tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276531375184535982024-02-07T21:47:03.080-08:00Atheology: Notes and DraftsZachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-27903228144842972902020-05-02T11:28:00.000-07:002020-05-02T11:28:10.954-07:00 Cameron Bertuzzi's flim-flam<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DGpkGRoLBQ8" width="100%"></iframe>
I've been listening to a debate on YouTube this afternoon while I get some editorial work done. The topic? "Why does something rather than nothing exist?" The players? <a href="https://twitter.com/CosmicSkeptic" target="_blank">Alex J. O'Connor</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/CapturingChrist" target="_blank">Cameron Bertuzzi</a>. At one point moderator <a href="https://twitter.com/UnbelievableJB" target="_blank">Justin Brierley</a> says: "This is complex stuff!" Well, that right there is the big lie. And I want to spell out what I mean by that.<br />
<br />
The use of fundamentally unintelligible terms (such as "necessary being" or "existence as a perfection") obscures the essentially casuistic nature of the "arguments" in this branch of pseudo-intellectual theology. Kudos to CosmicSkeptic for being civil, and game, but I'd rather we would deplatform these kinds of religious prattle-peddlers, rather than helping to grow their audience by engaging them in "debate."<br />
<br />
Unless... does the skeptical/skeptical audience grow at a larger rate than the supernatural audience does, when they come together to watch these kinds of aisle-crossing discussions? If so, perhaps that's a useful function. Who is more empowered by seeing their views laid out with clarity and cogency: skeptics or believers? Ah, but asking the question in those terms suggests to be a problem with the question... for really, it is not POSSIBLE to lay out an unintelligible argument with cogency or clarity.<br />
<br />
A moderator can't be neutral or impartial to matters of fact, or he's just normalizing fallacious views; yet the moderator in this particular debate at no point holds Cameron Bertuzzi account for an explanation of terms like "divine simplicity." If we drill down on this vocabulary, we find that it doesn't have any stable correlative. Tolerance of this kind of linguistic slipperiness isn't neutral; it helps to normalize unintelligibility and the unproductive forms of rhetoric that displace more reliable, publicly accessible (in the Rawlsian sense) forms of reason.<br />
<br />
Going back to the idea that this is "complex" stuff, consider how <a href="https://www.facebook.com/intellectualhonestyforum/posts/2360190550917440" target="_blank">this post</a> by the "Intellecutal Honesty Forum" describes Bertuzzi and some of his fellow travellers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In this playlist, three Christian YouTubers (Cameron Bertuzzi ... Mike Winger ... Jon McCray) respond to the 'Atheist Voice' and his '20 Short Arguments Against God.' While Bertuzzi, Winger and McCray, are autodidacts that know quite well the current philosophical, theological and historical literature on these subjects, what makes this a great resource is the deceptive simplicity with which they are presented as for any one to understand the main points.</blockquote>
The phrase "Deceptive simplicity" conceals much. Does their presentation of these topics seem simple on the surface, while referring to topics that are actually complex? What would "complex" here mean -- complicated in structure, convoluted in reasoning, resistant to analysis, or unstable in meaning? Is "complex" a coded term meant to be understood as "important" and, or, "impressive"? The seeming interconvertibility of "simplicity" and "complexity" strikes me as a red flag, signalling "meaninglessness." Or if not absent of meaning, then "insert the situationally useful meaning here."<br />
<br />
In several places online, Cameron Bertuzzi describes his project as that of "exposing you to the intellectual side of Christian belief." This is, simply, not the case. He's selling himself as a paid commentator, speaker, and online pundit, and attempting to enhance his brand by adorning it in the added-value of intellectualism, while simultaneously eschewing the egg-headed academicism that, at least in the United States, is so readily denigrated by audiences in thrall to right-wing media, conservative politics, and supernaturalist institutions.<br />
<br />
I don't begrudge young Alex his professional interest in talking with Christians, or the income he enjoys in doing so. Setting aside the nature of his views or values, he's presenting a view which is investigable, which makes his activity inherently more honest and socially benign than that of social media theologians propagating terminological flim-flam.<br />
<br />
The more comfortable people are with intelligible terms, the more susceptible they are parasitic meme-plexes like right-wing media, anti-intellectualism, and apocalyptic political theology. That the "meaning" of words is fluid, conditional, and collaborative has nothing to do with the willfully underdetermined meaning of theological pseudophilosophy. </div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-29066838543758208142018-02-21T06:39:00.000-08:002018-02-22T04:46:15.483-08:00Sam Harris, historical myth, and arguing against certainty<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A friend interested in my opinion asked for my reply to the following. My replies, line my line, appear below. - Z<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Dostoevsky said,'if there's no God then you can do whatever you want'... see this is why I have such frustration with people like Sam Harris. The sort of radical atheists because they seem to think that once human beings abandon their grounding in the transcendent that the plausible way forward is with a sort of purist rationality that automatically attributes to other people equivalent value. I just don't understand that.They believe that thats the rational pathway? What the hell is irrational about me getting from you whatever I want when I want it?... Its pure naked self interest how is that irrational... I don't understand that.... See, to me the universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that. As if it's just a given, a rational given.... YOU DON'T GET IT. The ethic that you think is normative is nesting in this tremendously lengthy history. Much of which was expressed in mythological formulation. You wipe that out you don't get to keep all the presuppositions and just assume that they're rationally axiomatic. To make a rational argument you have to start with an initial proposition. Well the proposition that underlies western culture is that there's a "transcendent morality'. Now you can say that thats a transcendent morality that's instantiated in the figure of God. That's fine. You can even call that a personification of the morality, if you don't want to move into a metaphysical space. I'm not arguing for the existence of God. I'm arguing that the ethic that drives our culture is predicated on the idea of God and that you can't just take that idea away and expect the thing to just remain intact midair without any foundational support.</i></blockquote>
<br />
<b><<Dostoevsky said... >></b><br />
<br />
Not to be pedantic, but Dostoevsky <i>wrote</i> it; Ivan Karamazov "said" it. And whether Ivan endorsed it is a more subtle matter.<br />
<br />
<b><<if there's no God then you can do whatever you want'... see this is why I have such frustration with people like Sam Harris."</b><br />
<br />
Ah, well, if there's no god, you are allowed to be frustrated with whomever you like. Ain't no referee going to call you on it. Go on and rage, hombre.<br />
<br />
<b><<The sort of radical atheists... >></b><br />
<br />
Is Harris a radical; in what way? I wouldn't say so. His atheism is of a historically familiar and unradical sort. His xenophobia, on the other hand... that's ALSO not radical, but it is ugly.<br />
<br />
<b><<... because they seem to think that once human beings abandon their grounding in the transcendent that the plausible way forward is with a sort of purist rationality that automatically attributes to other people equivalent value.>></b><br />
<br />
Citation needed; where does Harris (or any other thought leaders among that "sort of radical atheist") profess a belief that a "way forward" following the death of gods, is to automatically grant warrant to ANY proposition? Wouldn't it be more consistent to characterize their position as expecting ANY proposition to be subjected to rationalist scrutiny?<br />
<br />
I don't understand what "equivalent value" is to be attributed to people. The value of human life? The value of the contribution individuals make to society?<br />
<br />
<b><<I just don't understand that.They believe that thats the rational pathway? What the hell is irrational about me getting from you whatever I want when I want it?...>></b><br />
<br />
To adopt the kind of argument this person might find persuasive, I could use arguments based in evidence from game theory, economics, and primatology (for starters) which explain why a rational person might wish to suppose a society in which mores (and conventions, and laws, etc) prevent individuals from raping, stealing, etc, willy-nilly.<br />
<br />
<b><<Its pure naked self interest how is that irrational... >></b><br />
<br />
That impulsive violent acts of self-serving appropriation SEEM TO THIS PERSON to be in the interest of one's self, is, I think, a shortcoming of imagination. If we imagine the conditions of a society in which such acts of self-serving are unopposed, we can envision how things would quickly more from "nasty, brutish, and short", to ... much worse. Is it one's naked self-interest, to bring about conditions in which mere survival is increasingly perilous? Or is it in one's self-interest to contribute to a net of social conventions which allows me to breathe easy around my neighbors, without worrying whether they're going to steal my banana or my mate, murder my offspring, or push me off a branch?<br />
<br />
<b><<I don't understand that.... >></b><br />
<br />
Okay. Admission of ignorance is the first step towards knowledge. (See, I can troll too.)<br />
