Humanism, or corporatism?

I am completely baffled by Michael Lind. He’s some think-tank scholar who regularly publishes in Salon, and somehow in all of his writings he’s managed to avoid clearly stating any principle he stands for. I understand he’s some kind of center leftist, he’s no fan of right-wing demagoguery, but then he publishes strange articles arguing that we shouldn’t mock Glenn Beck, or now, an article pissing on secular humanism. Why, I don’t know, and what he’d offer as an alternative is missing from his diatribe.

He has a peculiar view of the American condition, too. Apparently, the liberal/progressive element in the US is suffering from a “religious vacuum”, which he claims is being filled by three “new creeds”.

[Read more…]

A very sad story

What does this religious puritanism do to people? It screws up their lives with needless guilt. This is a kind of oppression of the mind, where women are inculcated with unrealistic and shameful views of their own bodies.

Mental purity is a state of mind Renaud came to after years of struggle. When she was 10, she discovered a dirty magazine in her older brother’s bathroom. She had never seen male genitalia before; she became increasingly curious and began to search for pornography. When she hit puberty, she says, her curiosity turned into compulsion, and she added masturbation to her porn-seeking behavior. At 15, she attended a Christian summer camp and heard the pastor talking about “a Father in heaven who loves you unconditionally regardless of what you do.” From then on, she became active in the church and vowed to end her masturbation and porn habits.

“I’ve been sober for seven years now,” she says of her masturbation-free life.

Although some married women participate in Dirty Girls Ministries, Renaud’s crusade is largely for single women like herself. The majority of Dirty Girls’ members are in their 20s and 30s, but many teenagers and preteen girls, some as young as 11, have also joined. Technically speaking, most are virgins, but because of their below-the-belt explorations, they report feeling tainted, undesirable, and perverted.

Being orgasm-free is not the same as being sober, and masturbation does not make someone tainted or undesirable. There are, of course, extreme cases of sexual obsession where the behavior can interfere with day-to-day, productive living, but that isn’t the case in this story: this “Dirty Girls Ministries” regards masturbating or even reading a romance novel twice a week as a dangerous case of excessive addiction. Given that attitude, I suspect they’d regard the Pharyngula readership as a nest of decadent, pervy wastrels obsessed with sex. You should be proud.

But the reverse is true: having a fairly casual attitude towards sex — it doesn’t define you, and your worth is not a function of abstinence — is healthy, and this weirdly repressed perspective inflicts unforgivable pain on ordinary human beings.

Indeed, guilt and shame are emotions commonly expressed by the women involved in Dirty Girls Ministries. “Once I’ve actually committed the sin (of porn and masturbation), I find myself feeling such sadness, frustration, disappointment, anger, shame,” writes one anonymous commenter on the Ministries’ forum. “It makes me feel sick and unworthy,” writes another. One girl even reported feeling guilty after simply dreaming about masturbating.

Isn’t that just the most wonderful thing about religion? Once you’ve infected someone with it, it’s incredibly easy to put them to work punishing themselves for you.

You’ve got a choice. Either you accept the artificial guilt of an ancient dogma and stop doing a perfectly normal, harmless, and universal behavior, or you stop accepting the guilt and find human happiness in being who you are. Rational people choose the latter. Deluded people follow the former, and suffer lifelong for it.

(via Skepchick)

Faith no more

Speaking from the radical flaming atheist end of the spectrum, I have to oppose certain labels that are flying around. Greg Epstein likes the idea of “interfaith”, this movement where atheists join hands with religious groups to carry out good works. The good works part, fine; the bit where we do it under the umbrella of “interfaith”, not so good. Atheism is not a faith position, so it’s false advertising and promotes “faith” as the unifying principle. Ick.

Now Ed Clint responds with a new label, “transfaith”. He changed the prefix, which is a step forward, but kept the suffix! He changed the wrong part of the word! His idea is generally good, and I think it’s fine to engage and cooperate with the opposition, but “faith” is the problem.

