Nothing more needs saying about this :-
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm
Amazing. I really do think that as religiousness increases, sense of humour often drops away... I wonder what you'd call the point where the two lines cross? Suggestions on a postcard.
Read the review though. On a more serious note one cannot help raise an eyebrow at phrases like this :-
"Many of the children seemed to be laughing because their fathers expected them to laugh, looking up at their fathers, laughing nervously and loudly just so dad would know they were laughing along with him, not likely knowing at what it was they were laughing half the time. As long as dad was laughing. That was reason enough."
Now let me write my version based on another place one can go and be part of an audience.
"Many of the children seemed to be praying because their fathers expected them to pray, looking up at their fathers, worshiping nervously just so dad would know they were praying along with him, not likely knowing what it was they were praying to half the time. As long as dad was praying. That was reason enough.
Capiche?
I find it absolutely amazing that a religious person could have written that and not seen the pot/kettleness of it. Of course the whole site could be a spoof, but it looks too big to fall into that category....
Monday, 24 November 2008
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Abortion in unusual circumstances.
This morning I read of yet another important life decision for at least four people being made based on nothing beyond faith. A young mum and not so young father have concieved conjoined (otherwise known as siamese) twins. Asked about the question of abortion it seems that religion played a part. Of course I hope that they survive to have long and happy lives.... But statistically that's pretty unlikely.
The first article on the subject I came across :
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/11/23/welshman-will-be-dad-to-siamese-twins-91466-22319266/
It seems that yet again, a religious influence has valued any lives (even ones that are likely to be of poor quality) above no life at all. It reminds me of a quote by the Nobel prize winning physicist, Stephen Weinberg :-
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
And this is evidently a probable case in point. The parents of these kids are no doubt nice, honorable decent people, and yet they have decided to allow the pregnancy to go ahead despite medical advice, based on nothing more than religious convictions - perhaps not even *their* religious convictions.
NOTE : I *hope* I am proved wrong. Really. I do. It would please me immensely to hear in a few years that these twins had been successfully separated and were leading great lives.
The first article on the subject I came across :
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/11/23/welshman-will-be-dad-to-siamese-twins-91466-22319266/
It seems that yet again, a religious influence has valued any lives (even ones that are likely to be of poor quality) above no life at all. It reminds me of a quote by the Nobel prize winning physicist, Stephen Weinberg :-
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
And this is evidently a probable case in point. The parents of these kids are no doubt nice, honorable decent people, and yet they have decided to allow the pregnancy to go ahead despite medical advice, based on nothing more than religious convictions - perhaps not even *their* religious convictions.
NOTE : I *hope* I am proved wrong. Really. I do. It would please me immensely to hear in a few years that these twins had been successfully separated and were leading great lives.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
What do creationists actually believe?
...or rather, What does a typical evangelical Christian creationist (intelligent and discerning in most other ways) actually believe?
As the Bush regime begins the process of becoming part of American political history most of us will hope the influence of American creationists will similarly be consigned to the past. Or at least creationist advocates will have smaller influence upon science education policy both in America, Europe and elswhere. But perhaps this hope is misplaced: we've only recently been reminded that creation myths are not the preserve of the Christian faith suggesting as long as the myths perpetuate themselevse they will sporn rhetoricians and polemicists in support. Or is that the other way round? Either way this is clearly a tired political inevitability of which we haven't heard the last.
But beyond the big political and social questions, how do individual believers justify creationism over the long run (with the overhelming evidence and expert consensus against them)? Do they simply put their fingers in their ears intoning "I can't hear you. God did it. Seven days. Tree of knowledge. Talking snakes. Free will --> temptation --> the fall man"? Well, no. Some might, but those who sense the inadequcy of just ignoring mainstream science will go looking for better reassurances than this. Enter the gothic imaginings of 'Creation Science'.
A recent exchange with a (sincere and undoubtedly intelligent) creationist prompted an attempted traversing on my part of the peculiar intellectual terrain well troden by creationists who've been busy at the business end of advocacy over the years. Yes, that's right, the immortal Dwaine "T" Gish of Googlewhack fame as the 'authority' on fossils and Henry Morris, the father of this curious discipline. Much has already been said about these characters and indeed the last time an academic offered something approaching a full critique in the 80s, the main points were well covered. For those already up to speed or uninterested, skip the next paragraph ;)
In a nutshell: the "case for" creationism is really an attempted critique of the theory of evolution, with extra helpings of myopia. First off, the earth is not 4.5b years old, but rather 10k. All conventional dating methods use flawed assumptions (i.e. rates of atomic decay in rocks and the speed of light through the cosmos are not more or less constant but have fluctuated wildly in the past). The fossil record is layered with organism complexity increasing through higher and higher strata, but this is evidence for a Biblical Flood because larger animals would have survived the deluge longer and were thus buried last. (There's more on this - don't ask!). There are appeals to everything from the principals of entropy to the alleged collapse of morality that ensues at societal level when 'evolutionism' (as they call it) becomes the dominant mode. Superficalliy pursasive to the naive and less-able. Polemical, dishonest and damaging in reality.
