2007 May | Way of the Mind

Monthly Archive for May, 2007

"Circular Logic R Us"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 31, 2007

in bible, christianity and logic

. 59 Comments

Bible

Isn’t it annoying when Christians use the Bible as “proof” that God exists?

Yesterday, I had to delete several comments here, all from the same guy. They were long and obviously written long before, totally unrelated to the posts they appeared on, and most of them were quotes from the Bible, including, repeated several times, a bit from a psalm: “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”" Obviously, that was supposed to convince me, and any other atheists, that we’re being utter fools by disbelieving God… since the Bible says only fools do so!

Christians, if you don’t see the problem with that “logic”, anything I say will probably fall on deaf ears anyway… but, please, think just a little about it.

Suppose I write a book tomorrow, and in that book I write that I am God. Would you believe it, because that book says I’m God, and, so, since I wrote it, that book is the word of God, and therefore it must be true?

I’m sure you won’t. “A says B is true, and B says A is true, which proves both are true” is circular logic, and it doesn’t work.

Well, it’s exactly the same thing with your book. We think of it as you think of the Qur’an: not a reliable source. Do you believe Muhammad’s claims are true just because the Qur’an — which he wrote — says so?

Anyone (who is literate, that is) can write a book. And, sorry to say, yours isn’t special.

Creationism / ID and Evolution

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 29, 2007

in christianity, creationism, evolution, religion and science

. 19 Comments

I’ve recently read a comment, and a reply to another comment, in Slashdot, in the “Creation Museum opens” thread. I think both are brilliant. I won’t quote them in full here, but I’d recommend their reading to anyone.

From the initial comment:

I’ve noticed that many slashdot articles about evolution seem to attract a sizeable number of creationists. Because of this, I’ve decided to address the serious (i.e. non-trolling) creationists that frequent slashdot in the hope that I can prevent you from making the same easily avoided mistakes that make so many of your brethren sound like ignorant cretins. Here are some common arguments that creationists use, and why I think that you shouldn’t use them… unless of course you want to be ridiculed. Note: this is by no means a comprehensive list.

(1) “Evolution is just a THEORY”

This is the most common (and the most disappointing) creationist argument I hear on a regular basis. While it’s true that evolution is a theory, this statement is made in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution by implying that evolution is akin to a wild guess that scientists came up with after a night of heavy drinking. Newsflash: it’s not going to work. Most educated people understand that you’re confusing the word “theory” (which means an explanation or model that is capable of predicting future events) with the word “hypothesis” (which means an educated guess). Calling evolution a “theory” isn’t an insult. For the millionth time, I will repeat this: gravity is also “just” a theory (for example, google the “General Theory of Relativity”). I might even add that most scientists would consider evolution to be a better-supported theory than gravity, because of the fact that gravity cannot (currently) be quantized, despite decades of attempts. If you want to debate evolution, fine- but don’t play these childish word games.

Of course, it goes on. Really, read it.

And from his reply, to another user who suggested he participate in a public debate about evolution / creationism:

(2) Creationists often make statements like “Evolution can’t produce new information in a genome” or “We don’t know how old the earth is because carbon dating isn’t useful on large timescales and we don’t know the initial amounts of isotopes and polonium halos disprove old ages anyway”. Answering each one of these statements would require hours of boring, dry lecturing- something that simply isn’t going to happen. And the problem is that creationists don’t just make one of these statements, they make DOZENS of them. Answering this kind of deluge of mis-information in such a way that it can be intelligible to the average person would take an unbelievably long amount of time. As such, even answering questions from the crowd can be a tricky business. How do you explain isochronology and radioactive dating methods in 2 minutes to a young earth creationist? I can barely explain it to a fellow scientist in less than 15 minutes. Now imagine someone standing up and asking two or three of these questions in rapid fire mode, and ridiculing you for not having a snappy answer. This kind of public failure would not look good.

Again, follow the two links and read the entire comments. The first one is “print out and give to friends and family” material, and the second explains the frustration of discussing science with non-scientists to whom “quick, easy answers” (such as “God did it”) often sound a lot better than the inevitably more complex truth.

Towel Day

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 25, 2007

in atheism and humor

. 2 Comments

Douglas Adams

May 25 (today, that is) is Towel Day. I don’t have one with me right now (though I’ve used a couple during the day ), but, since we’re honoring the great, late Douglas Adams, I want to show you his interview with American Atheists (mentioned, incidentally, in one of this blog’s earliest posts, almost 2 years ago). Douglas Adams’ interview is as brilliant as it was years ago — and the world is less fun (both in the humorous, and in the adventurous sense) without that guy in it.

