Spock is My Hero, Too

I was just reading over an article in Skepchick entitled, "Logic vs. Emotion," and had some thoughts. The writer tells us her childhood hero was Mr. Spock, the paragon of Stoicism, and she discusses the commonly-held misconception that atheists/skeptics are emotionless creatures, by choice or by necessity.

Human beings are animals. As animals, we have biological and physiological functions over which we have very little control. Our emotions are the result of biochemical responses to stimuli, responses that are shared qualitatively by many other primates. The selective advantages to these responses are fairly clear: emotional bonding to our mates occurs as a function of oxytocin and other chemicals, functioning as a "glue" which confers beneficence to reproductive fitness.

As some of us are obviously predisposed towards more emotional displays than others, it doesn't reflect upon any notion of free will (laughable as that is). We really don't have a lot of control over our levels of sentimentality or propensity towards weeping. And it may be the case that the more control we have (genetically speaking), the more proclivity we have for rational thinking, rather than wishful thinking. But no matter how rational we are, we cannot deny the animal part of us that feels.

I think the problem isn't that we some of us lack control over our emotions, and make decisions emotively. I think the problem is that the nature of some decisions is that there is no logical argument that can be constructed from known true premises.

As Donna Druchunas writes:

What I have outgrown is my naive belief that logic trumps personal experience and emotions in every situation.

Examples here would include how to handle forgiveness in a relationship, whether or not to change careers...&c. Even if we can throw a few true premises in, like, "Well, she's never cheated before," or, "I'll make more money as a patent attorney than a teacher," there are always lacking threads to join these premises together to reach a conclusion. For example, you just don't know if she will have the capability or opportunity in the future to cheat, or whether or not the job market will be in the future where it is today. Thus you can't rely on these premises to take you to a straightforward conclusion.

Spock is my hero because he uses reason as far as he can, and then admits when there is uncertainty involved in a decision. Humans must live with and make decisions from uncertainty and doubt. That doesn't mean we can't rely on logic and reason, jettisoning them in favor of how we feel, as most analyses can include at least some logic. It's just part of the human condition not to know everything about anything.

NOT "answering a fool according to his folly"

Over at the Triablogue, I made a comment which seems to have triggered an irrational response from Steve Hays. Read it for yourself, and tell me if you disagree. My original comment, summarized?

It's just funny that as a bunch of "godless heathens" up here in Buffalo, we aren't talking about "answering the fools according to their folly" with respect to theists.

The crux of Steve's response?

The question at issue is not what kind of people my readers are, but what kind of people you and Danny are.
I realize that you don't like it when people like me hold people like you to your own words.
Danny made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference

My original comment was in response to his contention that Christians were justified in "answering a fool according to his folly", and esp. that this justified them using sarcasm, deprecation, and insults to respond to those unbelievers and skeptics of us who (had the apparent audacity to) ask questions and challenge his beliefs.

Now, in response to his justification of this behavior, I pointed to the great irony of my situation that very day. I had been discussing the topic of civility and respect for our "cultural competitors" (those who promote values in opposition to secular humanist values) at a conference with other skeptics and freethinkers. As it just so happened, we had all pointed to the desperate need for dialogue in an increasingly polarized and hardened culture. We all agreed that insults were not only meritless, considering the great intellect and valid arguments of theists such as Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne, but that they immediately shut down dialogue as it requires mutual respect.

Steve went digging through the public forums of the CFI, where anyone (not just a CFI member, and not just a humanist, and not just an atheist) can start a thread on anything, and found some threads which had insults to Christians. The CFI did not write these threads, anonymous persons did. The CFI does not value censorship. There is nothing on the CFI website, or anywhere in the CFI literature, which in any way deprecates or insults theists, or anyone of any sort. They sponsor a public forum where free speech is exercised by anyone who cares to participate...and this means...what, again?

Besides all of these facts, it really didn't address the fact that I had indeed just that day been in unanimous agreement with the 70 other students and the conference organizers that we needly to strongly encourage mutual respect and enjoy the dialogue with theists such as Steve.

The irony is obvious: whilst the moral "high ground" is often claimed by our cultural competitors, and while they are often dubbed "value voters", (as if we atheists, skeptics, and humanists do not have values, and/or do not vote in support of them) we often hold to standards of conduct which apparently are not agreed with by our theist friends. Not only do they disagree with the "tit for tat" strategy of mutual respect and fairness, they deliver to us these insults wrapped in phrases such as, "The question at issue is ... what kind of people you and Danny are."

