Pink Prozac - a luscious cocktail

Stop respecting religion and start submitting it to the same scutiny as any other idea or argument, says Richard Dawkins. And September 11th 2001 makes this scrutiny more urgent than ever...

I'm not a believer hater

A few years ago I went on a flight to visit some friends, by myself. I hate to fly. It scares me. I'm not afraid of a terrorist being on the plane. I'm not afraid of the pilot not being able to take off or land. I'm simply afraid of some mechanical problem that would arise to cause the plane to crash.

So, I'm sitting at the terminal waiting for the plane to board and reading my book. I glance up and see a  nun sitting there alone. I think to myself - wouldn't it be funny if I would get put next to that nun?

Guess what? I walk on the plane and there she is and there is my seat - right next to her. I sat down, said hello and that was that for a bit. Eventually we started to chat. She was exactly my age. It was kind of neat to be sitting there talking to someone who was totally completely opposite of myself.

She was so nice. I did tell her I was an atheist. She did not give me a lot of Jesus talk. We talked the whole plane ride. She was interesting. Her life. She had a boyfriend for years and didn't just go from high school to the convent. She told me stories of her trips to different places and her experiences with priests -- they drink a lot, she said. Love the wine. well, me and the priests have that in common!

I told her about my breast cancer journey and when we got off the plane she had her sisters there waiting for her like I had my survivor sisters waiting for me. I met her sisters and she introduced me in such a way that made me feel a lot of respect and love for their sisterhood.

Again..am I really an atheist? Did I feel better that I was sitting next to a nun? no way. However, she did keep my mind occupied during the trip and I didn't have so much time to think of the noises the plane was making.

We talked about that too... she was fine with the plane crashing. She would get to be with God.

I asked her to ask him -- not today!! lol

Why Christians are Delusional

Belief without Reason

Steven Pinker

I have this book sitting on my shelf that I bought over a year ago that I have yet to read. The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. In the book Intelligent Thought he writes an essay called:

Evolution and Ethics

Pinker states that the point of his essay is that "Its true science cannot provide us with moral principles. But neither can religion."

He talks about why it seems that there is association with religion and morality. If anyone would look at history they would see that the opposite seems to happen. The bible talks of many atrocities of humans killing others in the name of God.

Pinker states "that religion has given the world stonings, witch burnings, crusades, inquisitions, holy wars. jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, child molesters, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happily be reunited in heaven."

Pinker poses the question "If morality doesn't come from religion, where does it come from?"

This is an important question to me, since I have been asked some ridiculous questions from an old boss of mine. I was never shy to say that I was an agnostic or atheist, if the subject came up. It did come up a lot after I was diagnosed with breast cancer. My boss didn't say this but someone commented on how I could ever get through such a thing without God or believing in God. I guess I was put to the ultimate atheist test at that point - would I revert to praying once cancer came into my life? no.

When I was told I had cancer I was scared to death. I had to face my mortality head on at a relatively young age. I never even once thought of praying to God. I knew that in my mind it was all just a matter of whether the chemo would work, my immune system could kick in or that the cancer was not that virulent and I would survive. I put my faith in my knowledge about what decisions to make and the physicians that I picked to help me with my cancer battle.

Back to my old boss - I think he actually was a bit fascinated with me being an atheist so he would ask me some odd questions that I never encountered before. One was: How come (since you don't believe in God) that you don't go out and stab people in the back. I think he meant it figuratively, not literally. So, what was he saying here? He was wondering how I could have morals if I didn't believe in an afterlife and God. My answer was this -- I don't stab people in the back or do horrible things to others because I value human life. Thats it.

So does that mean the only reason that HE isn't doing bad things to others is because he believes he will be punished in the afterlife? Hmmm..I think that maybe I'm the better person here because I'm trying to be a moral person for the sake of it. Not because I believe I'm going to get a reward or punishment after I die.

So what does Pinker have to say on this issue?

"The theory of natural selection has no trouble explaining the evolution of moral sense. The love of one's children and other blood relatives is a direct consequence of the way evolution works. a gene that impelled an organism to help a close relative would indirectly be helping a copy of that gene sitting inside the relative, and such a gene would then spread through the population"

"So not only is Darwinism compatible with our having moral sense, it can explain why we evolved to have one."

It seems clear to me that this moral sense that we do have is part of us because we want our species to survive and carry on. It is a positive attribute. Remember learning in biology class -- Survival of the Fittest? As homo sapiens we are at the top of the latter as far as other species on this earth. We got here by generations upon generations upon generations etc... of using what best works to keep us alive and reproducing.

More on Intelligent Thought book

Jerry A. Coyne is an evolutionary biologist and the author of Speciation. Coyne starts with the first essay titled:

Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Coyne starts out by revealing two different quotes from William A. Dembski in which in one sentence says that ID is not theism. Then in another quote from this leader in the ID movement says that "any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must been seen as fundamentally deficient"

This is such a contradiction and one that Coyne points out is needed in the Intelligent Design movement. He goes on to explain that ID needs to really convince two different sectors. On one hand the ID movement must try and convince the scientists that they are legitimate science and not religion based. (So they can get their ideas taught in school science classes)

On the other hand they must also appease the evangelical Christians and need their support. They will admit to this group that the Christian God is what is behind Intelligent Design.

Coyne asks "Let us suppose that ID might indeed be an alternative and superior scientific theory -- one that explains the natural world better than Darwinian evolution does. Can such an argument stand up to scrutiny? No". He goes on to say that "ID is markedly inferior to Darwinism at explaining and understanding nature but in many ways it does not even fulfill the requirements of a scientific theory".

So basically Intelligent Design does not meet the requirements to be called a science in the first place - so there is no argument - right? sadly its not the case.

