Somewhere, Bertrand Russell busts a gut in his grave:

“A religious commune in Malaysia’s Muslim heartland that worshiped a bizarre collection of structures including a giant teapot, vase and umbrella was being torn down yesterday.

About 40 workers with bulldozers and lorries destroyed the “subversive” teapot and other symbols of the pan-religious Sky Kingdom, in Terengannu state. An assembly hall, a concrete boat and a temple-like structure that was under construction were also demolished. About 30 members of the commune watched but did not intervene.

Members and visitors to the commune believe that water from the teapot, which poured into the giant vase, held purifying powers. They follow the teaching of Ariffin Mohammed, 65, better known as Ayah (”Master”) Pin, who holds that every religion is equally valid and that anyone can find his or her own path to God. His settlement has been a popular destination for Muslim, Chinese and Indian Malaysians, as well as foreign tourists.”

Almost sounds reasonable, does Master Pin but, as for that pesky sharia court; Yes, yes, they are serious. Just ask Kamariah Ali:

“Kamariah Ali, a 57 year old former teacher, was arrested in 2005 when the government of the Muslim majority country demolished the two story high sacred tea pot and other infrastructure of the “heretical” Sky Kingdom cult.”

That’s all, really. Now, I’m thirsty…

Etch-a-Sketch clocks for everybody!…

Bill promotes school religion at expense of education

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

Ah, the joys of an education in OK…

If you’re interested in contacting anyone, please go to the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. If you do contact anyone, please be nice.

Be straightforward, of course. But, still, try to be nice as well.

Wow, xians who lie and cheat to get their religion into schools — what are the odds of that?

These people are like rats. Don’t leave any food out, folks — they’ll just come back…

Just wanted to let everyone know about a great piece in Salon by Glenn Greenwald.

Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the role of the American press

In one of the ultimate paradoxes, for American journalists — whose role in theory is to expose the secrets of the powerful — secrecy is actually their central religious tenet, especially when it comes to dealing with the most powerful. Protecting, rather than exposing, the secrets of the powerful is the fuel of American journalism. That’s how they maintain their access to and good relations with those in power. [...] Credit to Tucker Carlson for being so (unintentionally) candid about the lowly, subservient role of the American press with regard to “the relationship between the press and the powerful.” A journalist should never do anything that “hurts” the powerful, otherwise the powerful won’t give access to the press any longer. Presumably, the press should only do things that please the powerful so that the powerful keep talking to the press, so that the press in turn can keep pleasing the powerful, in an endless, symbiotic, mutually beneficial cycle. Rarely does someone who plays the role of a “journalist” on TV so candidly describe their real function. [...] Unlike Carlson, Tim Russert is the Big Guy of the American press corps. He’s the one they all look up to and admire, the one they invariably point to as proof that tough, adversarial journalism is alive and well in the U.S. Yet that’s the same Tim Russert who admitted under oath that — even with no “off the record” agreement — all of his conversations with government officials are presumptively confidential, and he never reports anything unless they give him explicit permission in advance to do so. [...] The number one rule of the standard establishment journalist is to avoid offending the powerful because the more offense they give, the fewer favors the powerful will do for the journalists. Conversely, and by logical necessity, the more journalists please the powerful, the more favors the powerful will do for them. As Carlson put it: “People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did.” I can’t think of any single dynamic that better explains what has happened the last eight years than that one.

And if you really want to see some real journalism, go to the link and scroll down to the YouTube videos.

Watching them might just actually bring a tear to your eye…

Man, that was like falling in love all over again…

Here are some actual quotes by Christians that I have been accumulating till I had enough to do a fun weekend post. Funny, but sadly pathetic at the same time.

