Many have become familiar with the work of a religious scholar named Karen Armstrong, a former nun as well who studied at Oxford though not receiving a doctorate in her field of interest. She has written widely on the subject of the history of major religions, especially highlighting the spiritual aspects of the faiths. Most popular is probably her A History of God, but it is her most recent statements and her book, The Case of God, that sparks this post.
Armstrong has tried to save religion both from the conservatives of the faiths as well as the "New Atheists", which includes usually the figures of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, along with Vic Stenger and PZ Myers. She must claim that religion is not what it is for the vast majority of people in the United States and much of the Islamic world, where sciences such as evolution are denied, where people are abused for not conforming to scriptures--the lessening of rights for homosexuals, including death as could happen in Uganda, or death for apostasy in some Islamic corners--but that religious faith is something beyond this world. Her theology is more sophisticated than that attacked by Dawkins and company.
What does she actually believe though? Well, this is the real problem because her beliefs are rather vacuous. The spiritual is quite subjective for her, such that the reality of God or gods is not a requirement for her faith. Now, that sounds like weirded-out atheism to me, when the existence of gods is not needed for belief in God. God is a symbol of things transcendent to us, and because it is beyond our understanding we cannot say anything about God.
Well, if nothing can be said of God, then what does it mean to believe in God? Saying anything about what God is or what he/she/it wants and what happens to us because of such beings would certainly undo this stance. In reality, the position Armstrong seems to take is an attempt to make sure her theology cannot be criticized--there is nothing to critique, as there is nothing at all!
Recently, a great critique by Troy Jollimore, an associate professor of philosophy at California State, Chico, has pretty much laid her work to waste. By wanting to take away all attributed to God, including existence, but still finding the subjective nature as valid as anything else, she undercuts herself. To me, it looks as if the whole effort is a defense mechanism, trying to protect that special feeling she gets when she thinks about God. Even a meaningless word or statement can be powerful to a person, and protecting the idea, the feeling, of God is her mission. It is not about the facts of nature or deep philosophy, but the will to believe. Armstrong only has rhetoric and feels powerful, as demonstrated by a reviewer from NPR, Susan Jane Gilman, but there is no real depth.
Even religious scholars seem to scoff at her insinuations, and not simply from the conservative wing. Robert M. Price, a former evangelical, now an atheist-Christian and biblical scholar, simply cannot stand her, as he has made clear to me; and R. Joseph Hoffman, another New Testament scholar, finds her arguments as little more than cliche. Armstrong, in trying to make religion something new, seems to have dropped everything that made it worth while, all for some new-agey product.
It seems Armstrong is the religious homeopath--the less things you believe in when it comes to religion, the stronger the faith. No matter what is coherent or intelligible, for God is beyond all such things. But with such soaring rhetoric, there is nothing to latch upon, no being that is there, no essence other than shear desire. Armstrong, by her want of transendence, has left the wonders of what can be, which should be upsetting to someone of a Buddhist stance. The self-indulgent narcissism is something that will leave you in Samsara; Nirvana cannot be a state of hoped-for desire, but to be beyond such desires. That must include the desires of transcendence which cannot be articulated. Otherwise, you are stuck with the illusion of reality, that which the Buddha warned against. Armstrong has attached herself to that which is not anything at all, and that is worse than at least those that believe in things that can be seen.
Let's compare this to another Armstrong or two. There is the biking-sensation, Lance Armstrong, overcoming both the competition and mortality to become something we admire. And how could we forget the Armstrong that was truly super-lunar? With our hopes and dreams of becoming more than just a species trapped on the surface of a spinning rock, we truly went beyond this world to touch another and understand our place in it. One day we will repeat this feat on the Moon again, and later to Mars and perhaps beyond. This is growth of the spirit, in the capacity of humankind that we can see. As the plaque on the lunar surface says: We came in peace for all mankind. Not bad, minus the sexist language.
Understanding who we are through the sciences has led humanity to an amazing position. We know that we have a history of 13.7 billion years from the fires of the Big Bang to the collection of dust and gas to form the Sun and the Earth. We have a four billion year history of life on this world, and each of us living today comes from an unbroken chain of the winners of nature, those that succeeded in making it to the next generation. We know that we are composed forged matter from stellar furnaces. We are children of the stars! This is all objectively known to be true, not simply a feeling or a desire.
We need no "deepity", to use the phrase from Dan Dennett. In fact, he has given a wonderful lecture of this subject recently:
Note: Dan is the Man!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Seeing is Believing
Often I hear someone mention a line from the letters of St. Paul, namely Romans 1:20
Yet, I think it is important to remember how open things are to interpretation. For example, if signs from God are visible in nature, what is the message from this?