<br />
<b><<See, to me the universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that.>></b><br />
<br />
There is a room full of economists somewhere that need to be told that their conception of reciprocal self-interest needs to be utterly scrapped, as it is based on mythological presuppositions.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><<As if it's just a given, a rational given.... >></b><br />
<br />
Citation? I don't know who posits this.<br />
<br />
<b><<YOU DON'T GET IT.>></b><br />
<br />
The clarity of this sentence is refreshing.<br />
<br />
<b><<The ethic that you think is normative is nesting in this tremendously lengthy history.>></b><br />
<br />
Who thinks what is normative? (I'm not making fun. The importance of clear writing is always worth underscoring.)<br />
<br />
<b><<Much of which was expressed in mythological formulation.>></b><br />
<br />
I'm not familiar with any theory of cultural history which posits that any cultural tradition we have inherited in the form of myth would have been ORIGINALLY EXPRESSED in the form OF myth.<br />
<br />
<b><<You wipe that out you don't get to keep all the presuppositions and just assume that they're rationally axiomatic.>></b><br />
<br />
Pretty sure that, <i>pace</i> Russell, Godel and the rest, that NO reasoning can proceed without axiomatic assumptions which themselves cannot be analyzed conclusively within the propositional framework you are operating. This is, of course, an academic and therefore trivial observation, since most forms of reasoning of use to human beings in the day to day -- causal, moral, predictive, social, etc. -- don't depend on anything at all like the standards of formal validity pertaining to mathematical logic.<br />
<br />
<b><<To make a rational argument you have to start with an initial proposition.>></b><br />
<br />
Hmm, more or less. I'll allow it.<br />
<br />
<b><<Well the proposition that underlies western culture is that there's a "transcendent morality'.>></b><br />
<br />
Untrue. The body of institutions -- distributed widely across the globe and with deep roots in history -- which I believe this author is referring to reductively as "western culture", is not grounded on any single proposition. To propose that it is, is to buy into a historical myth. Now, where have I just been reading that myth is bunk and should be cast out of any rational society?<br />
<br />
<b><<Now you can say that thats a transcendent morality that's instantiated in the figure of God.>></b><br />
<br />
I don't think you can say it, because the noun "transcendent morality" isn't the kind of thing that the predicate function "instantiation" can be applied to. But I'm not the grammar police, and if this author wants to play slippy-sloppy with his propositions, go to town.<br />
<br />
<b><<That's fine. You can even call that a personification of the morality, if you don't want to move into a metaphysical space.>></b><br />
<br />
So we're allowing for the ontological identification of a transcendent morality with the figure of God with a personification of morality, for the sake of conversation and so we don't move things into the confusing environs of metaphysics? This is not the way to cut through the tangle of this topic, my friends.<br />
<br />
<b><<I'm not arguing for the existence of God.>></b><br />
<br />
It is surprising to me that this was on the table even as a possible misunderstanding of this author's position. Have I missed something?<br />
<br />
<b><<I'm arguing that the ethic that drives our culture... >></b><br />
<br />
To suppose that there is any single ethic driving our culture, deserving of the singular emphatic deictic "the" is, as above, to buy into a historical myth. Relatedly, to suppose that there is any single culture to which "we" all belong, deserving of the exclusive "our", is, again, to buyt into a historical myth. The myth (body of myths, actually) that these suppositions buy into is adjacent to the nationalism, fascisms, and populist reactionary conservatisms we see making their ambitions more publicly known at the present time.<br />
<br />
<b><<... is predicated on the idea of God... >></b><br />
<br />
It would have been nice if this post had posited this thesis, and then spent some time defending it, instead of spending time building suspense of the thesis, and then flapping off after delivering it, like a seagull dropping a sloppy white present on a beach-goer's head.<br />
<br />
<b><<.. and that you can't just take that idea away and expect the thing to just remain intact midair without any foundational support."</b><br />
<br />
So you say. But you haven't demonstrated that you know anything about history, sociology, theology, economics, political science, etc., such that we could take your word for it; you haven't explained persuasively that there is a "western culture" which resembles the god-grounded monolith you described; you haven't indicated who the "radical atheists" are who want to "take that idea away"; and you haven't named -- even with a disdainful label like "the sort of radical atheists" -- the agents who "expect the thing to remain intact" without "foundational support."<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
Post-mortem</h3>
The most generous reading of this post is that it is not thoughtfully or carefully written. A less generous reading is that the author is not thoughtful about these matters.<br />
<br />
HOW to be more thoughtful about these matters is both an easy and a tough question. Easy, because you can say: "Think more!"; but in reality the conditions which conduct us to thoughtfulness are rare. For the most part we're swimming upstream, against the currents of economic need, social discouragement, media noise, corporate parasitism, and so on. A good inducement toward thoughtfulness, I have always thought and I am not alone in thinking so, is reading. I'll end this response with a few reading suggestions, for the author of the short essay above or for anyone interested to know about some of the influences which bear on my own thinking about these matters. So: I recommend reading the entirety of <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i>, for a start; and maybe reading Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism", Nietzsche's <i>The Genealogy of Good and Evil</i>, Hoffer's <i>The True Believer</i>, Niebuhr's <i>Moral Man and Immoral Society</i>, and de Staël's <i>Delphine</i> (if you want to marry advocacy for the ideals of the Enlightenment with the melodrama of plausible human heartache).<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
I gave this short essay such focused attention because I was asked for my feedback on it. In general, I don't think this kind of dissection is a good use of anyone's time. There's no scoreboard where folks can rack up points for being "right" or "brutal" in this kind of exchange. And it's unlikely that even a very patient and chummy reply would help the author think very differently about the points expressed in the essay.<br />
<br />
If there's any point at all to going toe-to-toe like this, it's for the sake of the audience... the other forum members, the social media followers, everyone spectating on the exchange. They have less at stake in the dispute, and therefore are less likely to retreat reflexively into a defensive stance protecting their original position on the matters discussed.<br />
<br />
Whatever the particulars of the debate -- cultural heritage, the existence of higher powers, the question of what is and is not good sound rationalism -- there is usually a more important argument taking place, implicit between the lines: an argument against certainty.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I was chatting with an old friend this morning, an evolutionary biologist (Hispanic human; first-generation scientist), and she happened to be talking against certainty with such a compelling tone of conviction that I'll share it here as a close to this post. She writes: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My latest bend is to interrogate liberals on why they believe evolution is true, to expose the fact that they're just as gullible as the people who don't believe in evolution -- because they don't know the facts! They just get their media bites from a different source, even if that source happens to be correct. Morally pontificating from a point of ignorance makes you look like an ass. I bristle at the self-righteousness of certitude, and am immediately dubious of the underlying reasons for it.</blockquote>
<div>
I bristle, too, and hope you all do as well.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
Updated the day after to note that the friend who sent this quoted material to me has alerted me that it was written by Canada's <a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-Dr-Jordan-Peterson-1" target="_blank">Jordan Peterson</a>. Rings true.</div>
</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-8307666254906118492017-08-15T04:52:00.000-07:002017-08-15T04:52:29.443-07:00Premonitions of Trump's America<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
From Carl Sagan's <a href="https://www.blogger.com/"><i><span id="goog_52818603"></span>Demon-Haunted World</i><span id="goog_52818604"></span></a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I have a foreboding of an American in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. [...] The plain lesson is that study and learning -- not just of science, but of anything -- are avoidable, even undesirable.</blockquote>
<br />
* Note that what I see prophesied in this excerpt is not the rise of Trump, but the emergence of an American culture in which someone like Trump is able to move unimpeded.</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-47250700462644007352017-06-21T05:34:00.000-07:002017-06-21T05:34:04.261-07:00No, leftist regression is not killing the atheist movement<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.0pt;">I’m a member of several secular mailing lists, for activists or
organizers – in-house and intra-mural conversations, mostly. Shop talk. Well,
this morning a message came through on a mailing list for humanist organizers.
