A few links

2007 in review for secular humanists.

This didn't surprise me much, given my experience with Todd Friel. And FYI, it's the latter, Todd.

Another unsurprising news item: Ron Paul is from Texas and is a...drum roll please...CREATIONIST.

Obama's holiday ad

Compare poor Rudy's fruitcake ad to Obama's holiday ad:

Poor Rudy

lolz

And nothing screams Republican Presidential nominee like a dude in a sweater vest lisping the words "fruit cake!" (Swampblog)

Alter on Krugman

Krugman has complained about Obama's insistence on having all the players at the table to talk about healthcare, implying that Obama is naive about politics and that this will not accomplish much of anything. I've been a bit reluctant to take sides on the Obama-Krugman spats, as I respect both men. I think Jonathan Alter makes a strong argument supporting Obama's approach to politics:

FDR's third-term success, dominated by World II, was dependent on his unifying the country.

Similarly, Woodrow Wilson's big legislative triumphs over entrenched interests in 1913 (for example, an income tax), Lyndon Johnson's in 1965 (Medicare and the Voting Rights Act) and Bill Clinton's in 1993 (painful tax increases) were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message.

Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul.

An important reason to support Obama

A little dated, but important to clarify why I lean strongly towards Obama over Hillary and Edwards:

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

There is no substitute for absolute public campaign financing to truly "reform" Washington -- blocking donations from all private sources: corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists...I think Obama is one of the very few people who may even consider moving the country in that direction. Unfortunately, it is quite unlikely that Congress will go along -- they're too mired in money.

Just one thing

I know I've been writing a lot more on politics lately than I used to. In part, this is because I got burnt out on the boilerplate atheist issues. In part, it's because I've been imparted with passion to see the GOP lose every possible seat in both Houses and the Executive by the seemingly-endless trail of corruption and evil policies.

I do have a motive in writing, though, about stories like this one: it seems that very few people really understand what is going on behind the scenes in Congress, and the low approval rating is likely a direct result of GOP obstructionism. They've set the historic record for the number of procedural blocks of legislation and in half the time usually required to do so.

It's just unbelievable. Stories like these don't get aired out by the mainstream media, so I feel an impetus to share them once I read them. And I just hope that some of the readers that check in here from time to time will find them 'newsworthy' enough to share with family & friends when the occasion arises.

"Intelligent Design not a true science"

As I recently mentioned, the Alligator's archives are screwed up and a great many links are broken from publications that I or Gator Freethought have gotten in the newspaper. As a result, I'm reposting as many of these as I have the time and ability to, just to preserve and provide an electronic copy of the documents. Below is the first thing I ever submitted to a newspaper in my life, and it got in. After that, I guess it got a little addictive.

Intelligent Design not a true science
by Daniel Morgan
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050826column2.php
published 8/26/2005

In response to Eric Wang's well-written, but somewhat shortsighted column, he cries foul that, "...there is not a marketplace of competing ideas in our public schools today, but only a monopoly of evolutionary theory." Today is the result of 2000+ years of competing ideas. Aristotle and Plato argued that nature, especially living things, showed "final causes" in their apparent design. Today, ID activists claim the same—that nature shows “the evidence of design”. Empedocles, among others, argued that change could occur in organisms to allow adaptation, giving the appearance of design. Darwin argued 150 years ago the same.

The crux of the issue is whether or not a force or "Designer" moves us towards a presumed goal, teleologically. The error in Wang's thinking is that science has, or can, reject or accept this philosophical notion. How? It can, and does, subject the premise of change and adaptation, both of which are natural phenomena, to its method of inquiry. Science is by definition methodological naturalism, and as such posits, tests, and questions only physical and natural phenomena. Science is limited in scope (and "on purpose") to questions of natural philosophy, not whether or not a "Designer" had it all in mind, or whether or not this "Designer" exists. It ignores the question because science is constrained to natural explanation of natural phenomena.

So now the question remains—can science empirically detect God’s fingerprints? Is it possible, without arguing from incredulity, to know scientifically, rather than “by faith” if “designed”? What is the a priori, natural evidence of supernatural creation/design? How does one distinguish ignorance of natural phenomena from knowledge of supernatural phenomena? Is it possible to scientifically argue for Design without arguing from incredulity? For hundreds of years, gaps in knowledge were filled with “God did it”. Now they are being filled with “Designer did it”. Has science proven either one philosophically wrong, or simply shown us that the mechanism by which posited Designers work is inextricable from the natural universe, and that the this universe and its natural laws is all that science can and will comment upon?

So in short, science describes a natural process, known as "descent with modification". If we want to teach science, we teach natural mechanisms and processes, without invoking supernatural causes. If we want to teach anything else, Wang and others had better realize we may no longer honestly call it “science”, but must admit we have moved into metaphysics, philosophy, or theology. Is there a “monopoly” of thought, or is science the one way of rationally, and objectively, viewing our natural universe? Why did the Kansas board consider redefining science itself into one of these latter three? Is it the job of our state, or of families, to lay the foundation for those?

If I get a new link for the Alligator's archive of this, I'll update it.

Gator Freethought media coverage

The following list compiles some of Gator Freethought's media records -- from LTEs, incidental mentions of the group's activities, to interviews with our members on radio shows and full-blown newspaper articles on the group and its activities. We feel that making our voices heard in local media is extremely important to the goals and purposes of our group. This post will be updated as needed.

