Archbishop flames on

A while back, I posted about the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury had unambiguously condemned creationism. While I appreciated the sentiment, I had my doubts about his sincerity, and mentioned that I preferred my religious authorities to say “crazy stupid things”. Perhaps the Archbishop reads my blog, because he has obliged.

The Archbishop hit out against the "two extremes" in the range of theories of how the world began in his Holy Week lecture on Faith and Science last night. He said "Science has more to do than is simply covered by these theories."

Creationists believe in the literal version of creation as told in Genesis, and argue that man walked the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs. Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion.

Dr Williams admitted that Neo Darwinism, a theory supported by Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, is "most problematic" to theology, but he called it "a pseudo science" and "deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge because it is trying to be a theology."

In a sideswipe at evolutionary scientists such as Professor Dawkins, Williams warned "Science can be seduced into making exaggerated claims."  He added "Neo Darwinism of Dawkins’ kind carries with it a rather subjective agenda…It is as vulnerable as Christianity". Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories, the Archbishop continued, Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn’t.

Thattaboy, Archbishop. I appreciate the help in exposing the inanity of religion.

For those following along, Rowan Williams clearly has no idea what the neo-Darwinian synthesis says, because nowhere does it claim that evolution will weed out religion; even I, brutal opponent of all things godly, can see reasonable arguments for the adaptiveness of religion, or the absence of selection against religion, or that there are acceptable rationales for religion as an exaptation. But otherwise, the admission that science is a problem for theology, and the ignorant claim that evolution is a pseudo-science, are useful tools for the atheist conspiracy.

In which I concede that some scientists are evil and stupid

The name Satoshi Kanazawa wasn’t familiar to me until I read Cosma Shalizi’s lovely needlework on the guy, but then I remembered … I have his book, Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, on my shelf. It has a wonderfully provocative title, so I even skimmed a couple of chapters, which sent multiple wtf signals bouncing around in my brain — the premise of the title is the product of statistical shenanigans, and I don’t think the authors would recognize a mechanism if it advanced menacingly on them and threatened them with physical dismantlement — so I set it aside and allowed it gather dust.

Now I learn that Kanazawa has a blog, like everyone does nowadays, and he calls himself the “Scientific Fundamentalist”. I wish I could say that finally we have a target for all those people who complain about fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist scientism and fundamentalist whatever-they-hateists, but no, Kanazawa does as much violence to the word “fundamentalism” as he does to biology. He’s more like an amoral, principle-free, unconscious reactionary, which isn’t really a fundamentalist mindset. How bad is he? Well, he argues that Americans need to hate a little more.

Here’s a little thought experiment. Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost.

Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running.

Whoa.

That’s an argument that carries reductionism well past over-simplification, beyond stupid, and deep into the territory of bug-eyed crazy. That’s not a thought experiment, it’s a right-wing masturbation fantasy. Kanazawa must be looking for a gig writing for WingNutDaily.

I have to go take a shower right now, so I’ll leave you with this most excellent rebuttal.

The above, to be sure, is somewhat ambiguous. It could be that what he’s saying is that, were Coulter president, she would have hated her new-found enemies appropriately, nuked the Middle East and thus “won” the war on terror in a day. But it could be that Kanazawa doesn’t think that would have been a good idea, it could be that he’s simply arguing hypothetically without endorsing that course of action. And yet… it really doesn’t read that way. The tone, the context, and the register all suggest to me that Kanazawa would have approved of a nuclear response to 9/11. And this, I submit, is a little extreme. Forget for the moment that killing millions of innocent people is a Bad Thing, forget that the Middle East contains a good proportion of the world’s oil, forget that America’s democratic ally Israel is in the Middle East, forget that the fall-out would do extensive damage to other parts of the world, forget that there are tens of thousands of Americans (and far more other foreigners) living in the area, forget that the environmental damage would be enormous, forget that the Middle East contains innumerable priceless cultural artifacts, forget that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims living outside the Middle East (India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.), and forget that 9/11 was planned from Afghanistan, outside the Middle East. Have you forgotten all of these factors (and any others you came up with for yourself)? Good. Now it’s a good idea to nuke the entire Middle East. Now only does it make any sense whatsoever to call the hypothetical nuclear destruction of the entire Middle East a “victory” for America.

I think I’ll skip it

Everyone is telling me I ought to read this new piece in Harper’s magazine, on the pretensions atheism. James Hrynyshyn has seen it; I don’t think I’ll bother. It’s by David Berlinski, which tells me all I need to know.

I will grant him his due, though. Berlinski is probably the world’s greatest expert on pretentiousness, to the point that his name and the word are practically synonyms.

The odious Sally Kern

Remember Sally Kern, the Oklahoma legislator caught on tape babbling about the gay conspiracy? It’s worse than it sounded: it seems Kern has a gay son who she has essentially deleted from her public life.

And these are the people who claim ownership of the word “family”…

Here’s something even worse than the self-destruction of her own family: Kerns is the sponsor of Oklahoma House Bill 2211, the “Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act”. You can tell from the title what it is: a bill that would privilege religious opinions over scientific information in public school classrooms. The story is all over the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education page, as you might guess. The bad news is that the HB 2211 has passed in the House and is on its way to the Oklahoma senate, where we’d better hope it gets shot down. Here’s what it does:

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

Oklahomans, call or write your state senators NOW.