This is what the submitter sent in:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Saw an interesting post from David Smalley of Dogma Debate about
whether the regressive left is killing the atheist movement. What do you
think? <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #1155cc;">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/</span></a></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.0pt;">This question, and the article it links to, got under my skin
for some reason. Maybe for a bunch of reasons. By way of response, I replied
with what turned into an op-ed column calling out the secular community at
large for their (our!) lack of demands when it comes to our leadership. Here’s
what I wrote. Your comments are welcome.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.0pt;"></span><br />
<hr />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Of the several dozen factors I would list as inhibiting or
impeding the progress of secular activism, I would NOT include leftist
repression among them. </span></b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Over the past few months (since Trump's election boosted my
motivation, actually), I've been checking in with a network of professional
organizational consultants with relative regularity -- folks that work with
international nonprofits, campaigns, corporations, and so on. I'm very
fortunate in not having to pay their usual billable rate, which is somewhere
between painful and audacious. Good for them, I suppose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">What we talk about is the structure and activity of the secular
movement -- its personalities, its assets, its organizations, its opportunities
and its failings. Take this with a grain of salt, but the overall view that
I've taken away from these consultations is that "our" greatest
hindrance is our lack of focused, outcome-oriented leadership. We are largely
headed up by non-professionals, whether that term refers to their employment
history and expertise or to their temperament. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">We have (in potentia) the money, resources, human capital, and
skills to achieve gains. We have gains TO achieve -- socially laudable,
economically relevant, politically needful activism to pursue, and noble (if I
may use that word without seeming like overly pious) goals to fight for. We
have work to do and the means to do it. But if the review I've been doing of
our activity over the past two decades has shown anything, it is that our work
is time and again disrupted and destroyed by organizational infighting;
operational incompetence; and personality-driven failure. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">If you asked me why the "atheist movement" (loaded
term) is "failing" (leading term), I'd tell you it has a lot more to
do with the self-serving, short-sighted, self-aggrandizing and frankly
destructive personalities that our complex community has not yet figured out
how to neutralize, than it does with leftist repression.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">(The continued failure of secular leadership in the US to take
responsibility for the terrible demographics of the movement, in all its
manifestations -- talking heads, org officers, media representation, conference
attendance, and so on -- is I think concomitant to larger leadership problem.
The demographic problem and the leadership problem are to each other both cause
and result.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">If secularism were half as rational as we like to think we are,
then a lot of the folks in charge would be shown the door in quick fashion,
making room for folks who are ready and equipped to deliver in terms of
revenue, media activism, legislative influence, membership growth, local
chapter stability, etc, etc. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">If I may say so without seeming merely to be "stirring up
shit" -- some of those people who should be shown the door are on this
mailing list.</span></b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">More than once, a person I look up to in the secular social
movement has drawn a comparison between secularism and waves of
enfranchisement. You had women's rights; civil rights; equal rights; and now,
perhaps, we could see ourselves as part of a fourth wave. There are a few
problems with this comparison, but in spirit, it's an exciting metaphor. The
reason I can't embrace it is because I'm embarrassed, on my own behalf and on
the behalf of anyone who has any role in organized secularism over the past
quarter century, at how badly we've failed at identifying and empowering the
kind of astute and honorable leadership that those previous movements depended
on. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I don't mean that our lack of heroically perfect leadership is
what's holding us back. I mean that we're entirely too tolerant of entirely too
much imperfection. We can do better, as secularists and rationalists and
humanists, and we should, and we need to. The US needs every one of its
component communities to get their act together; all hands are needed to
create, strengthen and defend institutions, memes and attitudes which are
up to the task of neutralizing chaotic nationalism, xenophobia of all sorts, nativism
and corporatism. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I write this reply, without wishing to seem to devalue the work
and contributions of secular leaders who ARE doing a bang-up job.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I fear I've replied to your question with a bit of
grandstanding. I've deliberately not said much about Smalley's article, or
about his other statements along these lines in social media. I find it a
shallow and unpersuasive position, and with that, enough said. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">All best,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;"><br />
Zachary Bos<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Boston<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-30182448883844912562017-04-25T05:10:00.000-07:002017-04-25T05:10:29.853-07:00Matron in the train station<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Saw an older woman handing out <i>Watchtower </i>tracts at the T this morning. I bet that work gives her a sense of purpose, and of dignity through purpose. And it's nice to know that she has a reason to be out of the house. Still, I'd much rather see her stumping for an ideology that didn't reject science, reject modernity, and demand impossible beliefs from the people interested in belonging to that community.<br />
<br />
What kind of an ideology might that be? Well, it'd have to be a big one, else it wouldn't attract commitment and motivate behavior. But so many big ideas are also dangerous ideas. Radical fellowship opens the door to disfellowshipping; community belonging opens the door to shunning; values-based leadership opens the door to coercion, authoritarianism, and abuse.<br />
<br />
Some days I'm such an optimist that I feel it wouldn't be such a difficult thing to articulate such an ideology, and stitch up a workable community structure around it, and release it into the wild. Then I think about the observable scarcity of such communities where benign values-in-action have resulted in flourishing and stable social situations, and I tuck my optimism back in my pocket and recommit to a more humble set of ambitions.<br />
<br />
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled," Mark Twain wrote. (Or no, <a href="http://ianchadwick.com/blog/and-again-more-mis-attibuted-quotes-online/" target="_blank">he didn't,</a> but I will tell you that he didn't and you won't believe me.)</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-79359253752196217532017-01-07T06:18:00.001-08:002017-01-07T06:18:22.455-08:00Orwell on socialist sex maniacs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Ah, YouTube. This morning it brought me to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juYg901PmFo" target="_blank">an unaired clip</a> from the British panel show <i>QI</i>, in which the inestimable and inimitable Stephen Fry quotes from George Orwell's <i>The Road to Wigan Pier</i> (1936):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'Socialism draws towards it with magnetic force every fruit juice drinker, nudist, sandal wearer, sex maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England.' [Orwell] also talks about 'vegetarians with wilting beards', 'outer suburban creeping Jesus' eager to begin yoga exercises,' and 'that dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal wearers and bearded fruit juice drinkers who come flocking toward the smell of progress like bluebottles to a dead cat.'" [<a href="https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/qi/episodes/5/12/" target="_blank">transcript</a>]</blockquote>
I wonder what justice there is in Orwell's cranky depiction of figures we probably all recognize through the distortions of his caricature. There is an n-dimension graph whose axes represent openness toward or rejection of different conceptual possibilities -- spirituality, personal perfectability, political perfectability, and so on -- and in this graph space, we should be able to identify the overlapping domains of "socialism", "individualism", "bohemianism", "veganism", and so on. Would the result be a disordered pell-mell without order? Or would some kind of informative structure emerge, to tell us about the people who reject theism but embrace socialism, who embrace fascism but reject spiritualism, and so on? Where will we find the bluebottle types, or the skeptics, or the Eric Blairs? What if these each turn out to be categorical cousins, to no one's greater surprise than their own?</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-40688387815658742042016-11-06T04:52:00.000-08:002016-11-06T04:52:03.437-08:00Wanted: a simple explanation of abiogenesis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi25Rh1XYKUQer-HTUWDYYhh0nl4htFZ5GcixN3G_UwitHGsHTOG_IR2jVeATy0iKm0UfxN4HBkpuif00O4bxunvYI3xDVhyphenhyphenVATJt01s9wbaNbzCwhxjhW1TeqH82-rRqtYQDZpqCuIykjX/s1600/comparison-between-creationism-and-abiogenesis.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi25Rh1XYKUQer-HTUWDYYhh0nl4htFZ5GcixN3G_UwitHGsHTOG_IR2jVeATy0iKm0UfxN4HBkpuif00O4bxunvYI3xDVhyphenhyphenVATJt01s9wbaNbzCwhxjhW1TeqH82-rRqtYQDZpqCuIykjX/s320/comparison-between-creationism-and-abiogenesis.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">On the right, science. On the left, incredulity.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016, I awoke to find this email in my American Atheists mailbox, from a gentleman writing from India:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dear Sir, </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Good day to you.<br />
<br />
I would like to reintroduce myself as an independent researcher in philosophy and modern science. I gratefully acknowledge your previous evidence-based reply that helped me a lot to improve my critical thinking skills. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Being an open-minded, unbiased researcher, it is my pleasure to share one of my concerns- as expressed below, hoping a satisfactory explanation: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When we talk about consciousness, we all know that consciousness is the result of certain evolutionary arrangement of atoms. How can a specific 'collection of atoms' in the universe alone 'think', 'aware' and 'reason' about even 'its' own existence while all the sub-atomic particles in the universe are governed by the same laws of physics? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I mean, what is the logical and rational plausibility of our assumption that physical objects (obviously they are made up of atoms and atoms don't have any self-awareness and consciousness) , for example, a rock ( or any inorganic, non-living matter of choice ) of certain mass (Kg), when subjected to blind, unconscious, unplanned and unintelligent evolutionary forces of magnitude of certain Newtons (N) for trillion, trillion, trillions of years or even infinite time , the original rock will become 'self-aware' in such a way that now the rock is able to 'think', 'aware', and 'reason' about even 'its' own existence and 'its' surroundings, able to grasp the laws of physics, mathematics, able to involve in logical reasoning, able to draw logical conclusions, able to feel sense of justice, sense of purpose and sense of existence, able to involve in rational thinking, able to feel pain and sorrow etc.?<br />