Faith is the enemy, and I think we have to be clear about that. Belief without evidence, uncritical acceptance of authority, giving even a shred of credibility to dogma is simply not something I can do, ever, and it distresses me to see people blithely accepting “faith” as a common denominator. Work with people of faith, but not for faith — we can cooperate for real-world effectiveness, but not to whitewash superstitious bullshit.

I will not work with anyone under the banner of “xxxxFaith”, no matter what the prefix.

Except, maybe, “anti”.

A victory for reason and good education

A California school teacher, James Corbett, called creationism “superstitious nonsense”, and was dragged into court by a student claiming that was a violation of the separation of church and state. The verdict from an appeals court has come down and they disagree — they sidestepped the whole constitutionality question, and instead made the reasonable decision that it is the teacher’s job to question dogma.

“In broaching controversial issues like religion, teachers must be sensitive to students’ personal beliefs and take care not to abuse their positions of authority,” Judge Fisher wrote.

“But teachers must also be given leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities,” he said. “This balance is hard to achieve, and we must be careful not to curb intellectual freedom by imposing dogmatic restrictions.”

Here are the kinds of things Corbett was saying in class:

“Aristotle … argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense,” Corbett said according to a transcript of his lecture. “I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.”

He continued: “The other possibility is, it’s always been there.… Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.”

“All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it,” the transcript says.

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

I’m on record saying that teachers should not use the public school classroom to proselytize for atheism, any more than they should be proselytizing for Christianity. But that’s not what Corbett was doing: he was doing something that a science teacher must do, assessing hypotheses against the observable facts and in the context of reason. When people use their religious ideology to make counterfactual claims, a teacher should be able to point out that those claims are wrong.

I am very glad that the court came down on the side of allowing science teachers to teach science, even when it exposes the fallacies of religious claims.

Rhett S. Daniels, litigious bully

Several people have proposed going after Najera’s spineless employers by dunning them with email. Please do not. He has requested that people not jeopardize his job further, so further action is discouraged, OK?

Via Orac comes this amazing story of a thug intimidating a public health employee: it seems Mr Daniels was very upset with René Najera, an epidemiologist, who has been blogging and tweeting about medicine and quackery, and when the two of them got into an argument on the internet, Daniels took the low road. He contacted Najera’s employers, waved lawyers around, and compelled the department he worked for to demand that he stop all these extracurricular internet activities, or be fired.

Mr Daniels has the appearance of a coward and somebody who can’t hold his own in an argument. And because his feelings were hurt by his own inadequacy, he took steps to silence an informed voice on the internet.

And it gets worse. Liz Ditz has a detailed summary of the affair, and Daniels appears in the comments, frantically throwing out more threats, and bragging about his giant penis financial worth.

[Read more…]

Quacks everywhere

David Colquhoun has posted an excellent series of posts on the Steiner Waldorf schools, 19th century crackpottery that persists even now, by hiding their fundamentally pseudoscientific basis under a fog of fancy invented terms. He discusses their goofy philosophy of anthroposophistry, their devious efforts to get state funding, and their unfortunate but unsurprising history of racism. It’s wild and crazy stuff, and it’s been sidling under the radar for a while.

What initially drew me to DC’s site was his article on quackery in retreat: the University of Westminster has discarded some of their previous offerings in naturopathy. There is still a fair amount of junk in their curriculum, but there’s hope that those are waning too.

I needed that bit of solace, because my university’s official listserve sent me a wonderful offer earlier this week.

[Read more…]

The world is upside down in Kentucky

In a weird reversal of the normal state of affairs, the Democratic governor of Kentucky has long been pushing support for Ken Ham’s ridiculous Ark Park…and now his Republican challenger, David Williams, has come out opposing it. Even more interestingly, he argues that the feasibility study was bogus, and that it simply won’t get built. Of course, Ken Ham isn’t happy with that.

Unfortunately, Williams is far behind in the polls, and isn’t expected to succeed in his bid.