Because The Alligator's website underwent a great deal of revision, many of the old links to articles there are dead, and the archives are not yet working that far back. According to the editors, it may be a very long time for the pages to be updated. Thus, I decided to go in to my cached versions of these pages & articles (thank you Google Desktop) and paste the text into posts on this site, then provide additional links below so readers may enjoy the publications.

1. Alligator LTE: Without a preacher, students are condemned, by Ryan H, 9/28/07 (about Joey Johnsen's departure from UF)
   


2. Alligator LTE: Religious frat lawsuit not pious, by Daniel M, 7/12/07


3. Chicago Reader: article on Hemant Mehta, "The Atheist Who Went to Church" - he gives us props in a brief mention in paragraph 11, "...He likes the University of Florida group that offered “free hugs from atheists” to publicize an upcoming event...", 4-13-07


4. Institute for Humanist Studies: HNN Article Highlight of our "Free Hugs" Event, 4-11-07


5. Tabash Events/Video: Tabash Lecture at UF, 3-25-07 & Tabash-Friel Debate, 3-26-07


6. NinerOnline: "'You're going to hell' says campus preachers: An in-depth look into the practice of campus preachers", quotes Daniel M, 3/26/07


7. Campus Sun Article: "Atheists give free hugs to fellow students" by Jessica Palombo, 3-23-07


8. Alligator: What's Happening, "The Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association at UF presents "Who Made Who? God and Man" with Eddie Tabash." 3-23-07


9. Gator Times: Advertisement, "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?"


10. Alligator LTE: "Constitution protects religious freedom" by Stacey Kroto, 2-12-07 (Alligator link broken, read it here)


11. Alligator LTE: "Separation of church and state needed" by Daniel M, 2-9-07 (Alligator link broken, read it here)


12. Dixie County Advocate Article: "Ten Commandments Controversy goes National" by Terri Langford, 12-7-06*


13. Gainesville Sun Article: "Plea for a plaintiff" by Karen Voyles, 12-2-06*


14. Alligator Editorial: "Darts & Laurels" by editors, 12-1-06*


15. Alligator Article: "Student debates on Fox" by Brittney Davis, 11-30-06*


16. Hannity & Colmes: Interview regarding Dixie County 10 Commandments, YouTube video, .mpg video (59MB), 11-29-06*


17. Alligator LTE: "Evangelicals Deserve some Criticism" by Stacey Kroto, 10-20-06 (Alligator link broken, read it here)


18. Alligator LTE: "Christianity Itself Relies Upon Fear" by Daniel M, 10-3-06 (Alligator link broken, read it here). The next day, a response came in another Alligator LTE: “Preacher responds to campus critics” by Joey Johnsen, 10-4-06.


19. Point of Inquiry Radio Show: Podcast about the CFI On Campus Summer Conference, includes interview with Gator Freethought member Eric Toedter (5 attended), 7-28-06


20. USA Today: Interview with Gator Freethought's first treasurer, Chelsae Pavey (article), 7-26-06


21. Secular Student Alliance: SSA Affiliate Creates some Beautiful Banners, [thanks to Dave Misvel], 4-25-06


22. Alligator LTE: "Human Life Doesn't Begin at Conception" by Daniel M, 3-21-06 (Alligator link broken, read it here)


23. Alligator Column: "Intelligent Design not a True Science" by Daniel M, 8-26-05 (Alligator link broken, read it here)

I'll try to keep this updated as much as possible.

Blast from the past

I was just googling for a few handles and names I have used on the internet to see what sort of "dirt" people could potentially dig upon me, and stumbled across this copy of my interview on H&C. It's essentially the same video that I uploaded to Youtube, but a little better quality and without the copyright issue since it is hosted at FoxNews. I also pulled the .swf file link. See here for the full list of Dixie County articles and media.

I'm going to contact Brandon Hensler, Director of Communications of the ACLU of FL, as well as the PR department of the Liberty Counsel to get an update on where the case stands. For now, check out the latest I have on that story (with all media links) and everything I've written on it.

Dixie County media roundup (also see here):

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28/06


2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30/06


3. Alligator -- 11/30/06, or here


4. Alligator (editorial) -- 12/1/06, or here
   


5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1/06


6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02/06


7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con 12/2/06


8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7/06


9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro 12/12/06, con 12/17/06


10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/3/07


11. St. Petersburg Times (LTE) -- con, 1/13/07 (4th letter down; response to 1/3/07 article)


12. Gainesville Sun -- 2/7/07


13. ACLU News Release -- 2/7/07
    


14. Reuters (Miami) -- 2/7/07


15. Gainesville Sun -- 2/8/07


16. St. Petersburg Times -- 2/8/07


17. Alligator (LTE): -- con, 2/9/07, or here


18. Dixie County Advocate -- 2/15/07, or here


19. Gainesville Sun (LTE) -- pro, 2/17/07, or here


20. Dixie County Advocate (LTE) -- con, 2/24/07, or here


21. Liberty Counsel -- 3/8/07


22. CNS News -- 3/12/07


23. Florida Humanists Association -- 4/9/07, (also here and here)

other media (blogs):

1. KipEsquire -- 11/28/06


2. Florida Progressive Coalition -- 4/4/07


3. John Pieret -- 4/15/07

I'll update after I find more information on the case status.

Alligator article on my interview on H&C

Because The Alligator's website underwent a great deal of revision, the old link to the article covering my interview on H&C is dead, and the archives are not yet working that far back. According to the editors, it may be a very long time for the pages to be updated. Thus, I decided to go in to my cached version of the page (thank you Google Desktop) and paste the text below so I can replace the dead link. Here is the article:

Student debates on Fox
By BRITTANY DAVIS
posted Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:00 a.m.
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/061130atheist.php

"Do you love the Lord?" locals asked strangers who visited the Dixie County Courthouse on Wednesday.