Dear readers: I hope you die soon

That’s the sentiment Terry of Rapture Ready expressed. Don’t believe me? Here’s the direct quote:

There are two important statistics to note:

1. Each month about 160,000 people visit Rapture Ready.

2. Every year, the mortality rate claims around 1 percent of the population.

Internet usage by the elderly is somewhat lower than that of the general population, but it still means that hundreds of you people who are reading this right now will not be here the same time next year.

For you folks who become part of the mortality figures in the coming days, I commission you with the same task: When you meet the King of Kings, please ask Him to pour His grace and guidance on this web ministry.

You unsaved folks who happen to be reading this article and think it is total nonsense, you are pure gold to this cause. Once you meet your unfortunate end, you’ll cry out 10 times louder from bowels of hell than a saved person who might be distracted by the glories of heaven.

Charming, eh? That isn’t the worst of it. He wrote this missive after his mother’s death a few weeks ago. Before she died, he asked her to go tell Jesus to send more traffic to his website.

Seriously.

I have a mission for all of my readers here on Pharyngula, too. I want you to stay alive. You don’t have to continue reading this site, unless you really want to; traffic is not that important. But if, as you are going about your daily life, you happen to meet someone who thinks Rapture Ready is a wonderful resource, I want you to be sure and tell them that they are a demented fuckwit. Just for me.

Chris Hedges wastes everyone’s time

Chris Hedges wrote a pretty good book on fundamentalism called American Fascists; at least, I thought it was pretty good, but now I have my doubts about his credibility. He has a new book, I Don’t Believe in Atheists, and has an essay that summarizes his position. I could not believe how awful it is — it’s basically a declaration that all atheists are exactly like Pat Robertson, and then it charges in with nothing but venom and accusations to defend his position.

[Read more…]

Why do we even stoop to mentioning Vox Day?

Let me answer my own question: because he is an appallingly freakish idiot, and always a reliable source for the most amazingly inane claims. Don’t worry, that link takes you to Mark Chu-Carroll’s evisceration of his latest insane rant, that women are intellectual inferiors who can’t teach biology or calculus and are incapable of practicing computer science or art. Vox Day. Can he do any of those things? I think not.

By the way, my wife is director of institutional research at a local college, and my daughter is a computer science major. Women outnumber men in our computer science program and have parity in our biology discipline. It’s amazing how they do those things and know more than I do in their fields with such inferior brains.

“According to God’s word”

Here’s more pernicious ignorance that we have to deal with: this is Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, benighted hate-monger, babbling lies.

Well, there is one part that is accurate, when she states that “We’re not teaching facts and knowledge any more, we’re teaching indoctrination”, which is exactly right … at least in reference to her remarks.

(via Pam’s House Blend)

We’re all going to hell now

We’ve got some new additions to the Deadly Sins, the ones that will get you consigned straight to hell as soon as you die.

“You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos,” he said.

Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few”.

He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended “the dignity and rights of women”, and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the “human and institutional fragility of the Church”.

The mass media had “blown up” the issue “to discredit the Church”, but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it.

The article also mentions using contraception is a mortal sin.

It’s a strange list. There are a couple that are common practices of the Catholic church itself, the excessive accumulation of wealth and pedophilia (and isn’t that just the cutest little disclaimer? The church is “taking steps to deal with it” — which usually means hushing it up and sending the offending priest off to virgin hunting grounds). Does the Vatican really haven any credibility when an old guy in silk robes encrusted with jewels declares the virtues of poverty?

The dictum against polluting the environment is a good one, but awfully vague. Is he promoting a zero-carbon footprint? Is he arguing against nuclear power? Should we stop exhaling carbon dioxide? Similarly, the prohibition against drugs isn’t very specific — are all pharmacists going to hell now?

Declaring that meddling in the fate of embryos is also terribly broad, suggesting that all developmental biologists are also going to hell. This is one mean and nasty pope, I think — he has me damned on several counts!

And I’m sorry, but it is not defending the dignity and rights of women to deny them family planning. It also contradicts any sincere desire to improve the livability of the planet to argue that people are not allowed to take simple action to limit their fecundity.

But of course this is all an exercise in empty rhetoric. The pope does not have any better knowledge of the mind of any god than I do, and does not know anything about the actual fate of human souls after death. It is a bit presumptuous to be declaring that there is an immortal omnipotent being who will torture you for eternity for putting a condom on, don’t you think?

Beale vs. Plait

Now the odious Vox Day is ranting about how the discovery of dark matter and dark energy refute “rational materialist philosophy,” because somehow it ties into the inapplicability of naturalism to “justice, equality, and freedom”. Phil Plait quite rightly slams him back.

I have to give Blake Stacey the prize for the most succinct rebuttal, however.

I don’t understand how people can use the discoveries of science to argue that science is broken. It’s bass ackwards, that’s what it is.

Not surprising, though; Theodore Beale aka Vox Day is a notorious loon, well known for making the most absurd claims as if they were just ordinary common sense.