Speedkill

Oh noes, the gays are coming.

I believe that statement works whichever way you want to take the last word.

It’s only a matter of time before they enslave us all. The NOM website is great. Their FAQ especially:

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

I like the irrelevant mention of African-American opposition to gay marriage. Disagreeing with African-Americans is clearly racist, so don’t you call me a bigot! They’ve even come up with a new argument for slavery: it’s not new, so whose rights are they taking away? They never had them! It’s wrong now, but at the time it was a-ok.

Mark Hemingway is an idiot. That’s what I assume from this, anyway. He quotes this approvingly:

Abstinence-only education doesn’t actually exist. It’s a term used by critics of abstinence education rather than purveyors, who prefer, simply, abstinence education. The term “abstinence-only” attempts to create the perception that abstinence education is a narrow and unrealistic approach. While such loaded terms are to be expected of activists, the media usage of the term is regrettable.

Seriously? I thought the purpose of that term was to describe it accurately. Abstinence education is included in all sex educations programs. “Activists” object to programs that teach abstinence exclusively. They’re not against abstinence education. The unique feature is the “only” part of abstinence-only sex education. Conservatives want to try and hide behind inaccurate language and make their unrealistic social engineering scheme look less stupid.

There’s another quote in the article he cites that’s pretty interesting:

The liberal caricature of abstinence education is of school marms rapping the knuckles of teens and telling them—day after day—not to have sex. In fact, a review of curricula for abstinence education programs shows surprisingly little about sex—and a lot about building self-esteem, understanding risky behavior, finding responsible partners, and growing a family.

I don’t know, I though most of us were aware that these people try to dress up their lies with supposedly engaging activities. I had to sit through a presentation promoting abstinence alone in high school (this was separate from our normal sex ed class, which also included abstinence). It certainly wasn’t school marms imploring us to not have sex, but it was still absurd.

I can’t believe conservatives are still on this bandwagon. Oh wait, yes I can. They love to use the phrase “social engineering” to describe liberal social programs, but they’re all too happy to try out common sense-defying schemes when their magic book says so. Never mind that we know they don’t work. If we just close our eyes and wish hard enough (also known as praying), human nature will magically change! Any time now. Really.

The Vatican attempts to defend itself from atheists:

“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,” he said on the sidelines of the conference.

But while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God, he said.

“Of course we think that’s absurd and not at all proven,” he said. “But other than that … the Vatican has recognized that it doesn’t stand in the way of scientific realities.”

Do these people not pay attention? I’ve never read anything by Dawkins that says evolution disproves the existence of gods. He does say that evolution is an explanation of the the history of life that doesn’t require a god. That’s what his “intellectually fulfilled atheist” comment means. The Vatican can say a god gave us souls at some point or kicked off the process, but such a claim isn’t a worthwhile explanation of anything in the history of life.

So I mentioned that I have a copy of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great about Christianity? D’Souza probably doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, but what the hell. I read chapter sixteen, which is about why miracles are possible. This is an issue that is fairly complex, given that you have to define a miracle and figure out how that interacts with your understanding of the laws of nature and if we even know those laws. D’Souza sets up the argument against miracles as such (pg 185):

The strongest argument against miracles was advanced by philosopher and skeptic David Hume in his book Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume’s argument is widely cited by atheists; Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both invoke it to justify their wholesale rejection of miracles. Hume argued that

1. A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature.
2. We know these laws through repeated and constant experience.
3. The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws.
4. Consequently, no one can rationally believe in miracles.

He goes on to say that according to Hume, we can’t really know the laws of nature, so violations of our laws are possible, and miracles are therefore possible by Hume’s own logic!

Neat, huh? Except for one thing. David Hume’s argument is more accurately called an argument against the justified belief in miracles. Here’s what he says:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation….

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish….’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

The core is the oft-quoted line from that passage: “…no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish….” Hume’s skepticism doesn’t contradict his argument against miracles, because his argument is against belief in miracles. I don’t have Dawkins’ book on hand, so I can’t say for sure if he mangles Hume’s argument in the same way, but I don’t believe he does.

I don’t necessarily disagree with D’Souza’s claim that miracles are possible. I don’t really care. There’s an interesting discussion of all of this here. I do believe that for us, when considering the miracles of the Bible, Hume’s maxim is a good argument against believing them.