Daniel Morgan drove about an hour west of Gainesville to Cross City, the seat of Dixie County, to argue against the courthouse's six-ton monument bearing the Ten Commandments on a segment of the Fox News program "Hannity & Colmes."

Morgan, a UF chemistry graduate student who is president of UF's Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association at UF, said Fox News called him at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday and asked him to come to the debate.

When introducing the segment, Hannity accused him of coming to Cross City to find someone who would sue the city over the monument. Morgan said that he hadn't and that he had never been to Dixie County before he was invited by Fox News.

He said he was thrilled to be invited.

"They offered me a ride, and I said I didn't need one because I was afraid he would get someone else to go (who didn't need a ride)," he said.

Morgan, who speaks with a Southern drawl, comes from Richlands, Va., a town of about 4,000 people.

His opponent was former county attorney Joey Lander. Lander is one of two lawyers in Cross City, a town of about 1,775 people and at least 20 churches.

Lander said the community supports the monument and the media is making an issue out of nothing.

The $20,000 monument, which also bears the phrase "Love God and keep his commandments," was given to the city by a private donor.

"It's already there, and it's not meant to coerce or endorse any particular religion," Lander said.

Lander is half-owner of the daily newspaper, which he said had only received calls in support of the monument. The one complaint the newspaper received was an editorial from a Gainesville resident.

Each man had about two minutes to present his interpretation of the First Amendment and the legal and philosophical implications of the monument before the satellite link was disrupted and the interview came to an early end.

Morgan argued that legal precedent demonstrated that a religious monument on government property is unconstitutional.

A crowd of 20 people gathered before the event, and many argued in favor of the importance of Jesus and the monument to their community.

The group was irked by the presence of Morgan and the Fox News cameramen.

One member of the group yelled, "This atheist is coming down here to take away our Ten Commandments!"

Copyright © 1996–2007 Alligator Online and Campus Communications.

My daemon

After reading Courtnix's review, I've decided to go check out the movie based on Pullman's first book in the His Dark Materials series, and then perhaps the books themselves. Heck, it's almost worth paying just to see RR folks get apoplectic over the earnings and popularity of it.

My Golden Compass daemon is called Arphenia, a raccoon. I am "modest, a leader, assertive, shy and spontaneous." Those seem a little incongruent, but whatever.

PS: Apparently 'coons make up only 3.6% of the spectrum.

Obama and experience

Let's talk about Obama and the "experience" card.

Bill Clinton puts it this way:

“When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?” Mr. Clinton said. At another point, he appeared to compare Mr. Obama to a “gifted television commentator” running for president. “They’d have only one year less experience in national politics” than Mr. Obama, he said.

To answer this question, I advocate a look at some of history's presidents and their relative amounts of experience. Back in 1999, when W was in the running, a journalist noted that one of the greatest presidents of America's history, if not the greatest, had very little experience on the national stage -- Abe Lincoln -- in order to argue that W had enough experience:

...Abraham Lincoln, who is usually at the top of every list of great presidents. Yet he was the only president with no experience as a governor, senator, Cabinet member, general or vice president. Lincoln’s previous experience in public office consisted of one term in the U.S. House, several terms in the Illinois Legislature and a brief tenure as postmaster of New Salem, Ill. He was also an unsuccessful merchant, a successful lawyer and twice an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, James Buchanan, served 10 years in the U.S. House, 10 in the U.S. Senate, 4 as secretary of state and represented the United States in Britain and Russia before winning the White House in 1856. Yet historians are almost unanimous in portraying him as a president who dithered ineffectively while the country raced toward the precipice of civil war.

It is important to keep in mind that Honest Abe saw our nation through the greatest challenge it has ever faced, while two of the top three worst presidents of all time -- Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan -- had impressive experience and a long list of political credentials. It should also be noted that some of the greatest presidents lacked military experience. It seems obvious to me, but apparently not to others, that a person's character and raw intellectual talent is much more indicative of their success in any venture than just how long they've been around certain circles.

As Obama has pointed out before, there are plentiful examples of terrible politicians with long and impressive resumes:

"There are a couple guys named Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who had two of the longest resumes in Washington and led us into the biggest foreign policy disaster of a generation," Obama said at a campaign stop in Alton, New Hampshire. "So a long resume doesn't guarantee good judgment. A long resume says nothing about your character."

Bingo.

When the Boston Globe endorsed Obama, it stated:

Obama's critics, and even many who want to support him, worry about his relative lack of experience. It is true that other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes and have spent more time in Washington. But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government's constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities.

And I think this reflects, as Andrew Sullivan made a point of, a significant difference between Hillary and Barack: the 60s-era culture wars mentality that conjures up only visions of sexual freedom, gun rights and religious conservatism, while shrouded in the same sort of secrecy and embedded political machine as ever -- versus a new kind of politics focused on transparency and honesty.

On another note: Some people would watch this and come away convinced Mormonism is bad, making their own faith look better. Some would start to get the real point hidden inside O'Donnell's tirade and get uncomfortable: all religions have not only disparate scandals, but a unifying theme of regressive policies and dogmas -- from slavery to discrimination against women to torture to ...