Or rather, fortunately. My brain would melt into a puddle that flowed out my ears if I lived in a country where the crazy social conservatives were the pro-science party, while the social progressives were all NewAgey dingleberries who promoted bad science. It sort of saves my sanity that the Republicans tend to be so unremittingly evil on all fronts that the sickly performance of the Democrats doesn’t cause me any major dilemmas. Just constant despair.

(Also on Sb)

Ron Paul gets no respect

Alex Pareene has a nice roundup of the GOP candidates views on science — all of them, except Jon Huntsman, are science-denying wackaloons who reject evolution. As we in Minnesota know, that’s actually where Michele Bachmann’s career got its start, campaigning locally against evolution.

But poor Ron Paul. He only gets a brief mention, and it’s to say that he thinks the evolution debate is irrelevant. Au contraire! He fits in perfectly with the other Republican candidates. Watch him declare that evolution is just “a theory” and he doesn’t accept it.

Darn that lamestream media — they just can’t treat Ron Paul fairly. Come out and admit it, he’s a perfectly representative member of the Nutbag Party.

(Also on Sb)

Wait, what if idiocy is blood-borne?

Larry Moran is proudly Canadian, so this must have hurt a little bit: Canadian Blood Services is advertising with a load of codswallop about your blood type. This is complete nonsense:

  1. Type A: So, you’re an A. You already know that having type A blood suggests that you are reliable, a team player and may benefit from a vegetarian diet*. Did you also know that anthropologists believe that type A blood originated in Asia or the middle east between 25,000 and 15,000 BC?

  2. Type B: So, you’re a B. You already know that having type B blood suggests that you are independent, a self-starter and may benefit from a wholesome well-balanced diet*. Did you also know that anthropologists believe that type B blood appeared between 15,000 and 10,000 BC in the Himalayas?

  3. Type AB: So, you’re an AB. You already know that having type AB blood suggests that you are organized, friendly and may enjoy a vegetarian or wholesome well-balanced diet*. Did you also know that anthropologists believe that type AB blood did not originate until 900-1000 years ago and came into existence when eastern Mongolian invaders overran the last of European civilization?

  4. Type O: So, you’re an O. You already know that having type O blood suggests that you might be competitive, goal oriented and a real meat eater*. Did you also know that anthropologists believe that type O is the oldest and most common blood type, originating in Southern Africa?

Notice the personality descriptions are vague and always positive: this is classic woo technique. Forget your blood type, just read the descriptions, and if you’re willing to go along, they’ll always fit you. This is the same trick astrologers use, formulating anemic, non-specific ‘predictions’ that the gullible reader can retrofit to their own situation.

But the claims about the origins of these blood types are simply lies! They aren’t even consistent: how can you claim A and B arose over 10,000 years ago, but that the heterozygote AB never occurred until 1000 years ago? Since the ABO blood types are present in other apes, like chimpanzees, it’s obvious that claims of recent origin are bogus. Also, as Larry points out, type O is the null allele — it’s caused by a non-functional transferase enzyme. It’s pretty damned unlikely that it is the oldest type.

The Canadian site does list their sources: they include a weird Japanese blood type cult and a pop diet book from a naturopathic quack. So here’s an organization that offers important medical services, and they are peddling woo of the rankest, stupidest kind. I know that blood from morons is just as good as blood from geniuses, but really…why would you want to miseducate your clients?

(Also on Sb)

Do we need another dumb Texan for president?

This is awful: Rick Perry’s Texas A&M Transcript is now available online. He was a pre-vet student in college? Unbelievable. This is a fellow wobbling between a C- and a C+ average from term to term. As an advisor, I would have taken this poor student aside in his second year and explained to him that veterinary school is really, really hard to get into — even harder than medical school — and with his grades he didn’t stand a chance of getting in, and even worse, he demonstrated no aptitude at all for the field. I would have recommended that he switch majors and pursue some field that doesn’t require much math and science, instead of limping along to barely squeak through with a degree in a field he’d never be able to pursue further.

And I guess he did that anyway, going into a career that any dumbass can do, Texas governor.

No wonder he can prate about disbelieving evolution: he’s got negligible biology in his education, and he barely passed what little he took.

(Also on Sb)