<br />
Is there any logical fallacy in looking beyond the theory of abiogenesis?<br />
<br />
Appreciate your kind feedback.<br />
Please ignore and forgive me if this e-mail is an offence.<br />
<br />
Thanks and regards,<br />
F---- V----- P----------,<br />
Electrical Engineer,<br />
INDIA. </blockquote>
<div>
When I read his question -- </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>I mean, what is the logical and rational plausibility of our assumption that physical objects... when subjected to blind evolutionary forces... will become 'self-aware'?</b></blockquote>
<div>
-- I was tempted to write in reply, simply, "1.0", reflecting the 100% plausibility of the emergence of consciousness from non-living precursors, in light of the evidence of the physical world around us and the conscious being (myself) typing in response. I decided in the end to give him a less trivial reply. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For your reading pleasure, here is my Sunday morning armchair musing on abiogenesis, and the emergence of thinky out of rocky, and all that jazz. </div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dear F----: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Excellent to hear from you. I'll copy you from my personal email account, so our conversation doesn't clutter up my official inbox. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Let me address out two points I see in your message that create a lot of confusion. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The first objection I have has to do with your analogy likening the emergence of consciousness to a rock manifesting the ability to think. </b>This is an error of analogy, akin to an error in understanding what is meant BY abiogenesis, and indeed, by consciousness. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No theory of abiogenesis posits that a solid solitary object (such as: a rock!) would within its own geological lifetime undergo such physical changes that allow it eventually to think, while also retaining its identity AS a rock. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Abiogeneis as it is currently conceived is not a local phenomenon that occurs WITHIN an ecology -- today you have no life, and tomorrow, there it is, there is life, isolated and localized within, and somehow separate from, the ecology. Rather, abiogeneis is a process that occurs over geological timescales, and in a manner distributed throughout systems that span an entire ecology. Further, it is conceived of as an incremental process, with manifold different simultaneous instantiations. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The popular image of abiogenesis as having to do with a puddle of slime on a rocky shore, as isolated in its reaction space as a glass beaker in a lab, is wildly misleading. Although there needs to be a certain degree of concentration of reagents and stock materials, and a certain patterning to the encounters different chemical (and eventually, biological!) materials undergo, this does not bear comparison to the slime puddle image. Things are altogether more dynamic, and take place at scales that are at the same time much smaller (microscopic clay templating! RNA self-catalysis!) and much larger (ocean depth gradients of iron- and sulfur-bearing isoclines! or, according to a different model, iuron- and sulfur-bearing surface deposits such as those surrounding ocean floor vents). </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In other words, I fear that your metaphor of abiogenesis operates at the wrong levels of scale, and with the wrong impression of dynamism. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The other point I'd wish to address briefly, in response to your kind invitation, has to do with your presentation of the concept of "consciousness." </b>This, like abiogenesis, is a complicated subject which is sometimes disfavored by limiting metaphors. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You write: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
now the rock is able to 'think', 'aware', and 'reason' about even 'its' own existence and 'its' surroundings, able to grasp the laws of physics, mathematics, able to involve in logical reasoning, able to draw logical conclusions, able to feel sense of justice, sense of purpose and sense of existence, able to involve in rational thinking, able to feel pain and sorrow etc.?</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This, on its surface, sounds like a plainly ludicrous proposition. But I'd never describe consciousness in this manner. Instead, I might translate your description this way:<br />
the original rock may be subjected to the processes of weathering and erosion, such that it is reduced to sediment. The minerals and chemicals which constituted that rock are now available to circulate in the (aqueous, likely) ecosystem, where they may be involved in chemical reactions we believe to be preliminary to the abiotic formation of biological monomers, such as carbon fixation, chemical reduction, or (to give a more complex example), pyramidine formation. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Over time, an ecology which has produced biological monomers, may enter into a state of conditions conducive to the formation of biological polymers, some of which are self-catalyzing. The abiogenesis really heats up then! <br />An ecology which features concentrations of self-catalyzing biological polymers may give rise to autocatalytic chemical networks and structures such as micelles and vesicles. These molecular-scale phenomena may interact and form more complex structures and systems, which we begin to recognize as rudimentary "proto-life." </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Over eons of chemical, and then biological, and then ecological, evolution, this proto-life may develop adaptive systems which "record" life experience, in the form of chemical changes in the cell, or taxic changes in behavior, or changes in genetic expression, or charge potential changes in nerve cells. As this system of record-keeping (memory, you could call it) becomes more sophisticated, the organism benefits from the ability to predict appropriate behavior for future conditions which resemble past conditions it has a record of. This is a significant part of what we call learning. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The organism continues to become more sophisticated. But keep in mind, we aren't talking here about a single individual. We are speaking in evolutionary terms, so this change takes place over countless generations, across the somatic instances of countless individuals. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Eventually, the learning/memory systems of the organism become so sophisticated, and recursive, and powerful, that the organism is able to model future potential behavior! This does bear comparison to the way that a computer program using patterns of charge distribution in an electronic system, to model the world of a computer game. We don't think there's anything magical about that, do we? Likewise, the pattern of charge distribution in the nervous system of the organism, are able to run a model of the world. And this model may contain sub-programs we can label as "thinking", "awareness", "reasoning about its own existence and its surroundings", "pondering the the laws of physics", "mulling over maths", "fiddling about with logical reasoning", "the drawing of conclusions", "the sense of justice", "a sense of purpose" , "a sense of existence", and "the experience of pain and sorrow." </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All of these thoughts and feelings are 1) simply patterns of charge distribution changing across the vastly complex representational network of a nervous system, and 2) amazing. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Voila</i>! From rock to mind. </b>Now, I am kidding, of course. But I hope that my "translation" of your description of the origin of consciousness, even as briefly as I describe it, is enough to make the point I intend -- namely, that while there is so much that we have yet to measure, verify, and truly understand about the way life emerges from non-life, and how mind emerges from minerals, the nature of the mystery isn't, any longer, metaphysical, if we come to terms with the vast scales of complexity involved in a naturalistic explanation. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Seen from a distance, the complexity of the naturalistic explanation may look supernatural. But we don't have to keep our distance. We can zoom in, get our hands and minds dirty, and engage with data, and models, and articles and animations and questions and answers, and so on, through the technology of information and communication which frees us from the backwaters of our ignorance as separate individuals. (That internet -- she's amazing.) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thank you for the stimulating questions; these were fun things to think about on a Sunday morning here in New England. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
With warm regards from Boston, </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Zachary "the Thinking Rock" Bos<br />
Massachusetts State Director for American Atheists</blockquote>
To the extent that we atheists want to have our materialist apologetics in order, I think it would be useful to have a "best practices" way of responding to questions like, ah, but, rocks can't think, can they.<br />
<br />
Do <b>you</b> have any suggestions for concise and accessible explanations of abiogenesis, of the sort we could share with persons like this Indian engineer when they have questions about the plausibility of that theory? I'd love to know what you recommend. (How great if there was a really brilliant YouTube animation going through this stuff... )<br />
<br />
The graphic above, interestingly enough, comes from <a href="http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/04/so-this-is-real-theory-of-abiogenesis.html" target="_blank">the blog of a Christian</a> defending creationism as a plausible theory. </div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-82069015550034737092016-03-23T05:37:00.003-07:002016-03-23T05:40:45.055-07:00Grassroots wisdom... from Cracked.com?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
Those of you who know about <u>Cracked.com</u> probably know it as a platform for wacky, even sophomoric, humor writing. However: from time to time, their contributors sneak in content with some real wisdom. When reading a recent post, I came across a few paragraphs that seem really, really relevant to the kind of cultural activism many of us are involved in as organizers in the secular movement. The title of the section gives the short take: </div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-things-politicians-hope-you-forget-every-election-year_p2/" target="_blank">#3. Revolution Is Sexy; Real Change Is Strategic And Incremental</a></span></b></div>
</div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