Perhaps one will say that this is just a random formation of birds, not a deliberate insult to humans who have randomly take the middle finger to be an insult. If that is so, then doesn't that apply to all things? We see messages in the noise of existence and place purpose there--see the effects of pareidolia for example.
Perhaps instead it is better to make a purposeful noise in this universe rather than trying to find someone else's, especially if they are rude.
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.That is, the ways of God are manifest in all the things of nature. Open your eyes and you will see the ways of the Lord.
Yet, I think it is important to remember how open things are to interpretation. For example, if signs from God are visible in nature, what is the message from this?
Perhaps one will say that this is just a random formation of birds, not a deliberate insult to humans who have randomly take the middle finger to be an insult. If that is so, then doesn't that apply to all things? We see messages in the noise of existence and place purpose there--see the effects of pareidolia for example.
Perhaps instead it is better to make a purposeful noise in this universe rather than trying to find someone else's, especially if they are rude.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Advent
Christmas time is fast approaching, and the old story is being told again, along with the celebrations with reindeer, Santa Claus, and of course the Nativity.
But myths have a way of changing with time to better reflect the culture's values. And sometimes the stories change just for the heck of it:
I would guess that Jabba would be King Herod.
So, enjoy hearing the stories of the birth of Jesus. But there is a lot more...
But myths have a way of changing with time to better reflect the culture's values. And sometimes the stories change just for the heck of it:
I would guess that Jabba would be King Herod.
So, enjoy hearing the stories of the birth of Jesus. But there is a lot more...
Friday, December 4, 2009
A Day in the Life
Today I'm thinking that I should be 25. I'm not sure why I feel that way. Since it's a feeling then it will probably change. Maybe I will feel different in about a year.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
What do you call someone who lies? Ray Comfort
As many know, notorious Ray "Banana Man" Comfort has come out with his version of Darwin's classic Origin of Species since it is in public domain after 150 years of existence. The primary advertised difference between most versions of the book and Comfort's is the inclusion of an introduction that tries to say that "Darwinism" is a false religion, and all of the creationist canards that have become familiar to those that read the works or talk to those that are believers in creationism, especially the young earth variety (YEC for short). By calling Darwin a racist, a misogynist, and the philosophical influence to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, Comfort's introduction is both a long ad hominem as well as scientifically dubious.
Previously I had written on the subject of Nazism and Darwinian evolution in response to the movie Expelled. I noted that Darwin's book had been banned in Germany, that Hitler was himself not an atheist or "Darwinist", but instead a Catholic creationist. In other words, Comfort is absolutely wrong about the connection between Darwin and Hitler, and it is painful to keep hearing that Hitler was an atheist and "evolutionist" when it is so demonstrably wrong.
But I have learned something else that is quite upsetting to any critical mind. Comfort has said that he wants his readers to read past his introduction and read Darwin's book, which Comfort had made easy for the reader. However, as I had suspected, it is an abridged work. So when Comfort claims that there is no evidence for evolution, he is correct because he edited out the evidence! This has been noted by Eugenie Scott: chapters about biogeography, one of the strongest pieces of evidence in Darwin's day and today for common decent with modification, as well as chapters on embryology, morphology, and classification, are missing, as well as Darwin answering some of the objections to his theory, such as concerning transitional forms. Scott does not say if Darwin's response to the evolution of the eye is intact, but part of that passage is a favorite for creationist quote-mines, including Ray Comfort (see Nothing Created Everything, p. 18). One can view Comfort's book online, and the part about the eye evolving in Darwin's book is intact; however, in the introduction Comfort does a massive quote-mining operation (from a physicist, no less) to "prove" the eye could not have evolved (which the author does not say, but instead says the eye evolved!) rather than, say, read about the evolution of the eye in Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), Land's and Nilsson's Animal Eyes (2002), or more recently in Science a paper by Fernald and Russel (2006). The 1994 paper by Nilsson and Pleger showing a pessimistic calculation that the eye could have evolved in a few million years (in ~364,ooo generations). See an nicely condensed version of these results here and here.
What Comfort has tried to do is leave Darwin's thesis with the appearance of a few hundred pages of speculation, when in reality he came up with this theory of natural selection and published on it 20 years later all the time in between collecting more evidence. Darwin also delayed publication due to his fears of religious upheaval, but nonetheless Darwin also continued to reinforce his ideas with evidence from a diverse number of fields. By editing out these chapters, as well as being behind the times on the evidence for evolution (by, say, 150 years), Comfort shows himself to be not simply ignorant, but a deceiver. Selectively removing some of the most important chapters from Darwin's book cannot be accounted for except by conscious dishonesty. After all, one should not say "look at the evidence" and then hide it away to "prove" there is no evidence.