*cross-posted to:
1) my Obama blog
2) Educators for Obama blog

Hilarious: whitehouse.org

I found this on whitehouse.org and had to share it:

President Addresses Nation on the Way Forward to Surging Back Towards Desperately Spinning the Clusterfuck That is Vietraq

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all imperialistic military empires, there come brief, fleeting moments that decide the direction of a multinational corporation masquerading as a democratic nation, and reveal the character of its blue-blooded aristocrats, conniving religious hucksters and corrupt, back-slapping robber barons. We have now been suspended in such a moment for over six calendar years.

A few politics notes

A few political notes:

This story is encouraging on many levels -- clergy are giving far more to Dems this year than Republicans. In particular, Obama is far ahead of the next two closest individuals, with $110K versus Romney's $39K and Huckabee's $23K.

The Bush administration's idea of a "victory" in the War on Terror^TM, domestic edition.

Hillary keeps hinting about having dirt on Obama. It really does reflect badly on her campaign.

The rhetoric versus the reality: Bush demands right to torture, even as he loudly declaims platitudes about how "we don't torture".

Re Bali: if it's in the footnotes, can they just ignore it?

Fantastic Intelligent Design posters

Some great ID posters from Touchstone @ banninated.blogspot.com; he calls these "Inspired Designs":

Precious.

Dems gain youth vote, VA tops health care

The reality contradicts the rhetoric alleging that government-run or government-paid-for health care will be substandard.

The 18-29 year old demographic identifies as Dem over GOP at almost 2:1. That's encouraging. So is the fact that our generation is less religious, more accepting of scientific findings and more progressive in general.

Religious atheists

How atheist "fundamentalists" are just like religious fundies (sarcasm):

(H/T: PZ)

Cohen on the transatlantic religious divide

From "Secular Europe's Merits":

That is why I find Romney’s speech and the society it reflects far more troubling than Europe’s vacant cathedrals.

Romney allows no place in the United States for atheists. He opines that, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” Yet secular Sweden is free while religious Iran is not. Buddhism, among other great Oriental religions, is forgotten.

He shows a Wikipedia-level appreciation of other religions, admiring “the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims” and “the ancient traditions of the Jews.” These vapid nostrums suggest his innermost conviction of America’s true faith. A devout Christian vision emerges of a U.S. society that is in fact increasingly diverse.

Romney rejects the “religion of secularism,” of which Europe tends to be proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the Reformation that reduced St. Andrews Cathedral to ruin are fires of faith that endure in different, but no less explosive, forms. Jefferson’s “wall of separation” must be restored if those who would destroy the West’s Enlightenment values are to be defeated.

Also see this.

Looks like Hillary is scared

Scared enough to smear Obama for teenage drug use. Gag.

From Andrew Sullivan's long-winded but potent argument that Hillary represents the ongoing "culture war" of the 60s and Obama really does represent change...

...to Steve Hayes' favorable overview of Obama in The Weekly Standard and Matthew Yglesias and Bloggingheads seeing it and pointing out that Republican voters are most comfortable with Obama as a Democrat (and Hillary's consistently high negatives: 55% unfavorability in Rasmussen Reports)...

she may have serious reason to be. Scared, that is.

I'm still divided over the issue of whose mandates/non-mandates plan is better. However, the longer I keep up with the goings-on, the more I like Obama and the less I like Hillary for the nomination. We'll have to wait and see. So much can change in politics so fast.

Some politics notes

Ezra asks,

for whatever reason, our politicians seem achingly incapable of simply leaving Iraq. So it's worth asking if a military deployment is really the most cost-effective way to spend billions and billions in Iraq. This site, in fact, asks the question well. "The US budget for Iraq in FY 2006 comes to $3,749/Iraqi. This is more than double their per person GDP. It's like spending $91,000 per person in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country?" But seriously: Why not just bribe the whole country? If we're determined to commit an enormous amount of resources to the Iraqi people, why not let the Ghost of Milton Friedman take over and simply design some sort of program that offers enormous economic benefits in exchange for reductions in violence?

A win for progress in the war against "the war on drugs" -- the harsh crack sentencing guidelines are coming into line with those for powdered cocaine:

African-Americans were nearly 82 percent of defendants sentenced in federal court for dealing crack, but only 27 percent of those sentenced for dealing powder cocaine, according to 2006 federal statistics. Each year, federal courts handle about 11,000 cocaine sentences, which are roughly evenly divided between crack and cocaine cases.

The issue long has been a source of contention between government prosecutors and civil rights advocates, who argue crack dealers are often targeted for longer prison terms because that drug is prevalent in urban and minority communities, while the powdered version is more commonly associated with higher-income users.

I've said it before:

I strongly disagree with complete libertarians with respect to drug policy who think that controlling substances is unnecessary/illegal on the part of the government, especially in light of drugs like Oxycontin(TM). That said, the legalization of marijuana is necessary, even if it may cause a slowdown of brain processing speed. I don't even smoke it (honest, not since 1999), but it is definitely far past the time to de-criminalize it for a plethora of reasons.

I'd go further and point out that people who are convicted of felonies for using drugs are much less able to go on to lead productive lives afterwards due to their criminal record. This all but insures that they will remain trapped in a criminal lifestyle, and converts many formerly-productive citizens into drug dealers. I think many substances ought to be controlled by the government, but de-criminalized.

Remember, government-provided health care is terrible and will lead to a decline in quality, and Dick Cheney is proof of this!

The Dems have caved again, this time on the omnibus bill.

Doesn't surprise me

I took the quiz and am a "Social Justice Crusader" liberal -- what are you?

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Social Justice Crusader, also known as a rights activist. You believe in equality, fairness, and preventing neo-Confederate conservative troglodytes from rolling back fifty years of civil rights gains.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

Santa & God

It's inevitable: comparisons between Santa & God.