America was born from a revolution. It's in our DNA. If you want your blockbuster movie to get asses in the seats, make it about a few common folk taking down an advanced, oppressive force. In the third act, when the hero nobly declines to kill the Emperor, that's OK -- somebody else will toss him down a bottomless shaft. What matters is the unquestioned assumption that abrupt and/or violent upheaval of the current system is the only way to affect change, and that anything less is a de facto stamp of approval for the status quo.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In reality, sudden upheaval usually results in an even more brutal asshole taking power (See: the Middle East, China, Russia ... most of the world throughout history, in fact). This is because the people who shout loudest for abrupt change -- particularly those who promise to restore the greatness of the nation to some imagined idyllic past -- are often either short-sighted idealists or power-hungry sociopaths looking to exploit scared people. It's the political version of a get-rich-quick scheme. </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
But real change is usually as tedious as watching a game of chess played by two fungus colonies. Slavery didn't vanish with the stroke of Abe Lincoln's pen; abolitionists had been chipping away for 45 damned years, changing public opinion inch by inch. The gay rights movement has been banging its head against the wall since the 1890s and still hasn't broken all the way through. A lawsuit here, a board meeting there, a petition here, a city council candidate there. A step forward, a step back. The kind of grinding, unsatisfying slog that wouldn't even get a montage in a movie adaptation.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
In other words: Small gains add up. The failure to make a huge win every calendar year doesn't mean we're somehow not making progress. And the sex appeal of dismantling the current system, in order to build a brave new world, may be distracting us from the wholly intolerable cost of such revolution.</div>
</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-69120651871339754332014-10-06T10:14:00.002-07:002014-10-06T10:14:32.295-07:00Fly your flags high<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxLCzmaXuOBKdNrHvLnVY2FlW8nXS0i1FYiTo3j8BxmdgSzM8PTZxOH3M8dMWFbsF8WuZA6fm9PPR6HlM60OmYlvzubnh6dZoTNIMwcWjdAahjnXdnlU7XjCCNj2Sd8w94gwSnN8Xq8eUN/s1600/adg-li.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxLCzmaXuOBKdNrHvLnVY2FlW8nXS0i1FYiTo3j8BxmdgSzM8PTZxOH3M8dMWFbsF8WuZA6fm9PPR6HlM60OmYlvzubnh6dZoTNIMwcWjdAahjnXdnlU7XjCCNj2Sd8w94gwSnN8Xq8eUN/s1600/adg-li.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Proposed (but never officially adopted) <a href="http://www.cyberussr.com/adg/logo-t.html" target="_blank">logo</a> for the now defunct <a href="http://www.cyberussr.com/adg/" target="_blank">Atheist Discussion Group</a>, a Boston-area enterprise active from 1998 on. The Latin above means "Christians for the flavor's sake."</div>
<br />
A charming limerick from the young Saki (H.H. Munro, 1870-1916):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There was a young lady O'Brien,<br />Who sang Sunday hymns to a lion.<br />Of that lady there's some<br />In the lion's tum-tum,<br />And the rest is an angel in Zion.</blockquote>
</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-9403290158491992462014-10-03T06:41:00.002-07:002014-10-03T06:41:24.300-07:00Skeptical of the Bible? Have I got a book for you.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
If I told you of a book that included the following topics, would you be interested?<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>"Contradictions and Errors in the Biblical Text"</li>
<li>"Distortion and Abrogation in the Bible:</li>
<li>"Refutation of Misleading Protestant Statements Regarding the Authenticity of the Bible"</li>
</ul>
<br />
You <i>are</i> interested, aren't you, you skeptics and revelation-scoffers. Well, let me not tantalize you cruelly. The book exists! In fact, it's a foundational text in the world of Muslim apologetics.<br />
<br />
The six-volume <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izhar_ul-Haqq" target="_blank">Izhar ul-Haqq</a>,</b> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahmatullah_Kairanawi" target="_blank">Rahmatullah Kairanawi's</a> <i>magnum opus</i>, was written (in Arabic, naturally) in 1864. Christine Schirrmacher describes the work thusly:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'The Demonstration of the Truth' (izhâr al-haqq) served as a summary of all possible charges against Christianity and was therefore used after al-Kairânawî's death as a sort of encyclopaedia since al-Kairânawî extended the material of former polemicists like 'Ali Tabarî, Ibn Hazm or Ibn Taymiyya to a great extent.</blockquote>
Check it out in English translation <a href="http://www.islam4all.com/newpage71.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. Don't be surprised if you have to pick around some bits that defend the existence of the Islamic god, even as you enjoy the take-down of the Christian one.</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-258089526498760712014-07-31T19:46:00.001-07:002014-07-31T19:46:21.799-07:00Religious typographical taboo: six points of contention <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>While cleaning out some files earlier this week, I deleted an <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16955" target="_blank">.epub version of the Koran</a> from my desktop. And I wondered as I did it, would a believing Muslim have any difficulty doing the same, in light of the prohibition on destroying that book? (Because of that prohibition, Muslims in Iraq haven't destroyed the abhorrent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Quran" target="_blank">Blood Koran</a> created by Saddam Hussein. However, since it's "unclean" as well, they also can't put it on public display. Twixt a rock and a hard place, they are. The full-on theological debate over what to do with the damn thing rages on.</li>
<li>My friend the religious scholar notes, when I shared the above thought with him, that there really isn't any issue of consequence of the copies being destroyed or threatened with destruction are in a language other than the <a href="http:/?ie=UTF8&tag=thewonref-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Koranic Arabic of Muhammad</a>. In Islam, it can be thought <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_translations#Islamic_theology" target="_blank">a kind of sin</a> to read from a translated Koran. </li>
<li>My friend also points out: A better question is what happens to misprinted pages in Arabic editions..."</li>
<li>An acquaintance had this to share. "My nephews went to Hebrew school in a Conservative (not even Orthodox) synagogue. Like in any school, there were plenty of handouts. Being about Judaism, the word '<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm" target="_blank">G-d</a>' showed up a lot. The kids were not allowed to throw out or recycle any handouts with "God" on them. The handouts had to be brought to some special place, where most likely a Rabbi got bribed (read: paid) to dispose of them "properly". These were #$%^&* handouts for kids in a $%^&* little school! I wish I were making this up."</li>
<li>This same acquaintance alerts us to the religious trespass inherent in reading this on screen. "Look what we typed -- the word 'GOD' instead of 'G-d'! <a href="http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/944731/jewish/Can-I-delete-Gds-name-on-a-computer-screen.htm" target="_blank">Who knew that an errant keystroke</a> could hurt the feelings of the omnipotent creator of the Universe."</li>
<li>From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Writing_divine_names" target="_blank">WP</a>: "In Jewish tradition the sacredness of the divine name or titles must be recognized by the professional <i>sofer </i>(scribe) who writes Torah scrolls, or tefillin and mezuzah. Before transcribing any of the divine titles or name he prepares mentally to sanctify them. Once he begins a name he does not stop until it is finished, and he must not be interrupted while writing it, even to greet a king. If an error is made in writing it may not be erased, but a line must be drawn round it to show that it is canceled, and the whole page must be put in a <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem#The_classic_narrative:_The_Golem_of_Prague" target="_blank">genizah </a></i>(burial place for scripture) and a new page begun."</li>
</ol>
</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-56153808772575009462014-07-20T04:13:00.001-07:002014-07-20T04:13:19.217-07:00Do theological divisions stick in your craw?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Over at the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/213666205395768/" target="_blank">Interpath Conversations group</a> on Facebook, a forum member had a question to ask about the attitude of Richard Dawkins toward believers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeBPSvcNZQ&feature=youtu.be&t=55m30s" target="_blank">This video </a>was shot in 2007, at around the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeBPSvcNZQ&feature=youtu.be&t=55m30s" target="_blank">55:30 mark</a> he begins a comment in which he ends up saying that it "sticks in his craw" to work with "decent moderate religious people." But in more recent years, I've heard him talk quite happily about working with progressive/liberal religious people and even called them something-like his "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend" target="_blank">comrades in arms against ignorance</a>." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Earlier in the same comment he talks about belief in a supernatural creator being incompatible with science. But I know that many (if not most!) liberal/progressive religious people are <b><i>not </i></b>"supernatural theists" but rather '<a href="http://%22pan-en-theists/" target="_blank">pan-en-theists</a>', even if they're unfamiliar with the term. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So, my question is, does it still stick in his craw? Or, is he now more okay with working with liberal/progressive religious folk who aren't supernatural theists? I'm merely trying to understand his point of view, not looking for an argument. Thanks!</blockquote>
That's a pretty fair question! I thought it deserved to be brought outside of the silo of Facebook and added to the ongoing workings-out here of topics in belief, nonbelief, and interaction across those questions that divide us.<br />
<br />
My answer to the forum member was as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thinking about his books and public comments, I would say that what sticks in Dawkins' craw is not <b>working with </b>such people (the 'softcore theists', we might say), but with <b>the idea</b> that persons committed to making society more welcoming of scientific/skeptical ways of looking at the world <i><b>should </b></i>be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend" target="_blank">allying</a> with persons committed to making the work more welcoming of supernaturalistic belief. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That is to say, it is the <i><b>organizational </b></i>"working with" which is problematic -- which leads to issues of conflict over incompatible commitments -- rather than <i><b>interpersonal </b></i>"working with." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You've likely heard the reasoning that by helping to normalize supernaturalistic belief of the sort that Dawkins finds unwarranted, moderate or liberal believers <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes#Radical_and_moderate_Islam" target="_blank">help to create safe conditions in society</a> where more radical or dangerous strains of belief can find an entrance point and eventually flourish. This, too, is an organizational (or societal) dynamic, and not an interpersonal one. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Compare this attitude to, say, Sam Harris' recommendation that nonbelievers be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#Conversational_intolerance" target="_blank">conversationally intolerant</a> of supernaturalistic belief, when we encounter it <i>in our personal lives</i>. Now, Dawkins may well be impatient with the believers in his personal life; but as I understand it, his public and written comments along the lines of this "sticks in my craw" remark aren't expressions of interpersonal animosity.</blockquote>