Much of this is familiar. But what I hadn't realised was the extent to which they've attempted to cover every angle. How do creationists respond to the charge that the overwhelming expert consensus regarding the history of planet earth is against them? Every trick in the book is used from the mis-reading of Kuhn to emotional blackmail. Even mutually contradictory strategies are pursued. Apparently "there isn't an overwhelming consensus". They usually announce this on the back of some heavy duty quote-ripping. (In a parody of the statement signed by several dozen nobel laureates on the essential facts of evolutionary theory, the Institute of Creation Research publishes the names of 20 scientists who converted to their cause (no matter that 15 of these held PhDs in engineering, food-science and educational practice)). But as this credential-mongering is offered with one hand, the other offers the conflicting theory that science is a closed shop and that anyone with evidence which would undermine evolutionary theory is ignored. The first tactic is disengenius, the second downright and demonstratively dishonest. To claim that both are simultaneously true enters 'square-circle' territory.
The strange thing about all this is that intelligent people are ever taken in by it. The reasons for for this will be many. Perhaps religious belief is compartmentalised and favoured when conflicts arise. Then again personal histories are complex. Etc. But there is one particularly ironic possibility I hadn't considered until only recently. Higher intellegence and greater mental farsightedness might actually lead someone towards creationism, if the will is strong enogh. Once irrevocably committed to Christian doctrine, the moderate and the extremist take different paths when it comes to whether or not the first part of the book of Genisis should be read literally. The moderate assumes that the apparent disconnect between the all-loving/all-powerful god on the one hand and the brutality and suffering of nature red-in-tooth-and-claw on the other can somehow be reconciled through deep theological cognition. The soon-to-be-'extremest', seeing that this is folly and that the pitiless indifference of human biological history can't be squared with their conception of god, rejects the science on foundational and technical issues which can be argued in perpetuity. This leaves their faith undamaged by modern philosophy, which, they may now comfort themselves, is premised on a false science. This mental agility, performed early on in life, is not required of the moderate. I should say however, this will only ever apply in a minority of cases. But interesting cases they are!
I think I've said enough on this for now. Sorry for the long post. And remember:
Knowledge Apples --> Talking Snakes --> The Fall of Man! ;)
As the Bush regime begins the process of becoming part of American political history most of us will hope the influence of American creationists will similarly be consigned to the past. Or at least creationist advocates will have smaller influence upon science education policy both in America, Europe and elswhere. But perhaps this hope is misplaced: we've only recently been reminded that creation myths are not the preserve of the Christian faith suggesting as long as the myths perpetuate themselevse they will sporn rhetoricians and polemicists in support. Or is that the other way round? Either way this is clearly a tired political inevitability of which we haven't heard the last.
But beyond the big political and social questions, how do individual believers justify creationism over the long run (with the overhelming evidence and expert consensus against them)? Do they simply put their fingers in their ears intoning "I can't hear you. God did it. Seven days. Tree of knowledge. Talking snakes. Free will --> temptation --> the fall man"? Well, no. Some might, but those who sense the inadequcy of just ignoring mainstream science will go looking for better reassurances than this. Enter the gothic imaginings of 'Creation Science'.
A recent exchange with a (sincere and undoubtedly intelligent) creationist prompted an attempted traversing on my part of the peculiar intellectual terrain well troden by creationists who've been busy at the business end of advocacy over the years. Yes, that's right, the immortal Dwaine "T" Gish of Googlewhack fame as the 'authority' on fossils and Henry Morris, the father of this curious discipline. Much has already been said about these characters and indeed the last time an academic offered something approaching a full critique in the 80s, the main points were well covered. For those already up to speed or uninterested, skip the next paragraph ;)
In a nutshell: the "case for" creationism is really an attempted critique of the theory of evolution, with extra helpings of myopia. First off, the earth is not 4.5b years old, but rather 10k. All conventional dating methods use flawed assumptions (i.e. rates of atomic decay in rocks and the speed of light through the cosmos are not more or less constant but have fluctuated wildly in the past). The fossil record is layered with organism complexity increasing through higher and higher strata, but this is evidence for a Biblical Flood because larger animals would have survived the deluge longer and were thus buried last. (There's more on this - don't ask!). There are appeals to everything from the principals of entropy to the alleged collapse of morality that ensues at societal level when 'evolutionism' (as they call it) becomes the dominant mode. Superficalliy pursasive to the naive and less-able. Polemical, dishonest and damaging in reality.