Thinking about a guy like this makes me wish there was some kind of afterlife, since I’d give anything to ever talk to the man. Unfortunately, wishing doesn’t make it so… and accepting that is what makes us adults instead of children.

It’s been some years, but… So long, Douglas, and thanks for all the fish.

Pro-Forced Maternity

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 25, 2007

in definitions, freedom, morality, religion and society

. 51 Comments

A little more than a year ago, I wrote a post called “Letting the Bad Guys Name Things“, warning about an increasingly common tactic: name something bad after something uncontestably positive, and your opponents will be reticent to speak against it, even if they realize how badly named it is. For instance, pass a law removing freedoms from people, but call it “Freedom Something”, and everyone will stay silent, because nobody want to be seen as “anti-freedom”. A well-known example is the Patriot Act.

But this post is about another one: “pro-life”. It’s a misleading label, of course, since what they are really about is banning sex outside of marriage, for religious reasons. (Either that, or they haven’t really thought about it, and just go with what feels good: “we’re saving lives!”). Still, it’s a well-chosen one (in marketing terms). After all, who wants to be seen as “anti-life”? That sounds almost like a murderer, or something…

The “antidote” to this problem is to refuse to use their misleading terms, and, instead, call things what they really are. I could give many examples here about the Bush administration, the “war on terror”, the invasion of Iraq, the fact that abortion clinic bombers aren’t called “Christian terrorists”, and so on. But what this post is really about is a term the author of No More Hornets came up with: Pro-Forced Maternity.

I believe this term is infinitely more honest and accurate than “pro-life”. It’s describes what they really want, what they really are about. Not “life”, but control. To force others. And, so, I think we atheists / humanists / secularists ought to spread it. Refuse to use their misleading terms, and describe things as they really are.

So, please, if you agree with this, help spreading the word. Write / blog about this, start using “pro-forced maternity” in conversations, and correct others when they use the common, misleading term (much like the Patriot Act isn’t really about “patriotism”). If this ever reaches the mainstream media (which is perfectly possible), even if they try to “denounce” it as evil secularist propaganda, it could make a lot of people think about this for the first time, and see the ~~“pro-lifers”~~ pro-forced maternity people for what they really are: anti-life, and anti-individual freedom.

Asimov, Atheism, and Death

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 25, 2007

in atheism and quotes

. 3 Comments

Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.

– Isaac Asimov

Falwell’s death, and "respect for the dead"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 22, 2007

in christianity and fanaticism

. 14 Comments

(Warning: this post is a little more emotional than the norm here.)

Most atheist blogs, plus Christopher Hitchens on TV, have, naturally, denounced Falwell as the hateful bigot he was, instead of “a great man”, like most religious right conservatives keep parroting. The backlash from the latter has been seen, too: whether on TV against Hitchens (again), or in comments on atheist blogs, many people keep saying things like: “you might have disagreed with the man, but he’s just DIED, dammit. How can you be happy about it, you heartless monster? No matter what he did, his family and friends surely miss him. You atheists are really unfeeling, cruel monsters, speaking ill of a decent man, simply because you disagreed with him.”

It’s the old “dying turns people into saints” thing.

Let me see if I can make you at least begin to understand.

Now, I’m not saying Falwell was a child molester, but imagine — just pretend — that it was actually a well-known child molester¹ who’d just died.

Would you, perchance, be saying things like:

- “yes, he did some bad things, but his death is still a loss to the world.”

- “you’ve got to consider the feelings of his family and friends first.”

- “he might have been wrong about a couple of things, but the main thing is that he was always true to his convictions, to the end.”

- “if you speak ill of him — even if you were one of his victims — you are still a heartless, hateful monster. The man’s died, dammit!”

Now… would you say such a thing about a child molester? Just because he died? Would he turn into a good, decent man, just because he is no more, he’s ceased to be, he’s expired and gone to meet his maker, he is a late child molester², and all that?

The answer is probably no.

Now, what if, in addition to being a child molester, he had also been a reverend? Would you think differently of him?

If so, sorry to say, you’re both naïve, and a hypocrite, because you let anyone fool you, no matter his actions, just because he says “God” and “Jesus” often. Which, actually, is what many Americans do, sadly.

