I am a turd

A friend handed me one of those little religious pamphlets a few days ago. It was from the "Greater Rhode Island Baptist Temple" in Johnston, RI. We marveled at the following page--note the text near the illustration of the forlorn woman (click on the images to see enlarged versions):

"I know that I am a sinner and I deserve to die and go to hell . . . "

Egads! How can statements so self-deprecating be encouraged, much less allowed, anywhere on earth? If I were a god, why would I want to allow people with such low self-esteem into heaven. I wouldn't want to be around such people. This is not to say people should be arrogant. And they should certainly be humble. But the above phrase is not humility. It is sick. How can someone walk around on this planet actually believe that they should go to hell? Does anyone ever (even Hitler or Stalin) deserve eternal torture? What is the point of eternal torture? Do these people know what they are saying? Do they know what "eternity" means? Does anyone who says this really believe this?

So many questions.

Lest you think that "hell" is one of those namby-pamby moderns versions of hell where the punishment is that you only get to watch TV for 4 hours per day, the same brochure shows you a photo of the flames that will be licking your sorry ass.

And here's one more final warning: Don't think that you can escape the sizzling flames by being nice to other people here on earth, by doing "good works." That kind of altruism means nothing to almighty God, based on the authority of this mighty brochure:

So all I can say to you skeptics out there is you'd better shape up. And quit wasting your time trying to help other people. If you ignore this advice, you should at least invest in some asbestos clothing and hope that you can take it with you.

God help us all.

Epilogue: It is thoughts like the ones in this brochure that inspired this prayer scene in Monty Python's "Meaning of Life":

Continue ReadingI am a turd

Getting Science Under Control

After the election of 2008, we fans of the rational and provable had high hopes that government may give as much credence to the scientific process and conclusions as to the disproved aspects of philosophies promulgated by churches and industry shills. We watched with waning hope as a series of attempts to honor that ideal got watered down. But at least it was an improvement. But the 2010 election quickly reveals a backlash. Those whose cherished misunderstandings had been disrespected for the last couple of years now will have their day. As Phil Plait says, Energy and science in America are in big, big trouble. He begins,

"With the elections last week, the Republicans took over the House once again. The list of things this means is long and troubling, but the most troubling to me come in the forms of two Texas far-right Republicans: Congressmen Ralph Hall and Joe Barton."

He goes on to explain why. It comes down to them being proven representatives for Young Earth and fossil fuel interests, doing whatever they can to scuttle actual science by any means necessary. Especially where the science contradicts their pet ideas. Barton has published articles supporting climate change denialism. His main contributors are the extraction industries. Hall has used parliamentary tricks to attempt to scuttle funding for basic research. The Democrats offered to compromised by cutting funding, and he refused in hopes that the whole bill would fail. It passed. Then Hall publicly called Democrats on the carpet for using tricks to fatten the bill by the amount that they offered to cut. The Proxmire spirit lives on.

Continue ReadingGetting Science Under Control

David Attenborough meets Richard Dawkins

This is a delightful and engaging conversation between these two extraordinary thinkers (audio only). Natural selection is the focus, but there is a lot more, including scientific revolutions and fractal animals. Here's an excerpt from the 18-minute conversation:

Can you remember the moment you decided to become a scientist? RD: I only became fired up in my second year of a science degree. Unlike you, I was never a boy naturalist, to my regret. It was more the intellectual, philosophical questions that interested me. DA: I am a naturalist rather than a scientist. Simply looking at a flower or a frog has always seemed to me to be just about the most interesting thing there is. Others say human beings are pretty interesting, which they are, but as a child you're not interested in Auntie Flo's psychology; you're interested in how a dragonfly larva turns into a dragonfly. RD: Yes, it's carrying inside it two entirely separate blueprints, two different programmes. DA: I couldn't believe it! I remember asking an adult, "What goes on inside a cocoon?" and he said, "The caterpillar is totally broken down into a kind of soup. And then it starts again." And I remember saying, "That can't be right." As a procedure, you can't imagine how it evolved.
If you stay around until the end of the discussion, you'll get to hear Attenborough imitating Ernst Mayr.

Continue ReadingDavid Attenborough meets Richard Dawkins

The strength of new atheism

Caspar Melville is often "bored" by new atheism and finds that the attacks of new atheists are overbroad (e.g., the suggestion bringing up a child in any religion is tantamount to child abuse), but in the U.K. Guardian he admits that new atheism does have its uses:

Hundreds of column inches have been generated by New Atheism and responses to it – not least in my magazine – and, if at times the debate has all the subtlety of It's A Knockout, it has also been educative, instructive and popular, in the important sense that it has been conducted in a language that most people can understand. It's sold a lot of books, too. New Atheism is also good at answering back to particular kinds of arguments. The origins of the New Atheists' impulse, according to philosopher Richard Norman, lie in 9/11 and the reappearance of a particularly aggressive strain of Christian religious fundamentalism. If, as Norman also argues, New Atheism can be over-generalising and crude in its response to religion, this is because it is a response to crude and nonspecific articulations of religiosity – what could be less specific than bombing a skyscraper, or cruder than Biblical creationism? In the light of this, irascible, rhetorically florid, sweeping, intellectually arrogant New Atheism certainly has its place – some arguments are just asking for it.

Continue ReadingThe strength of new atheism