Much of this is familiar. But what I hadn't realised was the extent to which they've attempted to cover every angle. How do creationists respond to the charge that the overwhelming expert consensus regarding the history of planet earth is against them? Every trick in the book is used from the mis-reading of Kuhn to emotional blackmail. Even mutually contradictory strategies are pursued. Apparently "there isn't an overwhelming consensus". They usually announce this on the back of some heavy duty quote-ripping. (In a parody of the statement signed by several dozen nobel laureates on the essential facts of evolutionary theory, the Institute of Creation Research publishes the names of 20 scientists who converted to their cause (no matter that 15 of these held PhDs in engineering, food-science and educational practice)). But as this credential-mongering is offered with one hand, the other offers the conflicting theory that science is a closed shop and that anyone with evidence which would undermine evolutionary theory is ignored. The first tactic is disengenius, the second downright and demonstratively dishonest. To claim that both are simultaneously true enters 'square-circle' territory.
The strange thing about all this is that intelligent people are ever taken in by it. The reasons for for this will be many. Perhaps religious belief is compartmentalised and favoured when conflicts arise. Then again personal histories are complex. Etc. But there is one particularly ironic possibility I hadn't considered until only recently. Higher intellegence and greater mental farsightedness might actually lead someone towards creationism, if the will is strong enogh. Once irrevocably committed to Christian doctrine, the moderate and the extremist take different paths when it comes to whether or not the first part of the book of Genisis should be read literally. The moderate assumes that the apparent disconnect between the all-loving/all-powerful god on the one hand and the brutality and suffering of nature red-in-tooth-and-claw on the other can somehow be reconciled through deep theological cognition. The soon-to-be-'extremest', seeing that this is folly and that the pitiless indifference of human biological history can't be squared with their conception of god, rejects the science on foundational and technical issues which can be argued in perpetuity. This leaves their faith undamaged by modern philosophy, which, they may now comfort themselves, is premised on a false science. This mental agility, performed early on in life, is not required of the moderate. I should say however, this will only ever apply in a minority of cases. But interesting cases they are!
I think I've said enough on this for now. Sorry for the long post. And remember:
Knowledge Apples --> Talking Snakes --> The Fall of Man! ;)
Friday, 7 November 2008
Creationism and ID
An interesting picking apart by the Guardian of a recent survey of teachers about Creationism, ID and Evolution. Initially the survey looks bleak, but all may not be as it seems. Of course this will not stop those who wish ID/Creationism to be taught using the survey as though it were scientific, but then how different is that from the (invalid) argument that ID/Creationism is itself scientific?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/nov/07/evolution-education
Secondly, and more lightheartedly, my car got some new jewellery today, thanks to a birthday present from my girlfriend. I like to imagine those with Christian fish on their cars pulling up behind me in a traffic jam see my fish and say "ah" (thinking I am one of them), then a rather less happy "what the?..."
This may, of course, never happen... But it would be nice to think that some rationalists, or just undecideds spotted it and had a tiny moment of mirth.
Have a great weekend.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/nov/07/evolution-education
Secondly, and more lightheartedly, my car got some new jewellery today, thanks to a birthday present from my girlfriend. I like to imagine those with Christian fish on their cars pulling up behind me in a traffic jam see my fish and say "ah" (thinking I am one of them), then a rather less happy "what the?..."This may, of course, never happen... But it would be nice to think that some rationalists, or just undecideds spotted it and had a tiny moment of mirth.
Have a great weekend.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Barack Obama on Religion
Although Obama is clearly a believer (I do think he is telling the truth, contrary to some commentators) it seems he isn't part of the loony fundie set in America. He appears to be able to divide his own personal beliefs from religion in public policy. I am not sure the Obama campaign has heavily promoted the following video (as in parts it's surprisingly candid, and may be disagreeable to a vocal part of the American electorate)... But, IF Obama wins, I am doubtful we will hear any of of the sort of "my foreign policy is guided by God" type quotes for the next four years.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE
It ALSO put me in mind of part of a West Wing episode, where the president ruins the day of a fundamentalist christian radio host..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU
Of course both are to some extent rehashes of the email that did the rounds some years ago, called the "Dr Laura" email. Note the Westwing query over her doctorate... Hard not to see who they were parodying in the episode! Here's the snopes page about the email. Some of it is pretty funny if you've not seen it before :
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
And just for shits and giggles, here's Christian Voice's helpful answers to the Doctor Laura email for your entertainment :
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/laura.html
Peace...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE
It ALSO put me in mind of part of a West Wing episode, where the president ruins the day of a fundamentalist christian radio host..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU
Of course both are to some extent rehashes of the email that did the rounds some years ago, called the "Dr Laura" email. Note the Westwing query over her doctorate... Hard not to see who they were parodying in the episode! Here's the snopes page about the email. Some of it is pretty funny if you've not seen it before :
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
And just for shits and giggles, here's Christian Voice's helpful answers to the Doctor Laura email for your entertainment :
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/laura.html
Peace...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)