People who believe in god(s) are inclined to say that one reason they believe in god(s) is because they would find their lives "meaningless" otherwise. So, here's my question: how does belief in god(s) create "meaning" in life? Let's consider an example. Many Christians are inclined to say that one…
What is it to be loyal? According to Merriam Webster, to be "loyal" is to be
1 : unswerving in allegiance: as a: faithful in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or government b: faithful to a private person to whom fidelity is due c: faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product.I don't have a problem with this definition. I do object, however, that "loyalty" has been given a free pass in modern American culture, as though loyalty is always a good thing. In particular, the mass media has bought into this linguistic sleight-of-hand: according to the mainstream media, it is always a good thing to be "loyal." Loyalty is undoubtedly a virtue when we are dealing with pet dogs. We like our dogs to be loyal. We like our dogs to do what we tell them to do. The loyalty of a human being is not necessarily a good thing, however. Loyalty is a matter of committing oneself to a person, to a group of people or to a cause. But people and causes can be either praiseworthy or despicable (or something in between). If a social cause to which I am loyal is that all babies should have basic medical care, loyalty to such a cause would be a good thing. If my idea is that we should all give homage to Hitler, loyalty to this cause would be a horrible idea. Therefore, how can it be said that loyalty is per se a good thing unless one first examines the merit of the person(s) or clause(s) to which a person is being loyal? [More . . . ]
Yesterday I wrote a post describing how I discovered Bertrand Russell while I was an intellectually frustrated and isolated teen-aged boy. Back then, I was startled to see someone else who was publicly critical of religious institutions. Thinking about those days yesterday provoked me to scour the Internet today for some of Russell’s well-known quotes. There are many more Russell quotes out there than these; he was a prolific writer.
Russell, best known for being a mathematician and logician, dismayed many people while he was alive. After all, he didn’t believe in God. He spoke openly of sexual pleasure being a good thing; he protested against the Vietnam war. Now, however, many of his writings seem only like common sense.
I admired Russell’s clean writing style, his sense of wit, his astute observations and his good heart.
Pouring time into this blog has been deeply satisfying to me. But what is this accomplishing, I sometimes wonder?
After all, there are already numerous writers out there. Technorati.com indicates that it is now tracking 48.5 million sites and 2.7 billion links. Plus, there are numerous traditional sources of information (books, magazines, movies, television) available to anyone who is interested.
I don’t have any illusions about my alleged importance. As Charles De Gaulle famously said, “The cemetery is full of indispensable people.” Nonetheless, I joined the Blogosphere to have a voice and to hopefully present a meaningfully unique voice. This blog is an experiment that will always be provisional and evolving.
This blog grew out of an email relationship between a fellow who lives in Madison (he goes by the name of Grumpypilgrim on this blog) and me. I met “Grumpy” when I provided legal services for a company for whom Grumpy worked. We had emailed our rants and observations back and forth for more than a year. Eventually, I suggested that we exchange our ideas in a public way, in case anyone else might be interested.
Two months later, dangerousintersection.org was designed by Nick Smith of nicksmithdesign.com. I chose the name after looking at a big yellow “Dangerous Intersection” sign I had in my office (I had it around as a novelty) and after considering how that name might generally fit an iconoclastic blog. I took the photo of the intersection used in the site’s logo. Nick made it …
In 2004, the same geneticist who had earlier discovered a gene linked to male homosexuality found a gene associated with religious belief. The geneticist, Dr. Dean Hammer of the National Cancer Institute, used a 226-question survey to determine a person’s feelings of spirituality, or willingness to believe in supernatural phenomena. He found that those with an inclination for religiosity tended to share a gene called VMAT2. Nicknamed the “god gene”, it purportedly dictates the flow of mood-altering chemicals in the brain, and determines one’s level of belief in religious experiences.
I first accepted this research with a sense of mild dread. I assumed, forgetting that the devoutly religious tend to eschew all scientific or logical prospects, that the religious would respond to this discovery as a palpable sign that God exists. It seemed like a perfect opportunity for classic religious circular logic, the same used to “prove” the significance of the Bible: We know God exists because we believe in him, and we believe in him because he wants us to.
Even Dr. Hammer used this train of thought. In an interview shortly after his discovery became public, he said, “Religious believers can point to the existence of god genes as one more sign of the creator’s ingenuity – a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence.”
However, the religious community did not embrace Hammer’s findings. Christian reviewers of Hammer’s book on the subject labeled it as bad science, and claimed that he didn’t define …