I've heard theists make a psychological profile of atheists before: they have bad father figures, they never got over the disillusionment of finding out Santa isn't real...this cartoon plays on that a bit:

If you can't make out the caption very easily, it reads:

Dear Children
One Day You Will Learn Everything About Santa Claus.
On That Day Remember Everything The Adults Have Told You About Jesus.

Much to the theists' chagrin, there are an awful lot of parallels between God and Santa, when one thinks of it. Seasame Street Atheism or no, the very same "childlike faith" we are required to have to sustain belief in God is similar with respect to belief in Santa. The unquestioning submission to authority and tradition are similar between children and adults compared to people and the Church/church doctrine...in ways, dissimilar in others.

God does these magical acts on very rare occassions, of which we have no hard evidence at all, that are supposed to justify our belief in him throughout the thousands of years after these events occurred. Santa just gets his magic thing on once a year, spending only 34 microseconds at each stop. Hopefully, Santa will get a little more green and reduce his reindeer's methane emissions using kangaroo enzymes; then he ought to ask people to shop online this Xmas to help lower CO₂ emissions.

The future is now

Honda has thrown down the gauntlet on H₂ fuel cell vehicles.

Availability of H₂ filling stations will hinder the distribution of the vehicle, although hydrogen infrastructure will eventually morph into existing gasoline stations. And, if it doesn't, no worries: the home power station Honda has been working on for years can solve that problem.

The idea is simple -- use solar cells to "split water" and form your own fuel at home, as shown in the figure below:


The most beautiful thing about this is that gas/oil/coal companies can't do a goddamned thing to stop people from buying these home units and choosing hydrogen. They can (and probably will) slow the distribution of hydrogen at filling stations by basically refusing to integrate the new technology at the rate at which they are capable. This compounds the already-noted issues with transitioning to a hydrogen economy.

I can't wait until oil goes the way of the dodo. Unfortunately, that won't probably happen for a loooooong time.

Kudos to Honda.

Giving credit where it is due

I wanted to add something to what I said earlier this morning about Mitt's speech on religion (reposted in full at the bottom).

First, for the sake of comparison, a quick check -- who said the following:

[M]y answer to people is, I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society.

A great—the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor [emphasis mine]. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad—I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you—you don't have to worship [emphasis mine]. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is—that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.

And who also said:

Let me talk about freedom of religion, as well, which is an incredibly important part of our society. My job as the President is to make sure -- this may get to your question, by the way, besides speech -- an incredibly important part about what you're asking is, can people worship freely, as well. Yes. That's the part of the job of the President, is to make sure that people can worship any way they want, any way they want. And they can choose any religion they want. Or they can choose no religion. You see, you're just as big a patriot -- as good a patriot as the next fellow if you choose not to worship. It's your choice to make. [emphasis mine] And the freedom of this country is that you can choose to do any way you want. And it's important that we keep that -- that freedom real and intact.

And finally:

First of all, we strongly believe in the separation of church and state here in Washington, D.C., and that's the way it's going to be. Secondly, I love the fact that people are able to worship freely in our country, and if you chose not to worship, you're just as patriotic as your neighbor. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice any religion you choose, or the freedom not to practice. [emphasis mine]

The answer is one that you are almost certainly going to be surprised by:

George W. Bush said all of the above.

For all the horrible things Bush has done to our country, I have to give him credit for one thing: he respects the non-religious in his public speeches. Do I think he respects us in his heart? No. Does he have to? No. But the man understands that a national community has to include all faiths...as well as those without faith at all. This is something Mitt got completely and seriously wrong in his speech.

And, if you want to see that spelled out very articulately, read Friday's NYT editorial on the topic:

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Conservative David Brooks even gives a critical note:

And yet, I confess my own reaction is more muted [to Romney's speech].

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. [emphasis mine] Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

Romney's speech will wither into the mist of history forgotten and mundane. It's just another ploy from another politician, not a genuine work of masterful prose and logic.

From WSJ's Peggy Noonan:

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. [emphasis mine] We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else. [emphasis mine]

Amen, sister.

(from earlier)

So the big news in politics for the past few days has been Mitt's long-awaited speech on religion. Basically he pandered to religious godidiots by talking about the "religion of secularism" and implied that atheists are not Americans.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

The idiot says the above, then goes on to admit that Europe is becoming more secular (but is still a country with more freedoms than we enjoy, thanks to King W) without seeing any contradiction. Jesus' General offers serious analysis of the issues at play and why considering a candidate's religion matters (from a secular standpoint).

Some politics notes

A few notes from politics and beyond:

So the big news in politics for the past few days has been Mitt's long-awaited speech on religion. Basically he pandered to religious godidiots by talking about the "religion of secularism" and implied that atheists are not Americans.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

The idiot says the above, then goes on to admit that Europe is becoming more secular (but is still a country with more freedoms than we enjoy, thanks to King W) without seeing any contradiction. Jesus' General offers serious analysis of the issues at play and why considering a candidate's religion matters (from a secular standpoint).

The Obama smear piece didn't work out so well.

The GOP's philosophy: "the government which governs least, governs best" -- boy, do they prove that one wrong.

The GOP's sex-ed policy proves itself an utter failure (yet again).

Paul Krugman explains why comparisons between Darth Vader and Cheney are unfair:

Back when Hillary Clinton described Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, a number of people pointed out that this was an unfair comparison. For example, Darth Vader once served in the military.

