I was saddened to read this morning that comedian George Carlin has died. In my opinion, the greatest thing about Carlin was his appreciation for language and his Orwellian understanding of its distortion. His comedy was vulgar and irreverent, but it was always tinged with erudition. He was pretty much uneducated, but he had a far greater understanding of the world than most Americans.
Carlin was acerbically critical of the American political system and religion ("Three out of four people now believe in angels. What're you, fuckin' stupid?"). His assessment was insightful, and his explanation of how language is used to manipulate public opinion was as eloquent as that of George Orwell. He dismissed religion as mind control and had a similar view of the consumerism so pervasive in this country. Any form of orthodoxy or attempt to craft a "received reality" was suspect. Carlin ridiculed politically-correct euphemisms as ruthlessly as he attacked the owning class in America. He was a free-thinker and one hilarious motherfucker.
Some responsible YouTuber posted a piece from his most recent stage show about death:
Monday, June 23, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
What if you're wrong about the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea?
I love this video of Richard Dawkins owning a theist:
This speaks to one of the early questions that drove me away from Christianity. How can I know that my religion, I asked myself, is true, when there is just as much evidence for all the other religions (that is, none)? This is a very important question that religious people need to ask themselves if they are at all concerned about being intellectually honest.
This speaks to one of the early questions that drove me away from Christianity. How can I know that my religion, I asked myself, is true, when there is just as much evidence for all the other religions (that is, none)? This is a very important question that religious people need to ask themselves if they are at all concerned about being intellectually honest.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Why I am not fundamentalist
Over the past week I have witnessed a series of flame wars in the Religion and Theology forum at Democratic Underground, where I wasted an exceptional amount of time last month. For five or six successive days, people who don't know each other traded insults and fallacious arguments, diagnosed each other with various neuroses, and squabbled over who was the bigger crybaby. The protracted flamefest started over the suggestion, not unknown in those parts and rarely well-received, that atheism is a religion. Two posters, both themselves atheists, spent days antagonizing other atheists while proclaiming their good intentions. In all, it was an effective demonstration of one of the strongest criticisms of atheism (which nonetheless falls victim to the fallacy of suggesting that atheism is a unified movement, but I will address that shortly): many atheists have a vicious contrarian streak and need to feel superior to others. If there are no believers around, other atheists will do. I have gone through this stage at least once, so I am acutely aware of it in others.
I didn't see much to gain from getting involved, so abstained from the argument for the most part. One intercession that I made was to observe that there were three definitions of "fundamentalist atheism" at work. Generally speaking, a fundamentalist is a person who adheres to a strictly literal interpretation of a religious scripture. Since atheism is not itself a philosophy but merely the condition of lacking belief in a god or gods, there are no central tenets for atheists to adhere to. The term is generally applied to vocal atheists how don't feel obligated to show respect for the supernatural beliefs of others. Beyond that common thread, the term is amorphous and serves different users in different ways, shifting as necessary to apply to many thinkers and positions.
The variation of the definitions I encountered intrigued me. I delineated the them as follows:
1). A fundamentalist atheist is one who will not acknowledge that atheists such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot committed atrocities. Also,they dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that fundamentalist atheism exists.
I think the person who advanced this definition meant to say that fundamentalist atheists refuse to admit that Stalin et al. were motivated by their atheism in their atrocities, which is the usual construction of that particular meme. I don't think anyone, at least at DU, had ever claimed that Stalin's purges or the Cultural Revolution didn't happen, but I checked carefully, and that was indeed the accusation made by the poster in question.
I also like the catch-22 couched in the second half of this definition. All you have to do to be a fundie is claim that you are not a fundie. It's artful, if pedantry is considered an art (as it is on some Internet boards). The gist of this person's concept of fundamentalist atheists is that they refuse to accept any criticism of atheism and form a quasi-religious clique to reinforce their delusion. It is convenient for use against anyone who defends atheism against attack, because they seem to tacitly acknowledge that they are part of a larger movement.
2). A fundamentalist atheist stubbornly asserts that no benefit has come from religion and that religion must be eliminated, usually be violent means.
As Carl Sagan once said, "Also pretty vague, but, also pretty different." While there is some commonality between this definition and (1), namely the tendency to ignore evidence, the distinction here is that (2) treats atheism as a philosophy with a set doctrine about the destructive nature of religion, whereas (1) treats atheists as a cohesive group that defends its own members.