Ray, that is why you were awarded by the Golden Crocoduck this year.
And here is a bit more from another intellectually honest YouTuber:
So Ray, what do you call someone who lies? Did I hear "A liar"?
Previously I had written on the subject of Nazism and Darwinian evolution in response to the movie Expelled. I noted that Darwin's book had been banned in Germany, that Hitler was himself not an atheist or "Darwinist", but instead a Catholic creationist. In other words, Comfort is absolutely wrong about the connection between Darwin and Hitler, and it is painful to keep hearing that Hitler was an atheist and "evolutionist" when it is so demonstrably wrong.
But I have learned something else that is quite upsetting to any critical mind. Comfort has said that he wants his readers to read past his introduction and read Darwin's book, which Comfort had made easy for the reader. However, as I had suspected, it is an abridged work. So when Comfort claims that there is no evidence for evolution, he is correct because he edited out the evidence! This has been noted by Eugenie Scott: chapters about biogeography, one of the strongest pieces of evidence in Darwin's day and today for common decent with modification, as well as chapters on embryology, morphology, and classification, are missing, as well as Darwin answering some of the objections to his theory, such as concerning transitional forms. Scott does not say if Darwin's response to the evolution of the eye is intact, but part of that passage is a favorite for creationist quote-mines, including Ray Comfort (see Nothing Created Everything, p. 18). One can view Comfort's book online, and the part about the eye evolving in Darwin's book is intact; however, in the introduction Comfort does a massive quote-mining operation (from a physicist, no less) to "prove" the eye could not have evolved (which the author does not say, but instead says the eye evolved!) rather than, say, read about the evolution of the eye in Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), Land's and Nilsson's Animal Eyes (2002), or more recently in Science a paper by Fernald and Russel (2006). The 1994 paper by Nilsson and Pleger showing a pessimistic calculation that the eye could have evolved in a few million years (in ~364,ooo generations). See an nicely condensed version of these results here and here.
What Comfort has tried to do is leave Darwin's thesis with the appearance of a few hundred pages of speculation, when in reality he came up with this theory of natural selection and published on it 20 years later all the time in between collecting more evidence. Darwin also delayed publication due to his fears of religious upheaval, but nonetheless Darwin also continued to reinforce his ideas with evidence from a diverse number of fields. By editing out these chapters, as well as being behind the times on the evidence for evolution (by, say, 150 years), Comfort shows himself to be not simply ignorant, but a deceiver. Selectively removing some of the most important chapters from Darwin's book cannot be accounted for except by conscious dishonesty. After all, one should not say "look at the evidence" and then hide it away to "prove" there is no evidence.
Ray, that is why you were awarded by the Golden Crocoduck this year.
And here is a bit more from another intellectually honest YouTuber:
So Ray, what do you call someone who lies? Did I hear "A liar"?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Monster
Out of shear appropriateness, I decided to watch some of the classic horror movies from Universal Studies in the 1930s, namely those of the most famous movie monsters, Dracula and Frankenstein. I wish to focus more on the latter, namely because it is the less supernatural and had the greatest intersection with science.
In Bride of Frankenstein (1935), the sequel to the first, a character is introduced known as Dr. Pretorius, who becomes the quintessential mad scientist--white lab coat, fairly long white and unkempt hair, maniacal laughter, and of course little sense of morals with murderous desire. Along with beakers, henchmen, and crazy electrical equipment, the stereotype was complete. Such mad scientists would become a staple in American horror films, especially low budget films (the Ed Wood film Bride of the Monster with Bela Lugosi comes to mind). Of course, Dr. Frankenstein fits into this archetype as well, a scientist that tries to play god. Ultimately, the plans of these crazed men are defeated and the scientist destroyed, often by their own creation. They reap what they sow.
Most importantly, the Frankenstein films have the common theme that there are things that humans should not explore and should not know. This is hardly isolated to the horror genre, since it is also apparent in, say, Jurassic Park. However, when one crosses the ocean, things change.