Here’s another reason the comparison is invalid: the contractors Darth Vader hired to build the Death Star actually got the job done.

In climate change-related news, hybrid sales are rocketing, the US is under mounting pressure to actually do something at Bali to help solve the global CO₂ problem, and the WSJ really is doing well in its new role as Fox News Lite:

WSJ editor insults scientists, attacks Gore.

In an op-ed this morning mocking former Vice President Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize win, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “attacks the international scientific consensus without providing a single piece of counterevidence.” In order to cast doubt on the consensus, Jenkins insults the entire scientific community as people who “do not wait for proof“:

It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn’t. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.

Climate Progress ably takes Jenkins to task for his insults and distortions.

Murdoch has certainly done well placing such editorials there.

Don't forget to Buy Blue this season (the site is undergoing reconstruction, so use the web archive links). I will.

Consider supporting some godless charities this holiday season, rather than giving money to organizations that proselytize.

Is anything Bush does surprising anymore?

To get at the heart of how much Bush and his GOP allies in Congress have changed the office of POTUS, Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI, ironic name, eh?) decided to dig in to the classified legal memos that have given "justification" to the president's, uh...liberties with the Constitution. The results are as sickening as you'd expect:

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations. [bold emphasis added throughout]

I don't know if/why this is surprising. Bush believes he can direct the emphatically-independent arm of oversight -- the Justice Department -- not to pursue legal investigations of wrongdoing in his administration, and that the Court itself is not able to tell him what he's doing is illegal.

Breakthrough evidence for string theory?

Having always been a fan of cosmology, and especially the cyclic model, a recent New Scientist article on the giant "hole" in the universe and how it may support string theory caught my eye. I took the time to scan and upload it so that you can read it too: here (.pdf, 3.1 MB).

On a roll

Two good articles to share with you.

Last month's Economist had a special section "In God's Name" (I've scanned all 18 pages, 3.6 MB, here as a .pdf). Most of the article is "meh" but I liked the refutation of the common claim that Europe is becoming "Eurabia" with some sort of huge takeover by Muslims. They point out:

The second part—the imminent arrival of Eurabia—can be dismissed as poor mathematics. Muslim minorities in Europe are indeed growing fast and causing political friction, but they account for less than 5% of the total population, a tiny proportion by American standards of immigration. Even if that proportion trebles in the next 20 years, Eurabia will still be a long way off.

The more interesting question is whether Christianity will recover. A new book by Philip Jenkins on European religion comes up with some gloomy statistics. Only 20% of Europeans say that God plays an important role in their lives, compared with 60% of Americans. A survey in 2004 found that only 44% of Britons believed in God, whereas 35% (45% among 18-34-year-olds) denied His existence. Only 15% of them go to church each week, against 40% of Americans. Even in the Catholic heartlands of Spain, Italy and Ireland attendance rates have dropped below 20%. And priests are dying out: in Dublin, home to 1m Catholics, precisely one was ordained in 2004.

There's much more there to be read, so take a peek.

Secondly, in between the trite mushiness of the New Scientist article from September and the no-holds-barred hard-ass atheism of the AA article by Whittenberger analyzing the logic of the atonement, we find a very worth-reading editorial in New Scientist from 11/10/07, "The Trouble with Reason," and an article, "God's Place in a Rational World."

The article is hosted at the Beyond Belief 2.0 conference website, and covers the event and its context (check out the new videos from the homepage). One of the funnier miscellany had to be the guy who wrote my university physical chemistry text, Peter Atkins, actually having said that atheist scientists should adopt a flag with a Mandelbrot Set on it...oh my. A flag. With a Mandelbrot Set. Wow.

Anyway, one of the things I liked the most with this new article was the focus on the issue of morality and its relationship to empiricism/scientism/science. The question of the evolutionary history and evolutionary purposes of morality are certainly fair game for science. However, jettisoning ethical philosophy because it is non-empirical or pretending that science is sufficient to deal with morality (scientism) are just plain irrational. A few good points were made that help to temper the red-hot passion for the elimination of religion; as Edward Slingerland said:

• Religion is not going away anytime soon (or maybe ever)


• Humans' rights & morality are just as unscientific in nature as God: I've written reams (much of it rambling and repetitive, I'm sure, of what others have already said on the topic) on trying to get my head around morality, and I don't know if I've succeeded or not. Judge for yourself: 1, 2
  

Irrespective of the difficulty in approaching morality from a scientific viewpoint, we have no choice but to analyze morality with the tools of reason and logic available to us. If we can find some way to explain morality as a "bet fit model" that simply shows us a way to live that ends up benefiting all of us to the greatest extent possible, then that's fine for me. It doesn't have to be metaphysically ultimate, as I used to wish. If ethics can just be objectively good, I'll be happy.

Lots of scientists are apparently starting to realize this second point by Slingerland, and embrace some forms of "spirituality" in order to explain issues like human meaning & morality given the vacuum left in those areas by science. As to the first point, it seems that Dawkins and all these other guys are still dreaming: religion will be with us as long as art and poetry and beauty will be -- a way to capture the human forms of transcendence and abstractions/ideals we're capable of seeing, but rarely attaining. Religion is beautiful when it's like that, like the dream we don't want to wake up from. On the other hand, atheism has a bit of a "cost" attached with it.

When you look at Atkins' proposal of an atheist "flag" and Kelly's interest in "ending religion," you see that atheists are really on a roll. And that roll is downhill. There is indeed a problem with atheism. Thankfully, the problems with fundamentalist religion are much more grave; deadly, in fact.