A major problem with (2) is that many of the people labeled "fundamentalist atheists," including Dawkins, et al., don't actually make that claim. In particular many of the atheists labeled as part of the "clique" on DU do not agree with this position. I read the claim many times that most of the atheists on that discussion board advocate putting the religious in mental institutions, but it was always unsubstantiated. One user posted a thread in that forum explaining how most atheists enjoy religious music, holidays, cathedral architecture, and so forth; the main advocate of (2) was shocked, shocked at the fact that most of the atheists on the board had positive things to say about religious culture. I'm not sure whether the incident changed his conception of "fundamentalist atheism."
There are people who can accurately be named "anti-theists," but I'm not sure Dawkins and his colleagues ascribe to that label. I would place the four so-called New Atheists on a continuum, starting with Christopher Hitchens, the most vituperative critic of religion, followed by Sam Harris, Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, the most objective and scholarly. Both Hitchens and Harris are apologists for neoconservative foreign policy, arguing that Muslim fanatics are a unique threat to Western civilization which can only be eliminated by force. Their position is perhaps the origin of the misconception that many atheists advocate violence against the religious. Dennett and Dawkins are strongly critical of American imperialism and violent coercion of any kind. Not even all of these four consider violence justified; to impute that position to a majority of atheists is an egregious exaggeration.
3). Fundamentalist atheists are those who insist that the only proper reading of a religious text is a literal reading and that all believers must adhere to such an interpretation.
This definition cemented in my mind the notion that the three posters who provided the definitions were merely drawing them around grudges and appealing to past experiences on the board to provide content for the chimera that is fundamentalist atheism. (3) happily eschews the common factor between the two preceding definitions, effectively depriving all three of any credibility. The practice of denying counter-evidence is tellingly absent from this definition; if there was any legitimate basis for the term I would expect that to be a universal component.
I understand the argument which gives rise to this definition. It was in fact instrumental in my own transition away from belief in God. When I was a child I believed everything in the bible was the literal truth, but the Cosmo Kramer that is reality inevitably imposed itself on my little bubble. The stories of the Flood and the Creation are simply contrary to fact, and when I abandoned them I couldn't settle on a liberal interpretation of Christianity. The New Testament, with all its miracles, is no less fantastic than the Old Testament. Without the story
of the Fall, the Resurrection narrative doesn't make any sense. Once the Old Testament myths are suspect, the New Testament miracles must fall under the same scrutiny. If the miracles are discounted, what is the rational distinction that can be made to assert that some parts of the New Testament are historical, while others are mythical or allegorical? Any standard that might be applied to distinguish between the two is, as far as I can see, completely arbitrary. The only cohesive readings of the bible are a literalist view (which must contend with a mountain of evidence against its veracity) and an allegorical view.
The above reasoning is either misinterpreted by a believer or misapplied by a disbeliever to create the negative interactions of the kind which lead to (3). This seems a rather personalized definition of "fundamentalist atheism," but then, all three definitions seem highly personalized. Regardless of the definition, though, I only ever see the term used as a pejorative. It is applied as a catch-all for anyone who steps out of line and expresses their ideas about religion. There is only one fundamental of atheism: not believing in God. You don't even have to make the claim that God doesn't exist; all you have to do is refrain from making the claim that He does. There is no central atheist authority, and no foundational creed to subscribe to. Out of such a non-contiguous group, the "fundamentalist" label tends to fall upon anyone whose behavior is judged impertinent.
I didn't see much to gain from getting involved, so abstained from the argument for the most part. One intercession that I made was to observe that there were three definitions of "fundamentalist atheism" at work. Generally speaking, a fundamentalist is a person who adheres to a strictly literal interpretation of a religious scripture. Since atheism is not itself a philosophy but merely the condition of lacking belief in a god or gods, there are no central tenets for atheists to adhere to. The term is generally applied to vocal atheists how don't feel obligated to show respect for the supernatural beliefs of others. Beyond that common thread, the term is amorphous and serves different users in different ways, shifting as necessary to apply to many thinkers and positions.
The variation of the definitions I encountered intrigued me. I delineated the them as follows:
1). A fundamentalist atheist is one who will not acknowledge that atheists such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot committed atrocities. Also,they dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that fundamentalist atheism exists.
I think the person who advanced this definition meant to say that fundamentalist atheists refuse to admit that Stalin et al. were motivated by their atheism in their atrocities, which is the usual construction of that particular meme. I don't think anyone, at least at DU, had ever claimed that Stalin's purges or the Cultural Revolution didn't happen, but I checked carefully, and that was indeed the accusation made by the poster in question.
