No apology for sociobiology

Despite the rhyming title, this is a serious topic. But not always a controversial topic . . . Sociobiology is an un-controversial field of study as long as we stick to studying animals other than human animals. Here's how John Alcock describes sociobiology in The Triumph of Sociobiology (2001): "Genetic differences help explain why people develop differences in at least some aspects of their behavior." (Page 53). Here's another way to put it: "Sociobiologists want to know the evolved function or purpose of whatever aspect of social behavior they are studying." Alcock is a prolific and highly respected biologist who teaches at the Arizona State University. His textbook, Animal Behavior, is currently on its eighth edition. I used his textbook when I took a class on animal behavior a few years ago. It is a terrific resource, highly organized and thoroughly researched. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingNo apology for sociobiology

American Politicians: Not the best or the brightest

The great thing about America is that anyone can step up and run for high office.  This is technically true, at least.   The horrible thing about America is that most sane people wouldn’t dare run for any high office. I’ve been watching a bit of the ongoing campaign for President.  I’ve…

Continue ReadingAmerican Politicians: Not the best or the brightest

Personal ads indicate you’re not as free as you want to believe

Are you sure you want to be "free"?  Freedom is such a strange concept. I've never understood it in the context of personal decision-making.  Americans claim to love "freedom," but how much freedom can you stand?  Freedom implies occurrences that are unhinged from naturalistic laws.  Freedom implies a mechanism that…

Continue ReadingPersonal ads indicate you’re not as free as you want to believe

On the need to avoid an unhealthy codependence on God

I find it ironic that so many conservatives who deplore extended dependence on government welfare (because it destroys the soul) embrace non-ending handouts "from heaven."   In his 2005 article in The National Review, "Welfare Reform Part II," Stephen Moore wrote that it was time to start chopping welfare programs again. …

Continue ReadingOn the need to avoid an unhealthy codependence on God

Beware of simple yet false explanations for religion

It’s not because I am obstinate, though I can be obstinate. 

Rather, I simply can’t believe things like: “A virgin had a baby” or “A man who was dead later became alive” or “This piece of bread is really a man’s flesh.”  I can’t believe such things because these things are simply not true.  To me, such assertions are nonsense and it befuddles me when I hear other people uttering them.  It’s especially befuddling to see the way many people utter religious claims.  It’s as though they believe they have knives in their backs and they damned well say such things, or else.  “Or else what?”  I often think.  “Let go of those scary thoughts.  It’s just a bad dream.  Free yourselves! Wake up!”

I also try to be kind.  I am sadded to see people wasting their time and energy due to fear and ignorance.  I want to do my part to help those who feel compelled to utter patently untrue things, even if they only do this on Sundays.

I am not alone, of course.  In our frustration, many of us non-Believers wish to come up with a quick and dirty explanation for why other people publicly proclaim oxymoronic religious claims. It is this urge to quickly dispense of this mystery of religion (the mystery that anyone takes religious claims seriously) that is addressed by Pascal Boyer in his 2003 article, “Religious thought and behavior as byproducts of brain function.”  Boyer is a faculty member in the departments …

Share

Continue ReadingBeware of simple yet false explanations for religion