One of us is spot-on

Okay, maybe both of us...my words on 10/25 regarding the black hole of money that is Iraq:

...it stops hurting so much if you don't think about how many billions of our own taxpayer dollars wasted in war. Either the money is lining the pockets of criminals here at home, or is actually being rerouted to militias and terrorists abroad, against whom we are fighting; all the while, we can't afford to give health care coverage to our own children or ensure a quality education for all our own students.

And on 12/2:

...all this completely ignores the cancer of corruption that has eaten Iraq from the inside-out.

Bob Hebert's words today:

Priorities don’t get much more twisted. A country that can’t find the money to provide health coverage for its children, or to rebuild the city of New Orleans, or to create a first-class public school system, is flushing whole generations worth of cash into the bottomless pit of a failed and endless war.

“The No. 1 reason that the war in Iraq should end,” said Senator Charles Schumer, chairman of the joint committee, “is the loss of life that is occurring without accomplishing any of the goals that even President Bush put forward.”

But “right below that,” he said, is the need to stop squandering incredible amounts of money that could be put to better use — helping to “make people’s lives better” — here at home. That colossal and continuing waste, he said, “should cause anxiety in anyone who cares about the future of this country. I know it causes me anxiety.”

President Bush’s formal funding requests for Iraq have already exceeded $600 billion. In addition to that, the report offers estimates of the war’s “hidden costs” from its beginning to 2017: the long-term costs of treating the wounded and disabled; interest and other costs associated with borrowing to finance the war; the money needed to repair or replace military equipment; the increased costs of military recruitment and retention; and such difficult to gauge but very real costs as the loss of productivity from those who have been killed or wounded.

What matters more than the precision of these estimates (Republicans are not happy with them) is the undeniable fact that the costs associated with the Iraq war are huge and carry with them enormous societal consequences.

The black hole of money that is Iraq:

A few religion-related things

Stanley Fish has redeemed himself a little since his last foray into comment on religion. This time, he emphasizes sound legal logic:

...the issues Locke identified and analyzed will never be resolved. In her dissent in Boerne, Justice O’Connor wrote, “Our Nation’s Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, not a secular society in which religious expression is tolerated only when it does not conflict with generally applicable law.”

Yes, that’s the question. Do we begin by assuming the special status of religious expression and reason from there? Or do we begin with the rule of law and look with suspicion on any claim to be exempt for it, even if the claim is made in the name of apparently benign religious motives? [emphasis mine]

His language is tilted towards the former policy, and that means he's gained back a little of my respect.

Also, a great day for the Constitution and church-state separation as the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state-sponsored religious program of Chuck Colson in prisons.

And on another religious note, there's an interesting new analysis of the Gospel of Judas, and one which claims the other interpretations are thoroughly wrong:

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the “Thirteenth.” In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons — an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals. Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream Christians’ belief in the atoning value of Jesus’ death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

The author strongly criticizes National Geographic for getting it wrong. Interesting, but not very likely to impact the scholarly Christian rejection of the document either way. Mainstream Evangelicals would probably be more likely to support the document now, though, since it jives better with their interpretation of Judas.

Mitt & Mormonism

So "Magic Underwear Mitt" will be addressing us on how reasonable Mormonism really is? What a laugh. Funny that anyone really thinks that this will help. Go read up on Mormonism and you'll find it hard to see how keeping people's attention on his faith will help him. The polls from a while back seem to show only about 1 in 4 claim that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon (compared to a majority -- 53%, who wouldn't vote for an atheist), but I think these numbers are always too low because of socially desirable response bias. I just don't think the majority of Evangelicals will vote for him.

The RR still doesn't know quite what to do: back the serial-adulterer Giuliani with a liberal track-record on judicial appointments, Mormon "Magic Underwear" Romney -- someone they know only became "pro-life" 5 minutes ago (both he and Giuiliani fit into this category), or someone they know will not win? Dobson swears he'll choose the latter.

Giuliani isn't just involved in a scandal over using tax dollars to finance his extramarital affair; he's also got a brewing scandal involving his ties to terrorists. I really think his campaign is done, kaput...or else people are ignoring the mounds of dirt on this guy. See TCR's summary of Giuliani's worst week ever.

I don't think that there is anything comparable on Mitt's side, aside from a few gaffes and some reversals; no substantive corruption, but it may come out later. On the other hand, dirt on Huckabee is piling up, and he is looking dirtier all the time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...

Arguments for atheism

You wouldn't know it, but these 34 arguments are actually for atheism (.pdf); I like this handy list of links and this nice compilation of miscellaneous online arguments too.

Something re atheism

I started reading Doubt: A History, by Jennifer Hecht this weekend (a damned behemoth, with 500 pages spanning 12 chapters -- not counting the 25 pages of notes, 7 pages of bibliography and 20 pages of index). The book has been reviewed and covered well: NPR, APM, PoI. It's interesting so far, and some of the front matter actually hit directly on the topic of my debate with Andrew on facebook: what she calls "the great schism" between "our human world...a world of reason and plans, love and purpose," and "the world beyond our human life--an equally real world in which there is no sign of caring or value, planning or judgment, love or joy." A similar take was given here, but this author talks about a sort of schism between "heart and head". Some beliefs are definitely more reasonable than others, but we still long to believe unreasonable things. Why?

As I began reading, I was transported back a few months in my own mind.

I think that for a long while there, especially when I was writing regularly at Debunking Christianity and arguing incessantly with people like Triablogue and (please forive me) CalvinDude, I was really struggling with my own set of beliefs. I knew I had lost faith in the idea of an all-good and all-powerful God, but I wasn't sure what that meant, or how I was going to set about replacing my old beliefs with new ones, or what those new ones were.