I also like the catch-22 couched in the second half of this definition. All you have to do to be a fundie is claim that you are not a fundie. It's artful, if pedantry is considered an art (as it is on some Internet boards). The gist of this person's concept of fundamentalist atheists is that they refuse to accept any criticism of atheism and form a quasi-religious clique to reinforce their delusion. It is convenient for use against anyone who defends atheism against attack, because they seem to tacitly acknowledge that they are part of a larger movement.
2). A fundamentalist atheist stubbornly asserts that no benefit has come from religion and that religion must be eliminated, usually be violent means.
As Carl Sagan once said, "Also pretty vague, but, also pretty different." While there is some commonality between this definition and (1), namely the tendency to ignore evidence, the distinction here is that (2) treats atheism as a philosophy with a set doctrine about the destructive nature of religion, whereas (1) treats atheists as a cohesive group that defends its own members.
A major problem with (2) is that many of the people labeled "fundamentalist atheists," including Dawkins, et al., don't actually make that claim. In particular many of the atheists labeled as part of the "clique" on DU do not agree with this position. I read the claim many times that most of the atheists on that discussion board advocate putting the religious in mental institutions, but it was always unsubstantiated. One user posted a thread in that forum explaining how most atheists enjoy religious music, holidays, cathedral architecture, and so forth; the main advocate of (2) was shocked, shocked at the fact that most of the atheists on the board had positive things to say about religious culture. I'm not sure whether the incident changed his conception of "fundamentalist atheism."
There are people who can accurately be named "anti-theists," but I'm not sure Dawkins and his colleagues ascribe to that label. I would place the four so-called New Atheists on a continuum, starting with Christopher Hitchens, the most vituperative critic of religion, followed by Sam Harris, Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, the most objective and scholarly. Both Hitchens and Harris are apologists for neoconservative foreign policy, arguing that Muslim fanatics are a unique threat to Western civilization which can only be eliminated by force. Their position is perhaps the origin of the misconception that many atheists advocate violence against the religious. Dennett and Dawkins are strongly critical of American imperialism and violent coercion of any kind. Not even all of these four consider violence justified; to impute that position to a majority of atheists is an egregious exaggeration.
3). Fundamentalist atheists are those who insist that the only proper reading of a religious text is a literal reading and that all believers must adhere to such an interpretation.
This definition cemented in my mind the notion that the three posters who provided the definitions were merely drawing them around grudges and appealing to past experiences on the board to provide content for the chimera that is fundamentalist atheism. (3) happily eschews the common factor between the two preceding definitions, effectively depriving all three of any credibility. The practice of denying counter-evidence is tellingly absent from this definition; if there was any legitimate basis for the term I would expect that to be a universal component.
I understand the argument which gives rise to this definition. It was in fact instrumental in my own transition away from belief in God. When I was a child I believed everything in the bible was the literal truth, but the Cosmo Kramer that is reality inevitably imposed itself on my little bubble. The stories of the Flood and the Creation are simply contrary to fact, and when I abandoned them I couldn't settle on a liberal interpretation of Christianity. The New Testament, with all its miracles, is no less fantastic than the Old Testament. Without the story
of the Fall, the Resurrection narrative doesn't make any sense. Once the Old Testament myths are suspect, the New Testament miracles must fall under the same scrutiny. If the miracles are discounted, what is the rational distinction that can be made to assert that some parts of the New Testament are historical, while others are mythical or allegorical? Any standard that might be applied to distinguish between the two is, as far as I can see, completely arbitrary. The only cohesive readings of the bible are a literalist view (which must contend with a mountain of evidence against its veracity) and an allegorical view.
The above reasoning is either misinterpreted by a believer or misapplied by a disbeliever to create the negative interactions of the kind which lead to (3). This seems a rather personalized definition of "fundamentalist atheism," but then, all three definitions seem highly personalized. Regardless of the definition, though, I only ever see the term used as a pejorative. It is applied as a catch-all for anyone who steps out of line and expresses their ideas about religion. There is only one fundamental of atheism: not believing in God. You don't even have to make the claim that God doesn't exist; all you have to do is refrain from making the claim that He does. There is no central atheist authority, and no foundational creed to subscribe to. Out of such a non-contiguous group, the "fundamentalist" label tends to fall upon anyone whose behavior is judged impertinent.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Moving the goalposts
Today the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee is meeting to determine the status of primary election delegates from the states of Florida and Michigan. Those two states were stripped of their delegates after their state Democratic Parties went back on their agreement to hold primaries no earlier than February 5.