Now, as I said, Falwell wasn’t a child molester. But he did what he could, he did everything in his power — and succeeded, in many ways — to make life a living hell for many, many more innocent people than any child molester could ever victimize in his entire natural life. Falwell was a bigot. An agent of hate, of intolerance, of sexism, racism³, homophobia and fundamentalism. He spent his more than 70 years trying to make the world a worse place, trying to make life worse for a great number of people. It was not enough for him to hate them because of his bigotry; no, he had to convince half of America that the imaginary God they believe in also hated those people.

Is that forgivable? Or forgettable? Just because he died? Does death really turn a hateful monster into a saint, or at least a “harmless”, “worthy of respect” human being?

I don’t think so. People shouldn’t forget or forgive what this disgusting little man did, because there are others waiting in line to take his place this very moment. The battle against fundamentalism and intolerance is far from over… and far from won.

avoided Godwin’s Law! Yes! [↩]
couldn’t resist a Monty Python reference here. Sorry. [↩]
yes, that too. He opposed the civil rights movement at the time, though he tried to hide that fact much later. [↩]

Why does this remind me of Jerry Falwell?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 21, 2007

in christianity, fanaticism, quotes and religion

. 2 Comments

You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

– Anne Lamott

Heliocentrism = Atheism / Anti-American? Gee…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 20, 2007

in bible, christianity, fanaticism and religion

. 4 Comments

Like several other bloggers, I wonder if this post on Blogs 4 Brownback, Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine, is a joke. On one hand, it is quite well written in terms of language, and of course the premise is ridiculous, which suggests that this is a new Shelley the Republican. It can also serve as a exaggerated parody of anti-evolution propaganda: a total disregard for facts and reality, because the Bible says differently.

On the other hand, the fact that it’s on a quasi-official blog for a presidential candidate makes it appear serious. Frighteningly so.

If you think about it, however, then you’ll realize one thing: if that is for real, then the author is not doing anything other than being coherent with his own beliefs… because, according to the Bible, the earth really does not move. Why accept biblical infallibility for some things and nor for others? Why use the Bible as an argument against evolution (because many people don’t understand how it works, and don’t know that “theory”, in scientific terms, means something quite different than some wild fancy), but not heliocentrism or a round earth, which are accepted by virtually everyone these days? Where do you draw the line? And why draw one at all?

Either the Bible can be trusted, or not. I obviously think it can’t, but, to most Christians — especially fundamentalist ones –, it can. So why be selective? Would God ever lie? If it says that the earth is flat, then it must be… and, taken to the extreme, if a Christian was taken on a rocket ship and made to look at the earth from space, he’d deny the truth of what he was seeing as “an illusion from Satan”. Or “an illusion from God, to test our faith” (they actually say this one about fossils). Because, to quote Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Fundies. Who else can make us laugh and frighten us at the same time?

Unbecoming Levity: "Why I am an atheist"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 19, 2007

in atheism, christianity and religion

. 1 Comment

From Unbecoming Levity, incidentally one of the most recent members of Planet Atheism, comes a brilliant — and beautiful — post, Why I am an atheist.

As deconversion stories go, this is one of the most enlightening I’ve seen, and, while the specifics are different, some parts almost echo my own experience. The following, for instance, could apply perfectly to me:

It became clear that God is a product of man, and he still exists as a go-to for those questions that still are not answered and to comfort us. Through a god and afterlife, we are eternal, our consciousness the manifestation of an immortal spirit that will rejoin its loved ones who have passed on before when we die. The God hypothesis makes us live forever. And further, it addresses the common lament that life is not fair, God will mete out justice. If an awful, evil man becomes powerful and lives a long happy life hurting others, we can take solace that after death, he will be brought to account for his transgressions. The God hypothesis makes life fair. This is why the God hypothesis exists–to make us feel better. It is a comforting idea, in my opinion. But that doesn’t make it true.

Really, go read it. You won’t regret it. And send the link to any theist (but inquiring) friends you happen to have.

Jerry Falwell dies

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 15, 2007

in christianity, current events, fanaticism and religion

. 3 Comments

As I’ve just read in A Load of Bright, the man who once said:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

about 9/11, and:

AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.

is dead.

My feelings about this? The world is better off without him. I’m sorry if this offends anyone; apparently, someone recently dead is always to be “revered”. But I’ll save my compassion for those who deserve it, for those who actually try to make the world a better place, instead of a worse one.