What about meaning and value? What about morality and virtue? I would sometimes stare out of my window and feel the urge to finish my graduate degree completely gone. I began to think about things from a cosmic perspective -- how damned insignificant our dreams and hopes are, in the scheme of things. I flirted with existentialism and tried to find meaning in a godless universe:

My own burden at the moment is in maintaining rationalism -- a commitment to reason, and optimism -- a commitment not to only see things as better, but to be better and in so doing, this purpose makes "all well".

I soon realized I was depressed and got on medication.

I don't know if ex-believers ever really come to peace with the "great schism" any more than devout believers do. The ones I envy are those people in the middle; the people whose apathy and lack of curiosity and intellectual drive confers upon them a sort of "ignorant bliss" from which they can merrily go about life either believing or disbelieving but not spending a great deal of emotional/mental capital on either one.

I don't know exactly how I'd describe my current state of ataraxia, a sort of tenuous equilibrium in which I've found I have completely lost the obsession I used to have with arguing with theists online. I also started to evolve in my thinking as I wanted to change UF's atheist group (AAFSA) into a freethought group. I would say that I now regard "organized atheism" in a completely different light than I used to. I see things like the "coming out" campaign and I wonder if, in the end, this is just a passing fad as it was in the early 20C. I worry about global politics and environmentalism now much more than I worry about "discrimination" that non-believers face. Although I still see the dangers that religion can have, I see the twin danger that some organizations of atheists pose to themselves in not acting effectively towards common goods.

While I think that a lot of good work remains to be done by groups committed to freethought, I think it is primarily political and concerned with issues like church-state separation. Eddie Tabash had a nice speech on this topic given at the AAI conference a few months back (he also visited UF and spoke to my old freethought group on this subject). Some groups aren't focused on real-world issues and instead are "activists against religion," so to speak.

IMHO, atheist "activists" like these are contributing to the problem with atheism; people like the RRS give the rhetoric "secular fundamentalism" validity. Their desperation to exist as some sort of full-time anti-theist organization is almost a ministry, and one which they've found themselves increasingly desperate to keep funded. But beyond sad, it goes to a littl scary: on Kelly's MySpace profile, she says her general interest is "ending religion" (a little piece of me dies when I see this and this) -- something that bothers me to even consider. It not only reads like a statement straight out of the early 20C fascist book, it completely overlooks the benign aspects of things like Zen Buddhism and lumps all religion together as "bad". In April I wrote against such nonsense:

I also agree with Elaine Pagels and Michael Novak -- we cannot paint religion with such a broad brush as to attack all forms of religiosity and call names and hold to the old, insulting phraseologies ("reality-based community" and "I live by reason" are tacit insults). We must remind ourselves that there are voices of reason in the religious community, no matter how silly we feel some of their views are. And the Pagels of the world are those we atheists and we scientists need to sit down and have more discussion with. If that happened, there would be a great deal more respect on each side of the fence.

While Pagels (and intellectuals like her) are focused on getting the fundies to grow their brains a little to encompass the more sophisticated aspects of theology, and PZ et al on getting the fundies to stop their anti-scientific crusades, perhaps they could realize that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Perhaps more honest discussion between the "evangelical", "uppity", "angry", "passionate" and "militant" atheists and liberal/moderate Christians would yield a rich reward in finding the assistance we can afford each other in reaching mutual goals.

Never mind that things like this just add fuel to the fire of the Pope's new screed on how "atheism causes social evil" and other such nonsense (of course, he's sweating a bit as the Vatican's coffers continue to shrink as Europe de-Christianizes). I don't think the dumb words of atheists nullify the fact of God's non-existence any more than the deviant sexual practices of Christians nullify historical questions about Jesus. I also don't think that trying to argue that Christians are dumb or that atheists are immoral are a good way to approach to these issues.

Although the importance of religion in our society must not be underestimated, neither must secular America, especially the trend as it applies towards younger Americans, something I've emphasized before:

The proportion of atheists and agnostics increases from 6% of Elders (ages 61+) and 9% of Boomers (ages 42-60), to 14% of Busters (23-41) and 19% of adult Mosaics (18-22).

Looking at very recent polls, around 18% of Americans do not believe in God. This trend is in line with other recent assessments of the state of atheism, and the disparity in numbers between "atheist" and "82% of people believe in God" confirms that people are still reluctant to self-identify with "the A word" despite their admission that they don't believe in God. In the largest religious self-identification survey ever undertaken, 14% of those surveyed reported "no religion" but only 0.4% explicitly as "atheist". A more recent Baylor study found only 50% of "religious nones" identify as "atheists" -- again note the disparity between non-religious persons and people willing to identify as "atheist" and/or be active in some sort of atheist organization. Another recent poll in The Nation shows that the number of nonbelievers is much higher than commonly recognized - at around 27% not believing in a God (those willing to self-identify as atheists is still much lower).

Regardless of the exact number, the number of atheists visible in politics is next to zero, and that is unlikely to change. Atheists are still distrusted and that prejudice won't change overnight. And that's a lot of why people are reluctant to use the label, even when they admit that they aren't theists; I really think part of it boils down to groups like the RRS. Part of it can be attributed to the corrupt and increasingly-irrelevant Religious Right and their hatred and intolerance. When atheists start to look like those people (intolerant of religion in general), we're the mirror image of Falwell and D. James Kennedy, which turns people off in droves.

And that's scary.