All of the presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, and the voters in those states were told that no delegates would be seated. Before Michigan held its primary January 15, four of the candidates removed their names from the ballot, leaving only Hillary Clinton, who declined to do so, Chris Dodd, who did not have the resources to withdraw his name, and Dennis Kucinich, who presumably thought he would have received the same number of votes either way. There was relatively low turnout compared to the number of Democrats who voted in other primaries, which is understandable considering that everyone knew at the time that it wouldn't mean anything. DailyKos urged Democrats to vote in the Republican primary and rejuvenate the floundering campaign of Mitt Romney to disrupt Republican campaign. The contributors to that blog were not happy when Republicans did the same to the Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. At any rate, 56% of the Michiganders voted for Clinton, while 31% marked "uncommitted."
Florida held it primary on January 29. Hillary Clinton won 50% of the vote, Barack Obama garnered 33%, and John Edwards barely missed winning a delegate with 14%. It was accepted by all parties that the primaries would not count because they violated the schedule set by the DNC. The Clinton campaign did not care, for the most part, because they believed that they would have a lock on the nomination by Super Tuesday. Unfortunately for them, Obama performed well that day and won a series of 12 victories thereafter because Clinton had no campaign infrastructure in any of the subsequent states. Clinton began to push to have the primaries from Florida and Michigan legitimized.
The RBC has a number of options before it after it hears testimony from the Obama and Clinton campaigns. It could refuse to seat any delegates, seat all of the delegates from both states but allow each only half a vote at the convention, or seat half the delegates from each state. The Committee does not have the authority to grant either state more than half its votes at the convention. It might split Michigan's 108 delegates evenly or it might assign 69 to Clinton and 56 to Obama, giving him the uncommitted delegates.
If the DNC has any integrity, it will not seat any delegates from either state. Everyone was explicitly notified in January that the votes would not count. The Clinton campaign has no respect for the rules, and the Obama campaign doesn't have much to gain by standing up for them, so they are pushing for a compromise. This fiasco is a major blow to the credibility of the Democratic Party, if that party can be said to have any credibility to begin with. Not only is their selection process arcane and antidemocratic, allowing high-level party officials to weigh against a candidate with popular support in their role as superdelegates; the DNC also tolerates relocation of its goalposts at the very end of the primary game.
None of the proposed solutions provide any remedy for the people in both states who sat out the vote because they were told it would not count. Clinton loyalist Howard Ickes insists that Obama should not receive any delegates from Michigan, essentially punishing Obama for following the rules. This is the level of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from her and band of inept crooks. Michigan was completely expendable to them until Obama pulled ahead of them. Now they are pushing to change the rules in hopes of surviving.
As a registered Democrat, I feel slighted by the attempt to count invalid votes. My vote in the Pennsylvania primary was valid, as far as I know, and now it will likely be debased by the inclusion of votes from a pair of sham elections. This is precisely the kind of behavior that made me resist registering with this party in the first place. If democracy mattered to these people, they would have pushed for another set of primaries so that every Democrat's vote could be counted. Instead they are left with a bitter and divisive episode which will necessarily disenfranchise someone.
The RBC will likely seat at least some of the delegates from the two states, placating the bitter supporters of the losing candidate. The best possible outcome for Clinton still leaves her
chances very slim, so this abrogation of the party's rules will have little meaningful effect. Come to think of it, many of her supporters will still refuse to vote for Obama once he wins the nomination, regardless of what concessions are made to them.
The notable exception might be Clinton's installation on the bottom half of the Democratic ticket. This would unite the party, but it would lose my vote. Obama's political brand, built upon the notion that he is separate from the Washinton politics that have flourished under Bush and Clinton, already strains my suspension of disbelief. Taking Clinton, whom he has decried as an exemplar of that kind of politics, under his wing would dramatically undermine that image. Almost nothing could persuade me to vote for Clinton in any capacity.
All of the presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, and the voters in those states were told that no delegates would be seated. Before Michigan held its primary January 15, four of the candidates removed their names from the ballot, leaving only Hillary Clinton, who declined to do so, Chris Dodd, who did not have the resources to withdraw his name, and Dennis Kucinich, who presumably thought he would have received the same number of votes either way. There was relatively low turnout compared to the number of Democrats who voted in other primaries, which is understandable considering that everyone knew at the time that it wouldn't mean anything. DailyKos urged Democrats to vote in the Republican primary and rejuvenate the floundering campaign of Mitt Romney to disrupt Republican campaign. The contributors to that blog were not happy when Republicans did the same to the Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. At any rate, 56% of the Michiganders voted for Clinton, while 31% marked "uncommitted."