“I find it almost comical how unbelievers will blame a God they don’t believe in, but they will not let evolution take the blame for amputees not being able to heal.”
Defender of Christianity

“I have never claimed God was proveable. But neither is evolution. If it is, grab yourself a monkey and evolve me a man.”
Rom831

“With the upcomming trip to Mars. And Nasa wanting to find life on it, will make it so that everything will have to be rethinked and retheorized. Plans to replace evolution as the starting point for life have already been implied. Movies like: Mission to Mars pretty much showed what the theory was all about.”
ikester7579

“I believe that the words of Jesus in other languages are what he said, but they are always translated into God’s heavenly language afterwards.”
lukasaurus

“Anti-Creationists have been known to lie and misrepresent. They have also been known to spread those lies and misrepresentations. ”
Joe G

“Has anyone ever dealt with a demon that makes you constantly tired? Almost like “it” keeps you from doing anything for God or anyone?”
ginzell

“I don’t believe that global warming is happening. I don’t believe that humans can destroy a globe that they didn’t create. Besides, after the entire history of the universe (only 6K years), how much damage could we have done?”
Khristeeanos

“I would have a problem voting for any one who is not a Christian, regardless of the political party. I also consider a vote for a Democrat to be a vote against God. Democrats are the ones who want to take God out of everything. I am not saying all Republicans believe in God, but they are not trying to get Him out of America either.”
HeadBangforJesus

“You have been brainwashed and can only think inside your scientific box.”
Am

“For those that think the Bible has “fiction” in it….what part(s)? ”
Dan

“We Christians have been laying low for too long, but we´re slowly being pushed into militancy by ” pseudo- scientists like yourselves. True, we did burn down all them “pagan” libraries 2000 years ago and the world was better off for it. Nothing wrong ´bout fresh starts.”
The Ascetic Crusader

“I’m basically scoffing at the evolutionist idea of cavemen. I’m saying “Cavemen?! Hah! You think the Tower of Babel back there was made by cavemen?!?”
Sayna

“Common sense is a stumbling block in the path to a democrat run America.”
hayden

And here is one that is not so funny because it is a reflection of the attitudes of a majority of god botherers in this country:

[Would you rather have a not so bright Christian leading the country, or a smart atheist?]

I’ll go with the not so smart Christian.
Atheist have no solid moral base to stand on – they change their idea’s of what is morally permissible with science or politics. This is due to a lack of objective truth (God) and no sense of ultimate justice for our wrong doings. No matter how smart the world thinks an atheist is, remember he is in reality, insane.
Geocajun

Two activists and a pastor came together on the evening of March 6th at a debate in Richmond, Va. The event was hosted by the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs.

AUs Lauren Smith tells us:

“One of those well-known activists was Americans United Executive Director, the Rev. Barry Lynn. He was joined by biblical scholar Jacques Berlinerblau of Georgetown University, arguing for a complete separation of religion and government.

The question was a little too black-and-white, so Lynn made it clear from the outset that government sans religion does not mean government sans values. Values mean many things to many people and are often derived from religious belief; that, he said, is where religion’s influence on secular governance must end.”

Here is the link to the whole article at AU: Enlightening Exchange: AU’s Lynn Joins UVA Debate On Religion And Government

Here is the link to the video of the debate at Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. It’s kind of a long video, but well-worth the time. Nice to see opposing sides discuss intelligently and with respect and civility.

And the transcript link is at the end of Smith’s article at AU.

Also, I found these YouTube videos “Discussing Faith in Public Life – Part 1 of 5″. Rev. Barry Lynn is one of the members of the panel.

Parts 2-5 can be found at YouTube and discussion pretty much contains talk about early campaign which is now history.

Nice little piece from EvolutionBlog. Jason quotes a xian as saying the following:

If you’re going to be an atheist, the most rugged version of godlessness demands complete consistency. Go all the way and think the business of atheism through to the bitter end. This means that before you get too comfortable witht he godless world you long for, you will be required by the logic of any consistent skepticism to pass through the disorienting wilderness of nihilism. Do you have the courage to do that? You will have to adopt the tragic heroism of a Sisyphus, or realize that true freedom in the absence of God means that you are the creator of the values you live by. Don’t you realize that this will be an intolerable burden from which most people will seek an escape? Are you ready to allow simple logic to lead you to the real truth about the death of God? Before settling into a truly atheistic worldview you will have to experience the Nietzschean madman’s sensation of straying through “infinite nothingness.” You will be required to summon up an unprecedented degree of courage if you plan to wipe away the whole horizon of transcendance. Are you willing to risk madness? If not, then you are not really an atheist.