Interestingly, Steve does not go on to clarify exactly "what kind" this is, or why John and I are lumped together. After all, the only shared component of our worldviews, so far as I know, is that of our lack of faith in a god. I am not sure of John's daily ethical principles or practices, and I'm quite sure that Steve isn't aware of them either, or how they compare to mine.

Steve goes on to declaim, "Danny made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference."

Of course, the problem with this is that Steve made a "self-serving claim" in trying to present information which would somehow "falsify" that I was, indeed, that very day, discussing with other atheists and skeptics and humanists the need for respect and civility in our dealings and debates and dialogues with theists. How was that fact belied by your "fact" that someone, somewhere, for whatever reason, in opposition to the values that I hold, joined a public forum and insulted Christians?

What kind of person am I, Steve? I'd love to know. What kind of person is John? Or, do you care to lump all atheists into one definition of baramin?

"Maybe he didn't know any better at the time he said it, but now he does," Steve concludes.

Indeed, I know better than to attempt to continue engaging in dialogue with you, because it appears that you do not value mutual respect and civility in your dealings with those who disagree with you.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, CFI, Values

The Antithesis of Our Values

A few days ago, while still at the CFI Student Leadership Conference in Buffalo, NY (which the CFI graciously provided the travel funding for), I read a thread by a theist I often dialogue with about how to respond to atheists. The title alone, "Answer a Fool According to His Folly", should be enough to stop me there from responding, due to its clear disrespect. However, idealist that I am, I left a comment on the post. Of course, the response of Steve to that comment is the subject of the next post, but I wanted to replicate the comment I left below for consideration.

Can't we all just get along...

Oh, wait, if we believe in a "god-ordained" antithesis, then I guess not.

I'm up here in Buffalo NY at the CFI Student Leadership Conference on secular humanism. It's kind of funny in how I felt in reading over this thread, and the comments, and having gone to meetings today where we discussed the need to be polite and respectful and even try to connect with those who disagree with us (esp Campus Crusade), to get the issues out before people.

We want more people to hear dissenting and alternative explanations to the worldview of traditional Western theism. Calling them names, and belittling their intellect, is not the best way to get them to seriously dialogue. It's just funny that as a bunch of "godless heathens" up here in Buffalo, we aren't talking about "answering the fools according to their folly" with respect to theists.

I actually don't want to "make" you atheists, or necessarily even convince you that your worldview's presuppositions, esp of taking the dusty old parchments as a sacred oracle, are in error. What I want is to keep the voice of dissent loud, clear, and coherent. You can have your faith, I can't take it from you if I wanted to.

I value science, reason, and humanistically-based ethics.

Your values include faith, divine commands, etc., (not to say you don't value what I do as well). So long as you put faith and what you believe God has told you to do before the practical and scientific realities that we all face together, as humans, it doesn't appear that we will ever make headway with one another. Your values and our values are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but prioritized in an inverse fashion to one another's. And perhaps we both realize this.

And perhaps that's why we both get frustrated at times.

So long as you value the possibility that a man raised from the dead 2000 years ago, and that your book is accurate historically, and that your doctrine of ensoulment is correct, more than you value the possibility that using a glob of amino acids and sugars, which could become a [Christian] person one day, will lead to the alleviation of clear and present pain, suffering, and evils...

We will never move in the same direction. My values point me towards what I can know and experience and those I care about. Your values are quite different. I don't value faith. I value science, evidence, and reason. I tentatively hold to "big" concepts, and prefer to live in the practical and real world according to the best of my abilities, intellectually and ethically.

So far, as an atheist, I am far better as a person, as a whole, than I ever was as a Christian.

I wouldn't say that this is ALWAYS the case, or even that Christianity doesn't help some people to be better, ie drug addicts. Religions may indeed stabilize societies within certain contexts, and give people hope and optimism and comfort. What they also do is lead people to what is happening in Lebanon and Israel right now...

...by faith. People who won't sit down and dialogue, as we try to do, but instead choose to kill one another for their opposing values.

And that is a tragedy. A travesty.

And you believe that your God leaves all of us down here like this, aloof and cold, to care more about It and what It thinks than to prevent things like this. To spend our time arguing over what It supposedly wants us to know from dusty old parchments of completely ambiguous origins which have undergone unknown revisions to give us the extant oldest copies we have. To spend eternity in hell or heaven. What in the hell was life for? Why not just be expedient and cut to the chase and assign us all there now? What is Jesus waiting for?