Florida held it primary on January 29. Hillary Clinton won 50% of the vote, Barack Obama garnered 33%, and John Edwards barely missed winning a delegate with 14%. It was accepted by all parties that the primaries would not count because they violated the schedule set by the DNC. The Clinton campaign did not care, for the most part, because they believed that they would have a lock on the nomination by Super Tuesday. Unfortunately for them, Obama performed well that day and won a series of 12 victories thereafter because Clinton had no campaign infrastructure in any of the subsequent states. Clinton began to push to have the primaries from Florida and Michigan legitimized.
The RBC has a number of options before it after it hears testimony from the Obama and Clinton campaigns. It could refuse to seat any delegates, seat all of the delegates from both states but allow each only half a vote at the convention, or seat half the delegates from each state. The Committee does not have the authority to grant either state more than half its votes at the convention. It might split Michigan's 108 delegates evenly or it might assign 69 to Clinton and 56 to Obama, giving him the uncommitted delegates.
If the DNC has any integrity, it will not seat any delegates from either state. Everyone was explicitly notified in January that the votes would not count. The Clinton campaign has no respect for the rules, and the Obama campaign doesn't have much to gain by standing up for them, so they are pushing for a compromise. This fiasco is a major blow to the credibility of the Democratic Party, if that party can be said to have any credibility to begin with. Not only is their selection process arcane and antidemocratic, allowing high-level party officials to weigh against a candidate with popular support in their role as superdelegates; the DNC also tolerates relocation of its goalposts at the very end of the primary game.
None of the proposed solutions provide any remedy for the people in both states who sat out the vote because they were told it would not count. Clinton loyalist Howard Ickes insists that Obama should not receive any delegates from Michigan, essentially punishing Obama for following the rules. This is the level of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from her and band of inept crooks. Michigan was completely expendable to them until Obama pulled ahead of them. Now they are pushing to change the rules in hopes of surviving.
As a registered Democrat, I feel slighted by the attempt to count invalid votes. My vote in the Pennsylvania primary was valid, as far as I know, and now it will likely be debased by the inclusion of votes from a pair of sham elections. This is precisely the kind of behavior that made me resist registering with this party in the first place. If democracy mattered to these people, they would have pushed for another set of primaries so that every Democrat's vote could be counted. Instead they are left with a bitter and divisive episode which will necessarily disenfranchise someone.
The RBC will likely seat at least some of the delegates from the two states, placating the bitter supporters of the losing candidate. The best possible outcome for Clinton still leaves her
chances very slim, so this abrogation of the party's rules will have little meaningful effect. Come to think of it, many of her supporters will still refuse to vote for Obama once he wins the nomination, regardless of what concessions are made to them.
The notable exception might be Clinton's installation on the bottom half of the Democratic ticket. This would unite the party, but it would lose my vote. Obama's political brand, built upon the notion that he is separate from the Washinton politics that have flourished under Bush and Clinton, already strains my suspension of disbelief. Taking Clinton, whom he has decried as an exemplar of that kind of politics, under his wing would dramatically undermine that image. Almost nothing could persuade me to vote for Clinton in any capacity.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
No historical understanding necessary
I like this cartoon by Pulitzer Prize winner Mike Ramirez. In particular, I like the way it casually eviscerates its own point. The bust of Lincoln is included to demonstrate that far more qualified presidents would be baffled that someone so inexperienced as Barack Obama could hold the highest office in the land.While Lincoln is indubitably one of the greatest presidents in American history, his example is inapt because he had about as much government experience when he was elected president as Obama does today. Lincoln served eight years as a member of the state legislature in Illinois, equal to Obama's time there. Lincoln taught himself law during his early years in the legislature and eventually became a distinguished attorney. He was elected to a single term in the House of Representatives, where he was a vocal advocate against the Mexican War, but was not a prominent or successful legislator. In 1858 he ran unsuccessfully against Stephen A. Douglas for the Senate seat now held by Richard Durbin. Douglas and Lincoln ran for president two years later; the Electoral College was split among them and two other candidates, but Lincoln had a commanding plurality in the popular vote and a solid bloc of victories in Northern states.
Anyone who follows presidential politics is familiar with Obama's résumé. He graduated from Columbia University, worked briefly for a publishing company, then moved to Chicago to become a community organizer. After graduating from Harvard Law school in 1991, he worked as an attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He served eight years as a legislator before defeating carpetbagger and all-around embarrassment Alan Keyes in what was essentially a bye election for the Senate in 2004. He has served for three years and, while not a star legislator, I submit that he has been more successful than Lincoln.