Aside from the fact that Nietzsche was not a nihilist, I thought Jason’s reply was rather funny: “Melodramatic much?” — and reminded me of a nice quote from Uncle Freddie in Human, All Too Human:

Destiny of Christianity.— Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart; but now it has first to burden the heart so as afterwards to be able to lighten it. Consequently it shall perish. [119]

There is something to be said about “The Madman” in The Gay Science, 125, but it’s just not nihilism. That’s not the point at all. It’s a feeling of power that comes from the death of God.

Does this feeling excite? Of course! Is it risky, this new way of thinking? Of course! But while the inference from slave morality (i.e., xianity) is despair and nihilism, the inference from the Masters is beauty, knowledge, and daring — the open sea of self-creation.

Live On, Masters! And Live Dangerously!

Simple question: why do people find the concept of a fallacious appeal to authority difficult to grasp? Not long ago I would have been tempted to say that the biggest problem with internet discourse is applying it inappropriately to situations where expertise is of real value (the natural sciences is the obvious case). More recently, though, it seems that people are utterly clueless about the fact that there is sometimes a problem with claims along the lines of “so and so said such and such, therefore it’s obviously true.”

I saw some good examples of this prompted by some online material by theologian John Haught attacking recent prominent religion critics, mainly this book excerpt in the Christian century. I think I first really encountered it in Jason Rosenhouse posts titled Haught on Science and Faith and Amature Atheists, then saw more from Adam Lee: On “Amature” Atheism and Further Thoughts on John Haught.

It became pretty quickly obvious that Haught’s material was exactly the sort of thing which I’ve come to find so boring: his first criticism of Dawkins et. al. seems to rest on the fact that after taking an entire class where students were mainly exposed to Haught’s views, the students came out sharing Haught’s views. Then there is the essay’s most prominent feature, constant trumpeting of Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus as proof that atheism leads to nihilism. Pure appeal to authority. Haught then begins to act as if he has an argument, saying that if atheists are to be logically consistent, they must follow the lead of Nietzsche et. al. In these passages, I could not help but wonder if he actually understands what the words “logic,” “consistent,” and even “atheism” actually mean. Logic involves some quite well-defined ideas about when one claim follows from some others and when the claim does not follow, ideas which are no where in evidence in Haught’s writing. To say something is not consistent is to say there is some contradiction, but there is no explicit contradiction between, say, “theism is false” and “nihilism is false,” and Haught makes no attempt to produce plausible principles which produce an implicit contradiction. Finally, he sometimes acts as if atheism means not “disbelief in God,” but is a name for an elaborate philosophical system with positions on many topics. In the end, Haught appears to be left holding nothing but an appeal to authority.

Let’s review why this is problematic: in philosophy as usually conceived, there is no vast array of empirical evidence which no layperson can review, but which can be known via testimony of those who do have the time. Philosophical arguments are the sort of thing that can be explained to anyone with a little effort. Unlike mathematical arguments, philosophical ones rarely yield conclusions acceptable to all philosophers, and even when they do so temporarily the balance may be upset a couple decades later.

In spite of all this, not only does Haught barrel along with his appeals to authority, at Christian CADRE we get the spectacle of JD Walters accusing atheists of dishonesty for not accepting Haught’s claims, making a sort of second-order appeal to authority. (Later, Walters wrote a reply to Adam Lee insisting, on I know not what grounds, that Haught’s appeals to authority constituted an argument.)

In all this, though, I’ve not yet mentioned the most distressing use of authority (or approval of it’s use, technically). The following is from Lee’s first post on this subject:

Before I say anything more, I want to acknowledge that John Haught is not the real enemy. He testified for the side of the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design trial, for instance, arguing that religious faith is compatible with scientific inquiry and that ID is pseudoscience. I’m appreciative of his service on this issue.

Why on Earth should we think a theologian qualified to give testimony, settling a philosophical dispute so conclusively as to allow it to be the basis for a legal ruling? Just because such tactics win us a court case doesn’t make them right. Some in the atheist community, I think, take these court cases far too seriously, to the point that they’re willing to win at all cost.