Values. Priorities. Perhaps we'll always frustrate one another.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Values

Hovind is Dead, Long Live Hovind!

Hovind got arrested. Hallelujah!

**UPDATE** See the newest and next-newest articles with details.
________________
Technorati tags: Hovind

Inconvenient Stuff

Creationists love to wrestle quotes out of context to support their contention that evolution is debunked. They take a scientist, someone competent to assess evolutionary biology, and try to "argue" by putting quote marks around something he/she's said which looks devastatingly affirmative that somehow, someway, these creationists are correct. Time for "tit for tat". A good quote for these dishonest creationists, and some good writing for both them and anti-scientific persons of all sorts, whether climate change deniers or stem cell research critics:

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
Abraham Lincoln, chiding the editor of a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, quoted from Antony Flew, How to Think Straight, p. 17

Along those same lines, I was reading a review of Al Gore's new movie, (HT: PZ) and also a post which sets the historical record straight about George Washington's lack of Christian faith, (HT: Ed Brayton) contrary to what D. James Kennedy wants you to think, and says from behind his pulpit. I found some of the Whiskey Bar's comments particularly relevant to all of these topics in dealing with people who want to have irrational notions reinforced:

...there is something tragic, even a little pathetic, about Gore's stubborn faith in the ability of facts and reasoned argument to save the world...

...to me it only highlighted the long odds against what Gore is trying to do, which is to speak the language of reason to an increasingly irrational, post-Enlightenment world...

...There’s always been a powerful current of anti-intellectualism in American politics, just as there is in American life. It’s the dark side of democracy: The pressure to accept what the majority, or the most vocal minority, thinks is true as truth – even when the evidence is entirely on the other side. When Henry Ford said history was bunk, he wasn’t taking about the past but about the present, and his ire wasn’t directed at historians per se but at the revisionist historians of the Progressive Era, who were telling him and his fellow know nothings inconvenient facts they didn’t want to hear. Pump Henry full of Hillbilly Heroin and put him on the radio, and you’ve got Rush Limbaugh, still making the same point.

The difference between Ford’s time and Limbaugh’s is that the political presumption against rationality is now shared, or at least pandered to, even at the top of the political and cultural pyramid. It’s curious that people who are paid to think and write for a living, and who, like Gore, attended the “best” schools, are now nearly as susceptible to the politics of ignorance as your average conservative talk show host, but then the elite media ain’t what it used to be. Like academia, it’s fighting a losing rear-guard action against the spirit of the times and the angry, irrational prejudices that go with it...

...In my darker moments, it sometimes seems as if the entire world is in the middle of a fierce backlash against the Age of Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution and the ideological challenges they posed to the old belief systems. The forces of fundamentalism and obscurantism appear to be on the march everywhere – even as the moral and technological challenges posed by a global industrial civilization grow steadily more complex.

These aren't my darker moments. These are my more common moments. Is America being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Age of Reason? I'm afraid to answer in the affirmative, no matter how hopeful I am that it's true.
________________
Technorati tags: anti-intellectualism, Enlightenment, Creationism, historical revision, D. James Kennedy

COTG 44

The 44th Carnival of the Godless is up at Daylight Atheism, hosted by Ebonmuse.

________________
Technorati tags: COTG

Black Crowes Tickets

I came by two tickets to see the Black Crowes in Tampa at the Ford Ampitheatre tomorrow night, Friday, July 7th, at 7 PM. My wife is sick and I won't be able to go, so I will sell them at face value, perhaps far under, given the late notice. If you are interested, please email me at dmorgan AT ufl DOT edu. See the band's Myspace for more.
________________
Technorati tags: Black Crowes

On Hume, Skepticism, and Intelligent Design Creationism

In thinking about epistemological skepticism, I had a further thought (or two). Cornelius Hunter, over at idthefuture, as he makes the typical whine against evolution and godlessness in talking about intelligent design creationism (IDC):

Miller's misrepresentation of evolution was serious because his testimony influenced the judge, and was cited in the opinion. Evolutionist's arguments entail metaphysical premises, and this is how they can claim their theory is a fact. Without their religious arguments they would be left merely with empirical evidence which fails to support evolution as a fact because there is substantial negative evidence.