Instead of American monsters, who are often created by men and defeated by the people or folk wisdom (i.e. Van Helsing fighting off Dracula with folk remedies), and creating an antagonism between science and society or God, let us look to the king of the monsters: Godzilla. This creature is created not by some wilful act a mad scientist but by a military that had used atomic weapons on Japanese cities and tested them in order to possibly use them on the USSR or other nations. The monster is a product of accident and foolishness. Ultimately, the creature is defeated, not by the military, but by science. Dr. Serizawa in his own elaborate laboratory, discovers a secret power in oxygen. However, he tells no one of this "oxygen destroyer" expect his fiancee because he has not yet discovered a constructive use for it. In its current form, it is an awesome power, as terrifying as the bomb itself. Reluctantly, the good doctor cannot stand what Godzilla had done to Tokyo and what it continue to do until it was stopped. Crafting his weapon, Serizawa dives down to where the monster is to be found in Tokyo Bay, uses the weapon to kill Godzilla, and then commits suicide to guarantee that no one can learn how to have this weapon.
In Japan, the scientist is not mad, but is noble, moral, and uses his powers for the good of all. While Dr. Frankenstein discovers a color beyond violet to create life in order to have a society of slaves, Dr. Serizawa discovers a power for the good of all and kills himself to avoid its possible devastation on the world. Could there not be a stronger contrast?
Now, in some later Godzilla movies, the mad scientist plays a role, such as in Godzilla vs. Biollante where a scientist creates a monster out of Godzilla cells, plant cells, and the spirit of his daughter through DNA (?) because plants have psychic powers (???). However, his intentions are not malicious and it is another scientific effort, the creation of cells that will suck the power out of Godzilla, that is a major focus. The true mad scientist stereotype isn't really here.
The point of this contrast is this: in some contexts, the scientist is seen as treading where they do not belong into the territory of the divine; however, in other stories, the scientist is the hero and even kills a god-like creature. This contrast comes across most strongly to me between American and Japanese culture. Similarly, robots in American cinema often has a menacing role (i.e. The Terminator, The Matrix) but the opposite in Japanese film and television (i.e. Gundam, Astro Boy).
Why is this? Perhaps the American culture with a general distrust of authority poo-poos the scientist because they are elitist and think they know better than others when they lack what most consider common sense and morality. In Japan, with so much focus on the honor of being an engineer or scientist, this may be a possible reason for the positive role that scientists have in their entertainment products. It is science that saves the day. Religiosity also has a role in this, since Americans are very religious overall and many claim that morality and social cohesion comes from on high, so treading on that is blasphemous. Japan is more secular, but the relation between the old belief systems and the new ways of thinking I am not familiar enough to say anything. However, the differences are striking, and one must wonder if the effects of society on the movies is reciprocal. In other words, if the movies and TV series paint a different picture of science and scientists, will that change the ways of the society?
Perhaps that is, so maybe shows like House and The Big Bang Theory can change this. It is certainly worth considering.
In Bride of Frankenstein (1935), the sequel to the first, a character is introduced known as Dr. Pretorius, who becomes the quintessential mad scientist--white lab coat, fairly long white and unkempt hair, maniacal laughter, and of course little sense of morals with murderous desire. Along with beakers, henchmen, and crazy electrical equipment, the stereotype was complete. Such mad scientists would become a staple in American horror films, especially low budget films (the Ed Wood film Bride of the Monster with Bela Lugosi comes to mind). Of course, Dr. Frankenstein fits into this archetype as well, a scientist that tries to play god. Ultimately, the plans of these crazed men are defeated and the scientist destroyed, often by their own creation. They reap what they sow.
Most importantly, the Frankenstein films have the common theme that there are things that humans should not explore and should not know. This is hardly isolated to the horror genre, since it is also apparent in, say, Jurassic Park. However, when one crosses the ocean, things change.
Instead of American monsters, who are often created by men and defeated by the people or folk wisdom (i.e. Van Helsing fighting off Dracula with folk remedies), and creating an antagonism between science and society or God, let us look to the king of the monsters: Godzilla. This creature is created not by some wilful act a mad scientist but by a military that had used atomic weapons on Japanese cities and tested them in order to possibly use them on the USSR or other nations. The monster is a product of accident and foolishness. Ultimately, the creature is defeated, not by the military, but by science. Dr. Serizawa in his own elaborate laboratory, discovers a secret power in oxygen. However, he tells no one of this "oxygen destroyer" expect his fiancee because he has not yet discovered a constructive use for it. In its current form, it is an awesome power, as terrifying as the bomb itself. Reluctantly, the good doctor cannot stand what Godzilla had done to Tokyo and what it continue to do until it was stopped. Crafting his weapon, Serizawa dives down to where the monster is to be found in Tokyo Bay, uses the weapon to kill Godzilla, and then commits suicide to guarantee that no one can learn how to have this weapon.