Still, while I believe that Falwell was (much like Robertson, Dobson, Jack Thompson, and others) a disgusting human being, and a source of fundamentalism, intolerance and bigotry, I won’t actually cheer his death. Unlike what his followers believe, I’m convinced that this life is “it”, and, far from making our lives pointless, it makes them precious.

Besides, there are surely many waiting to take his place, and they will always have power, as long as there are people who want to be free from the responsability of thinking and deciding for themselves, who can’t deal with their lives and so need to believe that “hey, this is not the real thing, this is just a test,” and who want to be told that their own prejudices and bigotry are actually “moral” and “holy”, because, hey, the big guy in the sky hates all of ‘em too.

What will make the world a better place is not the death of the Jerry Falwells of the world, but, instead, the loss of their power and influence, because people begin to actually think for themselves. People shouldn’t be “good” simply because there is no charismatic bigot currently inciting them, but because they see those bigots for what they really are, and want nothing to do with them.

Who’s your ideal 2008 presidential candidate?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 12, 2007

in politics

. 2 Comments

I’m not American, so I won’t be voting, of course, but nothing prevents me from taking the test anyway. So here are my results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (78%)
3. Barack Obama (75%)
4. Al Gore (71%)
5. Wesley Clark (69%)
6. Joseph Biden (68%)
7. Hillary Clinton (67%)
8. Christopher Dodd (65%)
9. John Edwards (62%)
10. Kent McManigal (61%)
11. Ron Paul (59%)
12. Bill Richardson (59%)
13. Mike Gravel (53%)
14. John McCain (46%)
15. Rudolph Giuliani (46%)
16. Chuck Hagel (35%)
17. Mitt Romney (35%)
18. Newt Gingrich (32%)
19. Elaine Brown (30%)
20. Tommy Thompson (26%)
21. Fred Thompson (24%)
22. Sam Brownback (22%)
23. Mike Huckabee (22%)
24. Tom Tancredo (19%)
25. Jim Gilmore (14%)
26. Duncan Hunter (12%)

Source: 2008 Presidential Candidate Selector

Pity that none of the questions are about their position on the separation of church and state… to me, that’s more important than many of the ones available.

Orcish wisdom: "I do not know."

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 9, 2007

in quotes, reason, religion and science

. 7 Comments

The beginning of wisdom is the statement “I do not know.” The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything. And I have prided myself on my ability to learn.

– Thrall (from the Warcraft series)¹

A common argument by theists is this: the universe exists. It couldn’t have appeared out of nothing, so there must be a creator. That is, God.

However, we used to be equally sure about the divine origins of, say, the weather. Storms? It was obvious that the gods were angry, or fighting among themselves. But now we know better. We may not know everything, but a lot of it has been successfully explained by science… and, guess what, it’s all natural, so far. No divine intervention required.

Science has been widely successful. It has moved us from the cave to the hut to the skyscraper, more than doubled our life expectancy, and explained a lot of phenomena — once attributed to gods or demons — as natural. But it is not perfect. And it “knows” it. It is always prepared to discard an hypothesis when it comes up with new data that contradicts it. While some would accuse science of “flip-flopping”, of not providing us with absolute, final certainties, that is actually the best thing about science: it’s about understanding reality, but it’s reality itself that is “in charge”, and no scientific hypothesis, or even scientific theory (which is something a lot stronger — tested against available evidence, peer-reviewed, etc. — than what the word “theory” suggests in common language: merely an idea or wild fancy, as in “I have a theory…”), is ever set in stone.

In short, science is capable of saying “I do not know.”

In the opposite corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have religion. Religion doesn’t know the words “I don’t know;” it replaces them with “God did it.” Both in primitive times, when little was known of the workings of the world, and now, religion always claims to have a perfect, complete answer to everything. “God did it.” How? “Who knows? God works in mysterious ways. No need to understand; just have faith.”

What is the origin of the universe? God. How did life appear? God. Where does mankind come from? God. What is the source of morality? God. What happens to us after we die? God.

“God”, as an answer to a question, is nothing more than the fear of saying “I do not know”, even to oneself. Apparently, such an honest admission is scary to many theists; it is much more comfortable to cease all questioning, stop any investigating, turn your mind off, and say “God did it. That’s good enough for me.”

Good thing it wasn’t “good enough” for many people throughout history, or we would still be living in caves, huddled in the dark, afraid of terrible demons and unknowable gods. We don’t live like that anymore, however, all because some people were honest and brave enough to say “I do not know”… and then went and did something about it: they began to learn.