Evolution's use of metaphysical premises is well documented. And Miller relies on these heavily in his own writings. But so long as legal testimony represents evolution as just science, courts will continue to miss the elephant in the room.

Cornelius, show me your room, with your (apparently) metaphysically-neutral premises. I would love to see it. Please. Ironically, the sort of intelligent designer implied by IDC is far from metaphysically-netural, as it is implicitly supernatural: IDC claims that our place in the cosmos is "privileged" -- the anthropic principle -- this would require the "designer" to have tuned the very physical constants that any naturalistic designer would be controlled by, ergo, being supernatural or the next best thing to it.

Hunter also complains about the appearance of poor design and the implicit evil in designing parasites and things like malaria.

In addition, please hone in on exactly what is "religious" about the smackdown you received in court in Dover?

Speaking of religious, Hunter goes on to say that:

Obviously Darwin needed a naturalistic explanation for the species—his religious beliefs ruled out design.

There are a few problems with this:

1. At the time of his journey on the Voyage of the Beagle, he was certainly not a naturalist [link]
   
2. Darwin only lost faith in the existence of God much later in life, after his daughter's death, and only then became an agnostic [link]
   
3. Even he said that there was no incompatibility between theism and evolution, saying it was, "absurd to doubt that a man can be an ardent Theist and an Evolutionist" [link]
   

Hunter wants to say that induction, or the expectation of naturalism, is a bias that ought to be erased, in the vein of Moore's argument:

...today scientists will admit that no one knows enough about 'natural law' to say that any event is necessarily a violation of it. They agree that an individual's non-statistical sample of time and space is hardly sufficient ground on which to base immutable generalizations concerning the nature of the entire universe. Today what we commonly term 'natural law' is in fact only our inductive and statistical descriptions of natural phenomena. (James R. Moore, Christianity for the Tough Minded, 1973, p.79)

In considering what Moore, and others, attempt to do here, a few points should be made about "today's science" as it is supposed to be qualitatively different than "yesterday's". In particular, theists often seize upon the overturning of Newton's mechanical universe by relativity and quantum physics as some sort of "evidence" that miracles are more likely to occur. This premise is very poorly thought out. The sorts of evidence that were uncovered with paradigm shifts like quantum theory and general relativity did not conflict with the observations made prior to their time; they dovetailed with and explained all the data! OTOH, Hunter's view of IDC would render much of the observed evidence for random mutation and natural selection as the driving forces of evolution from genetics and biology false.

Also, the idea that we should have a sort of expectation of, or at least make room for, miracles in science is almost prima facie evidence of a misunderstanding of the nature of science and of miracles. It isn't just that the scientific method demands skepticism of miracles, it demands evidence to substantiate any claim, inversely proportional to how well-established a claim or observation is:

1. A miracle is by definition a rare occurance
2. Natural law is by definition a description of regular occurance
3. The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.
4. Wise individuals always base belief on the greater evidence.
5. Therefore, wise individuals should never believe in miracles.
(Norman Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 1992, p.27-28)

Geisler then goes on to present Hume's "Problem of Induction" (PoI):

Hume speaks of "uniform" experience in his argument against miracles, but this either begs the question or else is special pleading. It begs the question if Hume presumes to know the experience is uniform in advance of looking at the evidence. For how can we know that all possible experience will confirm naturalism, unless we have access to all possible experiences, including those in the future? If, on the other hand, Hume simply means by "uniform" experience the select experiences of some persons (who have not encountered a miracle), then this is special pleading. (ibid, p.28)

So at best, Hunter can say that our metaphysical bias must be that we demand an absolute uniformity of nature that is not warranted by induction. Granted. The question is -- does he have evidence of these breaks in uniformity? No.

While a naturalist may not claim that design (natural in appearance or otherwise) is a priori impossible, the absolute lack of explanatory value or mechanism on the part of IDC advocates is a sign that there is simply a lack of evidence in favor of their position. He can argue bias in interpretation all day long, but the dearth of evidence subject to interpretation speaks for itself.

Ashamed of Their Ancestry

A while back, I was reading the idthefuture site, where I was referred to an article at an apologetics site on materialism. Joe Carter, in the article, "The Mystical Monkey Mind: Four Common Errors of Naturalistic Epistemology," presented a quote from Darwin which I saw pop up again the other day:

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

It appears, at first glance, a serious problem: if our minds are "just" monkey brains, why do we trust them? But, as is attributed to Solomon as being said, "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes along to examine him." (Prov 18:17, NIV) Let us examine the argument posed by Joe, Paul Manata, and others.