Or did I get it backwards? Is Dawkins in his personal life someone who finds theists backward or foolish? Does he go out of his way to avoid dealing with them? On the other hand, does he see the value in forging <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/" target="_blank">organizational</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend" target="_blank">alliances</a> with theistic groups who are working toward a shared goal? You know what, I don't think it matters, not in the case of Dawkins specifically.<br />
<br />
What matters is that we recognize this as a fair question, and an important one. If you're a believer/nonbeliever, how do you feel about interacting with nonbelievers/believers? Do these feelings get in the way of opportunities to work together? Does working together mean we are compromising our principled commitment to endorsing and proliferating a worldview?<br />
<br />
There's a conversation we need to have about how to work with people you think are wrong in some aspect of their thinking. It would have to touch on issues of humility, cooperativeness, conviction, civility, and good will. It might even be a conversation to have with folks at a young age, since as part of your interpersonal, social skill too;-kit the ability to work alongside and in productive cooperation with people you think are wrong is indispensable. So add this topic to the syllabus for secular Sunday School. </div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-17541239002072919022014-03-28T03:16:00.003-07:002014-03-28T05:43:38.319-07:00Hey, SCOTUS: faith ain't internally consistent<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
From <i>Slate's </i><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2014/03/sebelius_v_hobby_lobby_supreme_court_hears_oral_arguments_in_the_contraception.2.html" target="_blank">coverage of the Hobby Lobby trial</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Kagan questions [the] claim that one tenet of the Green family’s faith requires that they provide all their employees with health care while another tenet requires that they deny contraception.</blockquote>
<b>What's to question?</b> I am unaware of any reason from epistemology or philosophy of religion to assume, prima facie, that the tenets we commit to when we adopt a worldview to our purposes won't be mutually exclusive. It is fruitless to look for a hidden consistency in any ethics, be it supernaturalistic or not.<br />
<br />
Yeats recognized early on that the challenge in life was to <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=DlMUSz-hiuEC&pg=RA4-PA360&dq=%22Hammer+your+thoughts+into+unity%22" target="_blank">hammer his thoughts into unity</a>; we all face the same difficulty. Sure, a person who wishes to live "rationally"* is going to pursue self-consistency in their ethical and epistemic commitments. But the trick is in realizing that epistemic unity is only ever imperfectly obtained. With that insight, one realizes the needful thing for humans to learn is how to be comfortable and ethical even with that limitation.<br />
<br />
This paradox at the heart of a self-aware life reminds me of a line from David Milch's wonderful television series <i>Deadwood</i>: "<a href="http://vimeo.com/88681835" target="_blank">I believe in God's purpose, not knowing it</a>." I'm content, atheist that I am, to let the word "God" suffice here for the illusion of a predetermined course of a events in the universe. I believe: in not knowing the point of my life. I believe: I'm free to determine a purpose for myself, in that absence of a higher plan. I believe: there's no reason to think my purpose-driven commitments will be, on first or second or further consideration, consistent among themselves. I believe: a good person embraces this state of affairs, and learns to muddle through, seeking their purpose, despite their self-contradictions.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">* and we mean by this, <i>pace </i><a href="http://infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html" target="_blank">Clifford</a>, to live according to a system of beliefs each of which was acquired in a sufficiently informed fashion.</span></div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-53459247179043841132014-02-04T04:40:00.000-08:002014-02-04T04:40:07.559-08:00What is the Inferno of peace?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
On NPR this morning I heard <a href="http://wgbhnews.org/post/power-laments-tyranny-mob-central-african-republic" target="_blank">another</a> report about Christian militia reprisals against the Muslim minority that took control of the Central African Republic last year in a coup. About French peacekeepers looking on while a body is mutilated by a mob, cut into pieces. About Rwandan peacekeepers there under the auspices of the African Union, haunted by the knowledge of what happened in the marshes and village of their nation 20 years ago, in '94. The speaker is Emergency Director for Human Rights Watch, calling from the nation's capital, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangui" target="_blank">Bangui</a>. He describes the situation as being out of Dante's <i>Inferno</i>.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This makes me think: we have ready literary models -- we might call them myths, or memes, with equal accuracy -- to describe horrific violence. Why don't we have models of justice, or of conditions so intolerable to the human spirit that justice and peace is brought about immediately, that are as ready to be called upon? We need to make people of vision and ethical motive have touchstones they can use to communicate an an urgent and cogent way about situations in need of immediate remedy. It says something about the level of our global civilization that Dante's Inferno would be a universally recognizable symbol for horror, but that we don't have a universally recognizable shorthand code for conditions of peace and civil harmony.<br />
<br />
A Roman Catholic priest in CAR brought the entire Muslim population of his community, numbering in the hundreds, into the church, and declared that they are under the protection of God. This presumably stopped whatever revenge attacks might have been planned against them by their Christian neighbors.<br />
<br />
<i><b>What empowers the Rwanda soldiers</b></i> -- what explains their capacity to bring about a more positive outcome? <b>Memory </b>of atrocity; a sense of <b>obligation </b>to prevent the recurrence of evitable history. <i>Civic </i>authority. <i><b>What empowers the peacemakers?</b></i> <b>Cultural </b>references that are universally accessible and uniquely motivating; a vision of peace that can be readily understood and shared among new stakeholders. <i>Cultural </i>authority. <i><b>What empowers the priest?</b></i> The <b>respect </b>afforded to, consolidated in, his <b>special </b>role as <b>mediator </b>between the mundane and the everlasting (which may be defined as contingently as one likes...). <i>Moral </i>authority.<br />
<br />
I think about these matters as I try to imagine a society without theistic religion; as I endeavor to think through and look past the enormous privilege of my fortunate birth in a more or less intellectually and religiously free society, to think of the civic needs and human nature of societies where such freedom is reduced or absent entirely. There are different levels of freedom in different parts of the world, and the freedom of a society may change from year to year, as regimes and generations change and seasons pass and technology disrupts and transactional patterns evolve.<br />
<br />
To skip a good deal of analysis and admit simply to what is on my mind: I see the need for, the potential usefulness of, a secular Bible. A tool that can be held up, tangible, in all its undeniable here-it-is-ness. A reference that can be returned to; a blueprint and a checklist that can be consulted time and again. A foundation plan for inhering civic, cultural, and moral authority in whomever wishes to act in accordance with the account of peace laid out therein.<br />
<br />
We need stories other than Dante's beautiful awful intricate catholic <i>Inferno</i>. A civic humanistic canon, as widely accessible as possible without losing the haecceity peculiar to the material of myth. A textbook of emotional engineering. <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Good-Book-Humanist-Bible/dp/0802778372?ie=UTF8&tag=thewonref-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Good Book</a></i> compiled by Grayling is a gesture in the right direction, but we need more experimentation along these lines. <a href="http://metabelief.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Josiah</a>, what do you think?</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-74775889738198233212014-01-07T06:37:00.000-08:002014-01-07T06:39:23.911-08:00On religious monuments in government buildings<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Continuing the conversation started by <a href="http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/07/daily-talker-satanic-statue-proposed-in-oklahoma">the proposal to place a statue of Satan</a> at Oklahoma's state capitol, the Facebook team at <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CBSBoston?ref=stream">CBS Boston</a> has asked a question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/CBSBoston/posts/10152106868422010">Should commissioners approve the monument, or should religious monuments not be allowed at a government building?</a></blockquote>
Well, no.<br />
<br />
The civic space should be equally accessible to <b><i>all </i></b>members of the community, since it is owned collectively by that community.<br />
<br />
Philosophy and ethics are determinedly private matters, and cannot be readily translated into public language that we can all partake in. It isn't about removing contentious symbols that might offend some people; it is about making sure our government does its work in a language we can all speak. (See <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#PubRea">John Rawls</a> for more about the distinction between private and public language.)<br />
<br />
Here's an interesting thought: Why don't we think of the concrete <b>absence </b>in the public space of symbols that are religious or similarly "private" in nature, as a monument in itself? A monument that says something in its silence about our solemn shared commitment to a form of government in which persons of all and any creed can all participate equally.<br />
<br />
(cross-posted to the <a href="http://bostonatheists.blogspot.com/2014/01/cbs-boston-asks-should-we-have.html" target="_blank">Boston Atheists</a> blog)</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-50368503321507599532013-12-04T07:23:00.000-08:002013-12-04T13:23:52.588-08:00Is UU missing the "new" New Atheist boat?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<object height="315" width="420"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/YOvFVOD5LEY?version=3&hl=en_US"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/YOvFVOD5LEY?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
<br />
<br />
One of the Sunday Assembly Boston committee members shared the October 2013 sermon above, with the advice that we keep in mind we are not just another group, but a new congregation that other leaders of other congregations are still trying to make sense of.