Obama's is far from the most impressive curriculum vitae to show up in this year's crop of presidential candidates, but the parallels between him and Lincoln should be enough to demolish the "lack of experience" meme. While there is little to indicate that an Obama presidency would be as historic and Lincoln's, a lack of executive experience should not automatically disqualify a presidential candidate.
It is surprising that Ramirez chose Lincoln as the president who, presumably, would be most offended by an Obama presidency. He might have chosen Ronald Reagan, who remains a conservative icon to this day and had served two terms as governor of California before ascending to the Oval Office. That might neuter the right's criticism of Obama's fanatical supporters, who are no less enthusiastic than the Cult of the Deified Ronald. At least a Reagan bust would have allowed the cartoonist to avoid decapitating his own argument, though. Critiquing the Obama brand could be the work of other cartoons, so the contradiction would be less obvious.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The aesthetics of science
I wanted to respond to a comment that Maddie left on my second Templeton post, but I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say, so I'll use this post to cover all the ground I couldn't in my response.
Maddie wrote about the standards of evidence that would be necessary to justifiably believe in a god. The only thing even approaching positive evidence would be a demonstration of some phenomenon that cannot be explained by any natural cause. Even then, attributing any specific characteristics to this hypothetical supernatural force is completely baseless. The human race has learned enough to graduate beyond that level of thinking.
When I was a child, I struggled to reconcile the stories in the bible with things that I knew to be fact- stories like the creation (I didn't realize at the time that there were two mutually exclusive stories in Genesis), the Noachian Flood, the sun standing still in the sky so Joshua could complete his genocide against the Amorites, etc. The more I thought about those stories, the clearer it became that they could not have happened. I was pulled in both directions, but I had always found the science more compelling than the myths. Everything I learned about science made sense. To borrow a phrase from physicist Brian Greene, the universe is elegant. The stories in the bible, with all of their contradictions are other various absurdities, never came together in the same way.
That is an aesthetic judgment, I guess. Based on that judgment, though, I can't figure out the appeal of pseudoscience. It isn't enough that we, a horribly limited species in an insignificant little corner of space, have found a way to reach out across the universe and determine with a very high level of precision how it works? We also need to look at the planets moving through the sky and come up with a way that they supposedly affect our daily lives? Science is so much more proactive, using our own faculties to reach out into the cold beauty of the universe and snatch a little piece of it for ourselves. The notion that our personalities and the details of our lives are dictated by some hazy astrological mechanism is so much less life-affirming.
I see the same glaring discrepancy in homeopathy. The growth of our medical knowledge is perhaps more astounding than our progress in astrophysics- it roughly doubles every two years. The exponential gains of medical science are not merely an inspiring display of the human capacity for discovery- they mean advances in the human condition on a daily basis. The fundamental changes that medicine promises in the coming decades are startling in their scope and brilliance. Medicine is a branch of science that should generate awe in every human being. And yet some are not impressed- they insist on buying into homeopathy, which operates on the principle that water 'remembers' the properties of past solutes, so that medicine diluted to absurdly low concentrations retains its beneficial effect. This seems to me an obscene abdication of reason.
Are we somehow not packaging the truth properly? Surely, the comforting appeal of homeopathy and other myths must pale in comparison to the inherent beauty of the truths that human endeavor has revealed. Reality should need no marketing campaign. And yet people look askance at you if you say you don't believe in these myths. Granted, most who believe the Christian mythology wouldn't link their historical 'get out of reality free' card to the 'get out of reality free' cards others use for astronomy and medicine and so forth, but I challenge anyone to point out a substantive distinction.
What am I going on about? If all those good folks in the heartland think the world is only 6,000 years old, well, shucks, they just can't be wrong.
Maddie wrote about the standards of evidence that would be necessary to justifiably believe in a god. The only thing even approaching positive evidence would be a demonstration of some phenomenon that cannot be explained by any natural cause. Even then, attributing any specific characteristics to this hypothetical supernatural force is completely baseless. The human race has learned enough to graduate beyond that level of thinking.
When I was a child, I struggled to reconcile the stories in the bible with things that I knew to be fact- stories like the creation (I didn't realize at the time that there were two mutually exclusive stories in Genesis), the Noachian Flood, the sun standing still in the sky so Joshua could complete his genocide against the Amorites, etc. The more I thought about those stories, the clearer it became that they could not have happened. I was pulled in both directions, but I had always found the science more compelling than the myths. Everything I learned about science made sense. To borrow a phrase from physicist Brian Greene, the universe is elegant. The stories in the bible, with all of their contradictions are other various absurdities, never came together in the same way.