I realize I’m like a month late, but I just got around to reading Dirk Benedict’s rant about the current BSG. You can’t not love an article with a line like this:

Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as Hamletta. Nor does Hans Solo as Hans Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars. Women “hand out” babies. And thus the world for thousands of years has gone’ round.

Lots more craziness. It’s great.

If you’ve run into the Internet “movie” by the name of Zeitgeist, you should give this a read. It’s a take down of the first, anti-Christianity, half of the film, where the creator tries to claim Christianity is some kind of astrological cult. It’s almost as silly as the rest of the film, but I hadn’t seen a good rebuttal until now.

My inner gaming geek is winning out over my inner politics and religion geek, so Street Fighter 4 is winning out over blogging, probably for most of this week. Not that I post much anyway these days.

On the other hand, I now have my very own copy of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great about Christianity?, so that could provide some fodder. Reading that will make me irritable, though.

So the last post got me looking more at that Pew religion survey, which is still fascinating. A few items:

• 70% of those polled say many religions can lead to eternal life, including most evangelicals(!)
• 60% of the country believes in a personal god.
• Religious affiliation declines with education (you knew I was going to sneak that in, right?)

In any case, the survey isn’t new, but I always find something interesting when I look at that information.

There’s an interesting table over at Gene Expression regarding a question from the Pew Religious Landscape survey. The question is “When it comes to questions of right and wrong, which of the following do you look to most for guidance?” The choices are religious teaching, philosophy and reason, practical experience/common sense, scientific information, and don’t know. I’m not going to reproduce the table here, but in summary, practical experience wins out among most religious groups (the exceptions are Evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons).

Razib describes this as surprising, but is it? There’s research indicating that people agree about basic moral choices, regardless of religious belief. It’s not like most of the religious groups have radically different beliefs about morality, either. Lying, stealing, murder…there isn’t a group on there who condones that.

That common sense category is tricky, though. I think a fairly significant chunk of the religious population would say that God gave them that sense. So it doesn’t mean religious teachings on morality are less important, but that their religious beliefs help them use that sense (or something; I’m shouldn’t be trying to describe that).

Arguments about science and religion being compatible seem silly to me. On the one hand, they are two different “ways of knowing” (I’m trying to be charitable to religion here) and people use both of them to make claims about the natural world. It seems that by definition they could produce different conclusions and therefore are irreconcilable.

On the other hand, few actually seem to look at it like that. Why would you? There’s no reason to ever accept a conflict. If the history of religion says anything, it’s that it can say whatever you want it to. If you want it to justify slavery, it does. If you want it to justify abolitionist impulses, it can. Civil rights? Gay marriage? Scientific progress? Murder? Pacifism? You can use it to justify whatever side of whatever issue you want. That’s ignoring the phenomenon of rejecting scientific findings that conflict with your religion, too. There’s no actual logic involved with religion, so changing your mind doesn’t invalidate anything. You were just wrong. I’m not saying that’s easy, just that you’re only rethinking a conclusion, not a process.

To an atheist, the former is fairly obvious. But it’s a perverse perspective to have if you’re religious. So I don’t think those debates are particularly interesting.

I think this is a great idea.

Also, this is amusing. “If programming languages were cars” is still better, but this one’s good, too:

Lisp would be Zen Buddhism – There is no syntax, there is no centralization of dogma, there are no deities to worship. The entire universe is there at your reach – if only you are enlightened enough to grasp it. Some say that it’s not a language at all; others say that it’s the only language that makes sense.

…

Perl would be Voodoo – An incomprehensible series of arcane incantations that involve the blood of goats and permanently corrupt your soul. Often used when your boss requires you to do an urgent task at 21:00 on friday night.

…

Ruby would be Neo-Paganism – A mixture of different languages and ideas that was beaten together into something that might be identified as a language. Its adherents are growing fast, and although most people look at them suspiciously, they are mostly well-meaning people with no intention of harming anyone.

Python would be Humanism: It’s simple, unrestrictive, and all you need to follow it is common sense. Many of the followers claim to feel relieved from all the burden imposed by other languages, and that they have rediscovered the joy of programming. There are some who say that it is a form of pseudo-code.