In Japan, the scientist is not mad, but is noble, moral, and uses his powers for the good of all. While Dr. Frankenstein discovers a color beyond violet to create life in order to have a society of slaves, Dr. Serizawa discovers a power for the good of all and kills himself to avoid its possible devastation on the world. Could there not be a stronger contrast?
Now, in some later Godzilla movies, the mad scientist plays a role, such as in Godzilla vs. Biollante where a scientist creates a monster out of Godzilla cells, plant cells, and the spirit of his daughter through DNA (?) because plants have psychic powers (???). However, his intentions are not malicious and it is another scientific effort, the creation of cells that will suck the power out of Godzilla, that is a major focus. The true mad scientist stereotype isn't really here.
The point of this contrast is this: in some contexts, the scientist is seen as treading where they do not belong into the territory of the divine; however, in other stories, the scientist is the hero and even kills a god-like creature. This contrast comes across most strongly to me between American and Japanese culture. Similarly, robots in American cinema often has a menacing role (i.e. The Terminator, The Matrix) but the opposite in Japanese film and television (i.e. Gundam, Astro Boy).
Why is this? Perhaps the American culture with a general distrust of authority poo-poos the scientist because they are elitist and think they know better than others when they lack what most consider common sense and morality. In Japan, with so much focus on the honor of being an engineer or scientist, this may be a possible reason for the positive role that scientists have in their entertainment products. It is science that saves the day. Religiosity also has a role in this, since Americans are very religious overall and many claim that morality and social cohesion comes from on high, so treading on that is blasphemous. Japan is more secular, but the relation between the old belief systems and the new ways of thinking I am not familiar enough to say anything. However, the differences are striking, and one must wonder if the effects of society on the movies is reciprocal. In other words, if the movies and TV series paint a different picture of science and scientists, will that change the ways of the society?
Perhaps that is, so maybe shows like House and The Big Bang Theory can change this. It is certainly worth considering.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Blasphempy Day
Though the news has gotten around, I should do my bit to participate and let it be known that September 30th is to be a day of sacrilege. On this day in 2005, the infamous Danish cartoons were published, eventually inciting hatred, protests, and violence in the Islamic world because the cartoons depicted the prophet Muhammad is a negative light.
The event is also in protest to actions by the United Nations allowing religion a free ride in the world of speech, namely because of Islamic nations trying to make their beliefs insulated from criticism. Further, Ireland has passed law to make blasphemy a crime, so this is hardly a one-religion problem. All beliefs should be subject to criticism, especially when they propose things demonstrably wrong and all the worse when harmful. When some area because free from critical thought, it is degrading to being human. It's degrading to religion itself, because if it needs to be protected it must be a most pitiful institution. I don't think AIG gained reverence when it received bailout money; why should religious institutions be seen differently?
I am certainly a critic of religion, both in an academic as well as less-than academic manner. If such beliefs are actually correct, they should be able to handle the hardest hits any pathetic human can through at the mantel of gods. Or are the gods just clay idols? What is someone's faith if it can only survive by protectionism and twisting facts and truths?
Thus, I am dismissive of the dogmas of institutions, and I think that the reprehensible actions of such attitudes and organizations speak for themselves. If child-molesting priests are defensible because they are "men of God", don't expect me to accept such lunacy.
And in the spirit of the challenge issued by the Rational Response Squad some time ago, I deny the Holy Spirit.
The event is also in protest to actions by the United Nations allowing religion a free ride in the world of speech, namely because of Islamic nations trying to make their beliefs insulated from criticism. Further, Ireland has passed law to make blasphemy a crime, so this is hardly a one-religion problem. All beliefs should be subject to criticism, especially when they propose things demonstrably wrong and all the worse when harmful. When some area because free from critical thought, it is degrading to being human. It's degrading to religion itself, because if it needs to be protected it must be a most pitiful institution. I don't think AIG gained reverence when it received bailout money; why should religious institutions be seen differently?
I am certainly a critic of religion, both in an academic as well as less-than academic manner. If such beliefs are actually correct, they should be able to handle the hardest hits any pathetic human can through at the mantel of gods. Or are the gods just clay idols? What is someone's faith if it can only survive by protectionism and twisting facts and truths?
Thus, I am dismissive of the dogmas of institutions, and I think that the reprehensible actions of such attitudes and organizations speak for themselves. If child-molesting priests are defensible because they are "men of God", don't expect me to accept such lunacy.
And in the spirit of the challenge issued by the Rational Response Squad some time ago, I deny the Holy Spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)