That is an aesthetic judgment, I guess. Based on that judgment, though, I can't figure out the appeal of pseudoscience. It isn't enough that we, a horribly limited species in an insignificant little corner of space, have found a way to reach out across the universe and determine with a very high level of precision how it works? We also need to look at the planets moving through the sky and come up with a way that they supposedly affect our daily lives? Science is so much more proactive, using our own faculties to reach out into the cold beauty of the universe and snatch a little piece of it for ourselves. The notion that our personalities and the details of our lives are dictated by some hazy astrological mechanism is so much less life-affirming.
I see the same glaring discrepancy in homeopathy. The growth of our medical knowledge is perhaps more astounding than our progress in astrophysics- it roughly doubles every two years. The exponential gains of medical science are not merely an inspiring display of the human capacity for discovery- they mean advances in the human condition on a daily basis. The fundamental changes that medicine promises in the coming decades are startling in their scope and brilliance. Medicine is a branch of science that should generate awe in every human being. And yet some are not impressed- they insist on buying into homeopathy, which operates on the principle that water 'remembers' the properties of past solutes, so that medicine diluted to absurdly low concentrations retains its beneficial effect. This seems to me an obscene abdication of reason.
Are we somehow not packaging the truth properly? Surely, the comforting appeal of homeopathy and other myths must pale in comparison to the inherent beauty of the truths that human endeavor has revealed. Reality should need no marketing campaign. And yet people look askance at you if you say you don't believe in these myths. Granted, most who believe the Christian mythology wouldn't link their historical 'get out of reality free' card to the 'get out of reality free' cards others use for astronomy and medicine and so forth, but I challenge anyone to point out a substantive distinction.
What am I going on about? If all those good folks in the heartland think the world is only 6,000 years old, well, shucks, they just can't be wrong.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Superstition v. progress
The British House of Commons is currently dealing with a series of bills laying down guidelines for embryology in the UK. There are provisions dealing with abortion regulation and in virto fertilization, but the main provision at issue would allow government researchers to work with hybrid embryos, which are animal cells implanted with the nuclei of human cells and used to produce human tissue. Essentially, they are synthetic human stem cells used to make up for a shortage of human embryos available for research.
Predictably, the main opponents of the research are Catholic MPs, clergy and laypeople. They argue that the research is an affront to "human dignity," a frustratingly nebulous term used by opponents to make the case against a broad range of biomedical research. Similarly, the admixture of human and animal tissue is labeled "obscene." These are subjective distinctions which have no place in a scientific debate. Why should the sensibilities of a few Tory MPs be enshrined in law? Why would their view of dignity or obscenity be privileged over that of other Brits?
There is a parallel debate going on in this country, highlighted by Human Dignity and Bioethics, a collection of essays recently submitted to the president by his Council on Bioethics. The essays are fraught throughout with biblical references, which is not surprising given the proclivities of the current administration. The Council was assembled by the president's main adviser on bioethics, Dr. Leon Kass. Kass is the man behind the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. In his essay, he cites Genesis 9:6 as the basis for preventing murder. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
He uses his view of the inviolate human form to justify his opposition to any drastic changes by biomedicine- even those that would lengthen the human lifespan or alleviate suffering. For Kass, the problem with using embryos in research is not merely that the microscopic clusters of human tissue are destroyed in the process- though he is assuredly offended by that- the problem is with the results of successful research. For Kass, genetic disorders are an essential part of the human condition and efforts to cure them are an abomination. I don't know which of those I find more ridiculous. The perverse fetish on human suffering is more offensive, though.
Kass retains a very biblical understanding of human life. He wrote in 1994 that all involuntary bodily functions are shameful, bestial, and indecent. Yawning, coughing, sneezing, and especially blushing reveal a subhuman susceptibility to one's impulses. All should hidden from public view. (I shudder to think how Kass would react if someone farted in his presence.) Add to that antiquated but harmless list of taboos the assertion that women exist for one teleological purpose: to procreate. There is simply no justification for allowing this man's views to be imposed on a modern, secular society. The dietary and social proscriptions of the Hebrews in the Pentateuch are of no use to us 2,800 years later. We are not the same culture. The Hebrews in the later books of the Old Testament didn't even retain the same Mosaic outlook. Imposing Leviticus and Numbers on modern America is just irrational.