<br />
<br />
My thoughts.
<br />
<br />
Kendrick points to institutional insularity as a reason why UU is not connecting effectively with the population of religiously unaffiliated freethinkers coming out of the woodwork in groups like Sunday Assembly and Humanism; I wonder if there isn't another important factor: the language gap.
<br />
<br />
In his sermon, he uses terms like "transcendental", "faith", and "spiritual hunger". Now, I know what he means, but the register of this vocabulary seems to be a world removed from the science-infatuated, skeptically-inflected, irony-wrought idiolect of the new freethinkers. I can map his meaning onto my own ethical outlook, sure, but I fear I am not the typical case. For many more people among those he would be seeking to tell about UU, the ecclesiastical and vaguely supernaturalistic vocabulary of the UU tradition is likely to evoke a powerful response of suspicion and even disdain.
<br />
<br />
In my conversations with UU and HUU leaders and parishioners, I've encountered confusion, wariness, and even dismissal in regard to Sunday Assembly (and to the older project of re-orienting the Boston Atheists as a congregational group). These are folks who have good reason for wondering if we aren't a bunch of johhny-come-latelys, here to co-opt their place as *the* obvious destination for liberal-minded freethinkers in search of community as a connection to "something greater". I share this opinion because I think it is important that we keep in mind that our work in organizing SA isn't taking place in a vacuum; there are allies out there, that we can work with and learn from, and establish relationships of mutual aid, as long as we know that they are there, and are alert to the potential sensitivities. And I share it with full confidence that Kendrick is a certainly a potential ally.
<br />
<br />
Relatedly: After taking a few months off while occupied with wedding planning, I'll be restarting the Boston Interpath Workgroup with monthly meetings for discussion and position paper publication, in March 2014. If anyone here on the distro is interested in joining, please let me know.</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-60822917422350022652013-11-12T10:17:00.001-08:002013-11-12T10:17:57.376-08:00Joking about atheist church<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A joke from a friend that came up in an email exchange in which we were discussing the meaning of Sunday Assembly Boston. She writes that she across it during the Bosnian War; she thinks it was told by a Sarajevan<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Q: What's the difference between a Sarajevan Muslim, a Sarajevan Jew, and a Sarajevan Christian? </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>A: A Sarajevan Muslim is someone who skips mosque, a Sarajevan Jew is someone who skips temple, and a Sarajevan Christian is someone who skips church.</b></blockquote>
The extension to our context is, of course:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Q. So just what exactly is Sunday Assembly? </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>A. A place for atheists not to go on Sundays.</b></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
*</div>
<br />
Historical lagniappe: About a certain king of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus" target="_blank">Caucasus</a>, 10th-century Persian explorer and geographer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Rustah" target="_blank">Ibn Rustah</a> writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He prayed on Fridays with the Muslims, on Saturdays with the Jews, and on Sundays with the Christians. 'Since each religion claims that it is the only true one and that the others are invalid', the king explained, 'I have decided to hedge my bets.'</blockquote>
<i>Ha.</i><br />
<i><br /></i></div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-74297348314558921692013-11-11T13:25:00.001-08:002013-11-11T13:25:39.269-08:00What we can learn from Scientology<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
According to <a href="http://www.patheos.com/Library/Scientology/Ritual-Worship-Devotion-Symbolism" target="_blank">Patheos</a>: "There is no personal deity in Scientology, so private rituals of worship and devotion are practically non-existent, replaced with <b>diligence in spiritual practice and striving for moral uprightness.</b>"<br />
<br />
In the spirit of learning from other traditions, I'd like to say: I'm totally stealing that emphasis on diligence and striving. (Albeit with the caveats that 1. "spiritual practice" can really only be meaningful when used to refer to introspective and cognitive methods of cultivating desirable knowledge and emotional states, and 2. "moral uprightness" is an ad hoc and utilitarian thing, to be invented and modified by the end user as needed, and doesn't exist 'out there' in some perfect Platonic form waiting to be uncovered by the truly diligent and spiritually pure.)</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-31676673918649971962013-10-01T07:23:00.002-07:002013-10-01T07:23:18.477-07:00Quote: "Religion not the crying need of India"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
"Christians must always be ready for good criticism, and I hardly think that you will mind if I make a little criticism. You Christians, who are so fond of sending out missionaries to save the soul of the heathen — why do you not try to save their bodies from starvation? In India, during the terrible famines, thousands died from hunger, yet you Christians did nothing. You erect churches all through India, but the crying evil in the East is not religion — they have religion enough — but it is bread that the suffering millions of burning India cry out for with parched throats. They ask us for bread, but we give them stones. It is an insult to a starving people to offer them religion; it is an insult to a starving man to teach him metaphysics. In India a priest that preached for money would lose caste and be spat upon by the people. I came here to seek aid for my impoverished people, and I fully realised how difficult it was to get help for heathens from Christians in a Christian land."<br />
<br />
(from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_not_the_Crying_need_of_India" target="_blank">a lecture</a> delivered by Indian Hindu monk Swami Vivekananda on 20 September 1893 at the Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, criticizing Christian missionaries for ignoring the needs of starving millions in India.)</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-90406140818990498272013-09-11T15:49:00.000-07:002013-09-11T15:49:05.031-07:00from The Encyclopedia of Religion<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
"To say that man is <i style="text-align: center;"> homo religiosus</i> is not to say something 'nice' about him." </h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
(a throwaway line in Vol. 9; see also the entry for <i>homo reliogsus </i>in Vol. 6<i> </i>) </div>
</div>
</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-77211232288609780412013-07-24T05:24:00.003-07:002013-08-02T11:33:07.475-07:00Faithlessness in fiction<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/where-do-we-come-from-what-are-we-where-are-we-going-32558" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiscRy5KKFOY0VI49SEqwSshSE8EY50kiHoyezWPgNVNzPa3hyphenhyphenCC5z9ssuSwY8jwJhDzYK0kYN0j7kbz8vJIqPe0-JovFSZnKGbXkX4vazaFDn8IAblQ94SArmFbceYYREc37BXJBGjxGgZ/s400/Woher_kommen_wir_Wer_sind_wir_Wohin_gehen_wir.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Few things rile my impatience as the assertion that atheists can't be people of deep thought and values.<br />
<br />
Randy Boyagoda, chair of English at Ryerson University, <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/08/faith-in-fiction" target="_blank">has written an essay</a> for First Things which more or less accurately identifies the waning of explicitly Christian voices in contemporary literature:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I always have ready some recommendations of current writers who take the life of faith seriously in their work—the novelist Marilynne Robinson, the poet Geoffrey Hill, assorted scholars and reviewers writing criticism—but I realize they have a point. While religion significantly matters in minor literary contexts today (as with the eccentric popularity of Amish romance novels) and in vulgar commercial contexts (as with Dan Brown’s books), serious literary fiction largely occupies its very own naked public square, <b>shorn of any reference to religiously informed understandings of who and what and wherefrom we are</b>, which represents a marked break from centuries of literary production informed by Christian beliefs, traditions, and culture.</blockquote>
<div>
