Greta Christina explains why so many atheists are angry. [Note: I had originally linked to a site that claims that someone other than Greta Christina had written it. Greta wrote to tell me that this was incorrect, and I have now linked to her site and attributed this writing and these ideas to her.]
I just finished reading "The Adaptationist-Byproduct Debate on the Evolution of Religion: Five Misunderstandings of the Adaptationist Program." The article was written by Richard Sosis, a professor of anthropology at the University of Connecticut, and it was published by the Journal of Cognition and Culture 9 (2009) 315-332. This article will mostly consist of a summary of Sosis' article (I am putting page numbers from the Sosis' article next to various parts of my summary). Sosis is convinced that the often contentious debate as to whether religion is an adaptation or a byproduct, and the premature declaration that it is a byproduct, is hampering serious interdisciplinary efforts to scientifically study religion. He holds that these disagreements stem largely from disagreements as to the meanings of "core ideas upon which the evolutionary study of religion is founded." Nonetheless, he is hopeful that these debates can be largely resolved after we take the time to clarify these core ideas. Many people will probably not take the time to read Sosis' fine article because they will presume religion could not possibly be an adaptation because the practices and beliefs of many people strike them as bizarre (I also find many such practices and beliefs bizarre). Richard Dawkins and many other prominent writers have taken this position that religion is not an adaptation; rather, they find it to be an annoying and sometimes dangerous byproduct of evolution (I've written about this byproduct position here and here). In fact, this byproduct position is the dominant position among scientists studying religion from an evolutionary perspective. [More . . . ]
Ken Ham is the head of Answers In Genesis, an organization that promotes and perpetuates the Creationist view that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, that homo sapiens sapien trod the same ground at the same time as dinosaurs, the the story of Noah is literally true, and that evolution is All Wrong. He’s an Australian and a biblical literalist. He built the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, in 2007. Check the link for an overview by an (admittedly) biased source, but for simple clarity is hard to beat. It is a fraud of research, flagrantly anti-science, and laughable in its assertions (in my opinion). Ken Ham is one of the more public figures in our current national spasm of extreme religiosity. He’s attempting to have built another show-piece in Kentucky, a theme park based on Noah and the Flood. The problem with this, however, is that tax dollars are being used in its construction and it is a blatantly religious enterprise. In the meantime, Ken Ham and Answers In Genesis have recently been disinvited from a conference on homeschooling.
Would you believe that the U.S. House of Representatives is spending our time voting on a resolution to reaffirm the divisive McCartheism era phrase "In God We Trust" as our national motto, and to encourage its display in all public and government buildings? Yep. On March 17, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee approved House Concurrent Resolution 13 and now the Republican controlled House will vote on it. You can read the entire text of the resolution here, and use the form at this link to contact your representative in the House, and urge them not to vote for such nonsense. How does this shore up the promise of jobs? I've previously posted on this annoying phrase, specifically on the money: In God We Trust (2007) and The Dollar Got More Annoying (2010)
Philosopher Daniel Dennett discusses closeted atheist preachers in this excellent one-hour video in which he undertakes a "reverse engineering of religion." At about the 20-minute mark Dennett focuses on the works of Bart Ehrman and Jack Good (The Dishonest Church). Dennett points out that Good is outraged by the conspiracy by preachers to keep accurate information from the laity, who "can't handle" the information. Per Dennett, seminarians work hard to devise clever ways to avoid divulging the full truth about the Bible. (minute 24). How did it come to this? Dennett addresses this at minute 25. Dennett quotes Donald Hebb: "If it's not worth doing, then it's not worth doing well." He focuses the question to this: Who needs theologians? His answer: Those preachers who want to avoid being candid with their parishioners. "Theologians are religions' spinmeisters." At minute 29, Dennett recites the "Canons of Good Spin." Two examples: "It has to relieve skepticism without arousing curiosity" and "It should seem profound." These principles can be summed up with Dennett's neologism "deepities." (minute 31). These are statements that seem to be true only because they are ill-formed, and they have two readings. One is true but trivial, and the other is false but would be earth-shaking if true. Examples are given up through the remainder of the video, including a Karen Armstrong assertion at minute 43. Theologians are like magicians, and the concept of "deepities" allows one to see the card up the magician's sleeve. More on Karen Armstrong's evasions at minute 45, including attacks on theologians who, cornered, suggest that existence is not an important attribute of "God." Dennett racks it all up to a belief-in-God-meme. These evasions of theologians are reasons without reasoners. They are the result of unreasoning processes. The "cunning" is in the institutions themselves. These sorts of pseudo-explanations result from "a conspiracy without a mastermind."