Impeding stem cell research is not merely irrational but criminal. It would seem onerous to find a greater affront to human dignity than the material status granted to women in the OT, but I think allowing others to die of Alzheimer's disease fits the bill. We have a profound moral responsibility to advance medical treatments for Alzheimer's and other genetic disorders. There is simply no comparison between the interest of inanimate nucleic compounds in not being manipulated by lab equipment and the interest of human beings in living lives free of unnecessary, painful and disruptive ailments like Parkinson's and cystic fibrosis. As long as the prospect of developing successful treatments justifies the cost of the research, there should be no question whether or not it goes forward. The argument against it is superstition.
Dr. Steven Pinker argues that the meaningful standard in bioethics ought to be autonomy. Human beings should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they undergo pain for some later benefit and whether they live or die. Embryos can't feel pain, so their informed consent is irrelevant. The very idea is nonsensical. "Dignity" is far too subjective a concept to define by legislation. In my view, for instance, there is no greater expression of human dignity, no more eloquent demonstration of our ascension beyond an animal level of existence, than the ability of our species to extract from nature the means to better our own condition. It is an assault on that dignity to block human progress with primitive and superstitious mores. A book of myths written nearly three millennia ago should not dictate who lives or dies today.
Predictably, the main opponents of the research are Catholic MPs, clergy and laypeople. They argue that the research is an affront to "human dignity," a frustratingly nebulous term used by opponents to make the case against a broad range of biomedical research. Similarly, the admixture of human and animal tissue is labeled "obscene." These are subjective distinctions which have no place in a scientific debate. Why should the sensibilities of a few Tory MPs be enshrined in law? Why would their view of dignity or obscenity be privileged over that of other Brits?
There is a parallel debate going on in this country, highlighted by Human Dignity and Bioethics, a collection of essays recently submitted to the president by his Council on Bioethics. The essays are fraught throughout with biblical references, which is not surprising given the proclivities of the current administration. The Council was assembled by the president's main adviser on bioethics, Dr. Leon Kass. Kass is the man behind the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. In his essay, he cites Genesis 9:6 as the basis for preventing murder. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
He uses his view of the inviolate human form to justify his opposition to any drastic changes by biomedicine- even those that would lengthen the human lifespan or alleviate suffering. For Kass, the problem with using embryos in research is not merely that the microscopic clusters of human tissue are destroyed in the process- though he is assuredly offended by that- the problem is with the results of successful research. For Kass, genetic disorders are an essential part of the human condition and efforts to cure them are an abomination. I don't know which of those I find more ridiculous. The perverse fetish on human suffering is more offensive, though.
Kass retains a very biblical understanding of human life. He wrote in 1994 that all involuntary bodily functions are shameful, bestial, and indecent. Yawning, coughing, sneezing, and especially blushing reveal a subhuman susceptibility to one's impulses. All should hidden from public view. (I shudder to think how Kass would react if someone farted in his presence.) Add to that antiquated but harmless list of taboos the assertion that women exist for one teleological purpose: to procreate. There is simply no justification for allowing this man's views to be imposed on a modern, secular society. The dietary and social proscriptions of the Hebrews in the Pentateuch are of no use to us 2,800 years later. We are not the same culture. The Hebrews in the later books of the Old Testament didn't even retain the same Mosaic outlook. Imposing Leviticus and Numbers on modern America is just irrational.
Impeding stem cell research is not merely irrational but criminal. It would seem onerous to find a greater affront to human dignity than the material status granted to women in the OT, but I think allowing others to die of Alzheimer's disease fits the bill. We have a profound moral responsibility to advance medical treatments for Alzheimer's and other genetic disorders. There is simply no comparison between the interest of inanimate nucleic compounds in not being manipulated by lab equipment and the interest of human beings in living lives free of unnecessary, painful and disruptive ailments like Parkinson's and cystic fibrosis. As long as the prospect of developing successful treatments justifies the cost of the research, there should be no question whether or not it goes forward. The argument against it is superstition.
Dr. Steven Pinker argues that the meaningful standard in bioethics ought to be autonomy. Human beings should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they undergo pain for some later benefit and whether they live or die. Embryos can't feel pain, so their informed consent is irrelevant. The very idea is nonsensical. "Dignity" is far too subjective a concept to define by legislation. In my view, for instance, there is no greater expression of human dignity, no more eloquent demonstration of our ascension beyond an animal level of existence, than the ability of our species to extract from nature the means to better our own condition. It is an assault on that dignity to block human progress with primitive and superstitious mores. A book of myths written nearly three millennia ago should not dictate who lives or dies today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