First, should Darwin's opinion on the matter, without presenting any particular argument for support, hold any weight? Not really. After all, this seems quite self-refuting -- if the man who pieced together the case that we descended from great apes then concluded our minds untrustworthy for that reason, then his "case" is obviously imperiled. In fact, we might make a simple conclusion from this statement: it is self-refuting. Just like making the statement, "I always lie," there is no way to escape the circular destruction of this logic. If your mind's convictions are not trustworthy, how do you even convince yourself of, or trust in, the validity of that conviction?

Also, this argument to reject the soundness of the human mind may be a variant of the genetic fallacy -- based on a categorical rejection of an argument or idea simply based on where it originated, rather than on sound reasoning. What intrinsic feature of monkeys, (apes, actually) or any other higher mammal makes their minds innately untrustworthy? In fact, we can take this a step further, given that Darwin's conclusion about the origins of man are correct, and claim that this actually substantiates the trustworthiness of our minds!

Consider, for a moment, that this argument is rooted in a rejection of the conclusion that men are descendants of apes, but additionally, an inferred premise that men are just that, rather than that and with some sort of God-imbued soul or spirit. The reason we infer this is that those who hold to souls and spirits and such nearly universally consider those intangiable, immaterial aspects of man as somehow giving his mind credibility. Of course, supporting this premise, or opposing it, is not germane at the moment. So, let us cast the question aside of whether or not man has a soul or spirit, and whether those aid in the function and trustworthiness of man's mind, or would detract from it.

What we do know from observing nature is that animals are not "stupid". Animals find clever ways of procuring food and resources. I have seen apes use sticks to poke down into rotten logs and pull out bugs, a simple tool with a necessary function -- eating. The pack behavior displayed by wolves in encircling a weakened or small animal away from the herd requires precise and coordinated movements. Tracking a scent requires a well-developed olfactory function of the brain, as well as a catalogue of "memory scents" which correlate the present smell to one of the categories "food, water, etc." I doubt sincerely that those promoting Darwin's quote above would disagree that animals are quite adept at surviving.

What can we say from that fact alone? Given that animals have an amazing variety of talents at survival, and that the diversity of nature has produced a cooperative evolution (in response to other creatures which evolve), is a kernel of truth present? Yes. We can conclude that animals are capable of learning, and learning requires a degree of understanding that the natural world is, itself, trustworthy. Without the degree of lawlike behavior nature provides, learning some new behavior would be required every second -- no "tools or tricks" would work more than once. But, animals prove to us that nature, though "red in tooth and claw", is not flippant, and the universe is not a giant cartoon with ever-changing properties.

Admittedly, many animals lack the cognitive awareness to recognize the nature of change that they must respond to, and we can call it "just instinct". Great apes are not in this category. The sophistication of the social structure and communication between apes is rather extraordinary. Most people are aware that apes have been taught sign language, even if of limited vocabulary and with toddler-like awkwardness in this form of speech.

Furthermore, when what would become modern man last shared a common ancestor with what is now the chimpanzee, approximately 6 Mya, the one characteristic feature of hominids as they progressed was their tool-making and socialization. Hominids learned not only a few "tricks and tools", they learned many. Their minds were capable of recognizing patterns in nature, and the dependability of natural laws gave them a firm foundation from which their learned and passed-down behaviors and tool-making abilities proved highly successful in the long term. Should they have not had the ability to trust in tried-and-proven methods for procuring food and shelter, we either wouldn't be here to consider it, or at the least, you wouldn't be reading these words on a pixelated screen.

I would argue that there are good reasons to trust ape minds -- they have survived the perils of nature for millions of years, and along the way, learned that they could trust the natural world around them to provide constancy. Those minds that were the brightest, that developed innovative methods for catching fish or making spears, were most likely to exist in a social structure in which this knowledge could be shared and propogate throughout their progeny.

Admittedly, understanding the natural world, as we can conclude that our ancestors (and other animals) did (and still do), is not to be equivocated as all "convictions of the mind." So let's say for a moment that we agree with Darwin that we cannot outright trust our convictions. So what? What we know we can do, because this is how we arrived where we are, is to test our convictions via actions and experiment, keep those things that provide us with a tangiable benefit, and relegate to the bin of skepticism those things that are forever beyond our proving. When the only concern on our hominid ancestors' minds was survival, it is quite unlikely that they had the time to sit around and ask, "what is the nature of consciousness?" or "what is the nature of the cosmos?" Since they were so successful in employing their minds in the pursuit of survival, we can trust our minds in at least that sense -- at providing us with a sound means of furthering our species.

