himself is an infallible authority. And meditation seems to be a very helpful practice. You just shouldn’t kid yourself that a very highly refined western form of zen corresponds to any popular variety of Buddhism.
As to China and Tibet, well, you get your choice: seriously vicious feudalism, or the cultural revolution and genocide. Hard call. But I don’t think you can claim the Dalai Lama was culpable. The system, yes, but not the person. He was a child. Perhaps without his experience of exile and dispossession he might have grown up to be as cruel as any of the previous Lamas, but that didn’t happen.
Daniel R,
When you’re so far outside the concensus, the public assumptions and language, street theater is necessary. Historically it wasn’t like this — atheism was basically assumed among the educated until the seventies, but the right decided to become the champions of religion and fundamentalism as part of a political strategy that has completely changed the language of public discourse. If you’re curious, look-up the “Southern Strategy” of the Republican party.
The creationists aren’t idiots – they’re pandering to the ignorant, which is completely different. Their strategy is to yell loudly, and imply that their opponents are communist infiltrators. Some clowning is in order to push the limits back.
“Now I unplug myself from the intertubes for a few hours and focus, focus, focus on a pile of stuff most of you will never see.”
Are you talking about the dead bunnies on your doorstep?
frog #146
This is interesting. I didn’t know this, I have been interested in american atheism only since some months. Thanks.
I have made this comment before – but it needs to be said again.
I live in IL, and Obamma is my Senator. Back in the day, I emailed Obama and asked him to bitch-slap Rick Santorem for me (PA Sen (R) at the time) to get him to shut up, as he was prattling on about religion & ID. Obama himself, (pre-candidate Obama)not a staffer, emailed back that although he would not slap Santorem for me, he was all in favor of seperation of church and state.
So, Obama may be religious, but he AIN’T REPUBLICAN RELIGIOUS! Though I wish he weren’t religious at all, if we take him at his word, he is MUCH better than Clinton who appears to have sold her soul to organized religious DC-based thugs.
And of course, both are bettter than Johnny McSame.
From #146:
You see Evey, all the world’s a stage and everything else….. is vaudeville.
;-D
Something about Obama tells me he’s a skeptic, and leans toward agnosticism. I think (and hope) his professing Christianity is just an act.
Where Rumsfeld’s claimed statement is concerned I must ask this question. Where does one access the documents Attaturk makes reference to? I’d like some context here.
Alan, try following the links you’ll find in this article.
One of them will point here.
If anyone still thinks the American electorate is smart about anything, I have a few bridges to sell them. We seem to have achieved the “fat, dumb and happy” state of clueless unconcern (or inflated concern about trivialities) that inevitably precedes societal collapse.
As sad as it is, the Democrats may have to pander to these childish delusions just to get elected. This is a glaring defect of our form of democracy, however since it’s not fixable in the short term we might as well use it this time and try to fix it later. It’s fine to be noble and principled – when you can afford to be!
(Never thought I’d be saying this, either. John McCain is demonstrating the power of abandoning all principle just to get into office, and if he succeeds where will that leave *our* principles? For long-term survival perhaps natural selection is urging us to make an expedient ends-justify-means choice in this case.)
I left out the obvious reference to the “principled” Ralph Nader in 2000!