Coyne tells us that the requirements of scientific theory "isn't just a guess or speculation, it is a convincing explanatory framework for a body of evidence about the real world. A good scientific theory makes sense of wide-ranging data that were previously unexplained. In addition, a scientific theory must make testable predictions and be vulnerable to falsification."

Well, what can ID explain? According to Coyne -- not much.

He tells us that since 1973. more than 100,000 peer-reviewed papers on neo-Darwinian evolution have been published. ID is represented by just a single peer-review paper -- that has been refuted.

"In the end, the theory of intelligent design, when it has any content at all, proves to be nothing more than a mishmash of Christian dogma and discredited science"

I thought Coyne did a great job at his explanations for what evolution does explain in his essay. (not going to put that all here -- too long)

So why all this teach the controversy stuff in schools? It seems quite ridiculous if you read the above information of what ID is and what science is defined as. The problem is society not understanding the scientific process. You can't just claim something is science. The ID movement is good at trying to get people to think that this is an alternative idea -- ok, fine -- it might be an alternative idea but it has to withstand what other science has to withstand to be considered science.

Scientists don't just come up with ideas and then everyone blindly accepts them. Peer-reviewed articles are scientists putting something out there for all their fellow scientists to scrutinize, re-test, study and either disagree or agree with the findings.

ID does not do any of this. I guess it boggles my mind that these issues would even get to court. Its great though that creationist theories and ID'ers are always losing the battle but they keep going to try to get as  many on their side as they can.

ID'ers do not do real scientific research and that is the only way to gain scientific acceptance. They can  make things sound like its scientific --  not the same thing!

Intelligent Thought: Science verses the Intelligent Design Movement

Bought this book yesterday.

It is edited by John Brockman and in the introduction he tells us that -- This book - sixteen essays by leading scientists from several disciplines (Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett to name a few) -- is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement's advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages.

School districts across the country -- most notably in Kansas and later in Pennsylvania, where the anti-evolutionist tide was turned but undoubtedly not stopped -- have been besieged by demands to "teach the debate", to "present the controversy". When in actuality, there is no debate, no controversy. What there is, quite simply, is a duplicitous public relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist interests.

I'm still reading Monkey Girl which tells of the Pennsylvania story in depth.

Monkey Girl

I started a new book today called Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and The Battle For America's Soul. by Edward Humes.

On the jacket it says Told from the perspectives of all side of the battle, Monkey Girl is about what happens when science and religion collide.

I'm only on chapter three but the book is very interesting so far. I'm not all that familiar with the details of the recent wars over evolution in Dover, PA. This book takes you behind the scenes.

Some notable quotes from the book:

• "he (a religious member of the school board) fails to grasp that evolutionary theory is in no way claims that man descended from apes, but only that today's men and today's apes share a common ancestor in the distant, prehistoric past."
• "he would have explained what a hypothesis and a theory and peer review were all about; how careful observation and data collection can confirm a hypothesis sufficiently to make it a theory; and how a theory is not just a guess or speculation in the world of science, but a robust and tested explanation of natural phenomena."
• "Creationist leaders have read the same surveys as evolution proponents: poll after poll that shows belief in evolution rises with education level, while areas in the United States with the strongest commitment to creationism tend, as a whole, to have the lowest level of education. Decades of Gallop polls unwaveringly reveal a remarkable correlation between education and what Americans believe about origins.
• 65 percent of Americans who attended graduate school believe evolutionary theory is scientific and well supported by the evidence.
• 52 percent of those with bachelor's degrees accept evolution
• Only 20 percent of Americans with high school educations or less believe evolutionary theory is well supported by the facts."

good stuff so far~

The biblical stories are not new ones

The author of a blog called evanescent writes

Even if you don’t particular find religion interesting, take 25 minutes out to watch this simple unaggressive educational mini-documentary.  It is so revealing.  You will never look at religion the same way, or probably take it as seriously ever again!  I promise anyone who watches it that you won’t regret it.

go here to watch video.

There is a designer alright -- it is man

On Monday, May 14, the Future Forum hosted a debate on religion and politics between Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky.

I listened to the debate and wanted to write some of Christopher Hitchens main points. He started off the debate by explaining that he uses the term anti-theism instead of atheism.

• His objection to a higher power comes from the fact that the claims being made are not true.
• Our beliefs stem from the 'infancy of our species'. 'Explanations had to be found in absense of crucial information.' (we were very ignorant about our world and universe - men wanted to come up with an explaination)
• There are those that think they can not only 'know' that God exists but can also explain to us this entity's mind and tell us its intimate and personal wishes. 'Power is given to the speaker (priests ect), he can tell you that he knows these things but not how he knows these things.'

Hitchens suggests a design alright. A design that is man made. A design by human beings themselves. He said that the belief in a higher power was designed in a time of ignorance and gave men an enormous advantage for power in the here and now. He states that its a dictatorial kind of power. One that can tell us what is right or wrong to eat (God doesn't like pork). One that can tell us not only who to have sex with but what kind of sex is allowed.

He says 'what arrogance' to make rules and say its backed up by a divine being.

Olansky took over for a time and mostly talked about Hitchen's book. Olansky tells of many good works done by those that are religious and challenges Hitchens statement that religion poisons everything.

Hitchens comes back with a good point. You don't need religious reasons to help your fellow man. Why would you need an extra reason to help others? He asked the religious..what is your agenda? Do you do what you do to be rewarded at some later time? He has more respect for those that do good things just for the fact that they do it for its own sake.

Hitchens also spoke about the fact that there are atheists out there that wish there was a god but decide that there is not enough evidence so they don't believe. He in fact states -- that he himself is glad there is no god. He is glad that he isn't under 'permanent unchangeable round the clock surveillance.'