Now that we stand on the shoulders of their accomplishments, the success they proved in surviving has given us a novel ability -- to sit around and use these minds to ask questions which do not, arguably, impinge directly upon our survival. In so doing, we develop certain convictions about the universe, and our place in it. If Darwin's quote can be taken at face value, all it really tells us is that these convictions of the mind are not as dependable as the laws of nature which provided these minds.

Darwin pointed out, and rightly so, that we are but a part of nature. Being a part of some system X, or outside of some black box Y, carries with it limitations in objectively observing X, or being able to get inside of and know Y. Because human beings are part of the natural universe, and are products of that universe, they will always be limited in their perspective on certain features of the universe. That warrants skepticism. It does not, however, warrant throwing out those things we have learned from nature, secrets that we have wrested away from the blind, mute, and uncaring universe. Why should we abandon trust in the regularity and uniformity of nature, when it has brought us this far? Why should we relegate the method of testing and applying knowledge tentatively, until it proves itself (via the scientific method, or in pragmatic real life experience) enough for us to "trust" it, to the trash can? That method is what led to tools, and to skyscrapers. Its success is as apparent as our own existence, and with tangiable results that "trust" alone has never given us.

Why trust a monkey mind? If we want to survive, we must trust our minds. If we do not want to be self-refuting, we must trust our minds. That said, need we trust its convictions as if they are representative of the permanance and inviolate laws of nature? Of course not. Don't trust it absolutely. Test its convictions against the sounding board of Nature. Even when it provides tangiable and practical results, there is no need to consider its convictions immutable. That is the heart of skepticism, and it seems we have from the evolution-deniers not an argument to reject the best conclusions based on the evidence we can make, but instead an argument to reject any position except epistemological skepticism. And that's fine with me.

I would flip the table on our special creationist friends and ask, if instead of the uniformity of nature, and the laws of physics, our minds were the products of some divine fiat or "poof" mechanism, why should we trust that? While we can know our universe to at least a limited extent, and recognize that its symmetry, its uniformity, and its material properties give rise to minds which are at least semi-quantifiable and semi-understandable, we know nothing of "spirit" and "soul". We know nothing of what those substances are, how they contribute to mind, and what properties they would confer to mind.

It seems that our anti-evolutionists are ashamed of their ancestry, that our friends feel probably unlike the other animals, and not nearly so mundane, but elevated in stature above nature. That is a conviction I couldn't trust, whether with a "spirit" or "soul" or just my material mind. I know myself too well to deny the claws on the ends of my fingers, the sparse fur that covers my body, the instinctive dilation of my pupils and adrenaline rush at the sign of danger. I know myself too well to deny that I am still an animal. An animal that trusts its mind and instincts, but not absolutely. I am not ashamed of it, and would ask them why they are...
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Darwin, Evolution, Epistemology, monkey mind

Glut your Cranium

Yesterday, I submitted this 5-page essay to the FFRF for their student contest. Yesterday was the deadline, I wrote it in the space of 2 hours, submitted it at the post office just before the last pickup time, and I really should've spent more time on it. I couldn't resist trying for the $2000 prize, half-ass effort or not (I think it's a decent effort).

More stuff to feed your brain on:

1. Intelligent Designer Found: His name is Phineas J. Schwartzfeld [and see ID comic]
   
2. Dembski's UPB Dashed: Math whiz demolishes the use of probabilities by creationists
3. Obama Mentions Faith: Mistake, or good thing?
   
4. PZ Weighs in on Faith Issues: See scientists and faith -- #1, #2
5. Psalms 14:1: Are atheists "fools"?
6. Growth of Godlessness: Point of Inquiry interview with Tom Flynn
7. Smalkowski Verdict: Atheist family found not guilty
8. Jewish Family Flees: Christian community ostracizes for faith
9. Harris Poll: Breaks down faith by race, age, and education
10. Carnival of the Godless: New and Old
11. Ruckus in the Blogosphere: The Raving Atheist makes some serious waves, leading many to question if he has converted

Just thought you may want some reading material this Sunday. After all, we aren't in church, are we?
________________
Technorati tags: Atheism