(Emphasis mine.) There's an absolute ecology of unexamined, and I'd say indefensible, assumptions underlying the idea that identifies <i>deep</i> and <i>thoughtful</i> "informed understandings of who and what and wherefrom we are" exclusively with <i>religiously</i> informed understandings. The unexplored alternative to this idea is that certain author and artists may, <i>by dint of the depth and richness of their understanding</i>, have had to abandon "religious" (read: theistic) framings of the world. This is not a negligence on their part, but a feature of their engagement with reality as it comes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Boyagoda has a more sympathetic case, a less privilege-blind case, if he were using the word "religious" to encompass nontheistic worldviews, such as those aligned, e.g., with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology" target="_blank">deep ecology</a> or <a href="http://huumanists.org/publications/religious-humanism-press" target="_blank">religious* humanism</a>; but I see no evidence that he is doing so. Very well; we carry on with our own work in the larger pluralism outside the purview of sectarian commentary. You can be sure that the forthcoming companion site to Pen & Anvil's secular imprint, Secular Age, will do diligent work in focusing attention on new books from secular thinkers, and in promoting awareness of the many ways an atheistic worldview may nonetheless have consort with things infinite.<br />
<br />
(I encourage anyone reading to recommend in the comments below any authors or books who are exemplary in this respect.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
_ _ _ _ </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">* How good if it were more widely understood that the term "religious" can apply with equal usefulness to wholly nontheistic and materialistic traditions such as "religious humanism." Alas, most readers see "religion" and think a god-belief of some kind is involved (the case of some kinds of Buddhism not much changing these facts).</span></div>
</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-51005715591799995832013-07-09T04:59:00.000-07:002013-07-09T04:59:17.380-07:00Brookes on Taylor's "Secular Age" thesis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Advances in human understanding — not only in science but also in art, literature, manners, philosophy and, yes, theology and religious practice [<i>Oh? Which? -ZWB</i>] — give us a richer understanding of our natures. [...] These achievements did make it possible to construct a purely humanistic account of the meaningful life. It became possible for people to conceive of meaningful lives in God-free ways — as painters in the service of art, as scientists in the service of knowledge. ¶ But [...] these achievements also led to more morally demanding lives for everybody, believer and nonbeliever. <b>Instead of just fitting docilely into a place in the cosmos, the good person in secular society is called upon to construct a life in the universe. She’s called on to exercise all her strength." </b>(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/opinion/brooks-the-secular-society.html?_r=0" target="_blank">NYTimes</a>)</blockquote>
</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-71782278806301558682013-07-05T06:18:00.001-07:002013-07-06T17:56:22.066-07:00Louis CK on practical epistemology<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In his feature-length stand-up show <i>Live at the Beacon Theater</i>, comedian <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C.K." target="_blank">Louis CK</a> lays bare an oft-overlooked fact concerning <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/" target="_blank">the relationship between belief and behavior</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
I have a lot of beliefs, and I live by <i>none</i> of them. That's just the way I am. They're just my beliefs. I just like believing them. They're my little believies.</blockquote>
The show is available on <a href="http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Louis_C.K._Live_at_the_Beacon_Theater/70266228?locale=en-US" target="_blank">Netflix</a> (at around 6 minutes in) and may well be on YouTube.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Don't doubt for a moment that there is an ethical dimension to the lack of conformation between what one believes and what one does. As a good introduction, dial over to Infidels.org, and read William Clifford's 1877 essay, "<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html" target="_blank">The Ethics of Belief</a>." The infamous, and terrifically portable, summary of his position on the matter: "<b>It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence</b>." A corollary: Since humans are all always guilty in one way or another of holding beliefs (of some sort or scope) that aren't warranted by sufficient evidence that we ourselves have worked through, it is the case that we (yes, all of us) are living always in a state of epistemic failure (here I almost wrote, "epistemic sin!). <i>Knowing this is the beginning of rationality.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
*<br />
<br />
A corollary from Oscar Wilde: “The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.” Contrast this to the wisdom theme of H.P. Lovecraft's tale, “The Call of Cthulhu”: “ he most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.” If there were a divinity of perfect rationality, would we not have to call this being either insensate as a stone, or wholly mad? (See also Borges' story "Funes the Memorious" for a case example of how a perfect omnimnemonic could not in practice survive with his reason intact, free to live a life we could call human.)</div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-7914511991142887842013-06-26T15:51:00.002-07:002013-06-26T17:25:03.489-07:00Humanism, aspiration, and the labels one identifies with<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
BU theology student Mario Melendez <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mario.melendez.980/posts/10151764896152754" target="_blank">tagged me in a post</a> on Facebook, the content of which I copy here:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To my Humanist brothers and sisters: I found the following definition of Humanism in a Doctor Who related article...yes, I know, I am a geek. Anyway, the author (a humanist himself) said: "The basic idea behind humanism is that humanity can, against all the odds and in the face of overwhelming evidence, be good. In the absence of God or gods, we can achieve greatness. It’s faith for people without faith.</blockquote>
[Aside: on the idea of "faith for people without faith", see this weird article in the <i><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/non-believers-say-their-prayers-to-no-one/2013/06/24/b7c8cf50-d915-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a></i>.] I think the gesture of the quoted definition is laudable. However, I'd offer the term "aspiration" as an alternative to "faith", for the reason that aspiration in its common usage entails ongoing action -- we <i><b>do aspire</b></i>, whereas faith is a thing one <b>has</b> and not an action one <b>does</b>. Further, the common usage of "faith" implies several epistemic concessions which I am not convinced a responsible person should be casual about making. Finally, I'd recalibrate the superlatives. E.g.: Are we up against <i>all </i>the odds, or are only some factors stacked against us?<br />
<br />
My version would then look like this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The premise of humanism is that humanity can, against the odds, and in the absence of supernatural powers, achieve greatness. Humanism is the aspiration that takes the place of faith in the lives of nontheists.</blockquote>
There's a lot of cultural work to be done before the word "humanism" (note the lack of capitalization) is widely adopted as the general term describing the various species of aspirational ethical lifestances of nontheists. But it's work worth doing. We aren't losing on the matter of the facts; where we have a lot of catching-up to do is in the generational domain of labels, implied and imputed values, and cultural cachet.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
*</div>
<br />
I came across a quote recently, from a sermon the UCC preacher and pastor William Sloan Coffin, Jr. gave in 1984: "You can act in such a way that people identify you with something greater than yourself." Which led me to wonder under what banner or emblem or label should I be working to associate my actions with. Because I have made a commitment, as an activist and community member and community organizer, to atheism, I have already made it a habit to wear my Friendly Neighborhood Atheist shirt when doing charity, or to make donations (most recently, to <a href="http://conserveandeducate.com/warren" target="_blank">a boy in need of tuition to continue attending his grade school in South Africa</a>, and to <a href="http://bit.ly/15GVBl8" target="_blank">a no-kill pet shelters</a>) "in support of" the Boston Atheists or the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts. But the entity of "atheism" or even "a [congregational] community of atheists" might be the wrong level of scale to really serve as a rival for "faith". What, really, is the salient distinction between persons of faith and persons without faith -- faith vs. skepticism? Faith vs. aspiration? Naturalism vs. supernaturalism? Here I almost wish to list religion vs. irreligion, but I'm actually inclined to include nontheist forms of community under the heading of "religion"; I justify this by pointing to an anthropological and sociological conception of "religion", in which the defining features are the shared experience and explicit values of a congregation or more widely dispersed identity community.<br />
<br />
In light of which, I'd like to reconsider Rev. Coffin's words: "Act in such a way that people identify you with something greater than yourself." What <i>kind of thing</i> is that greater thing? For the Christians I have known, the answer would not be "faith", but Christianity. This suggest that capital-<i>H</i> Humanism would be the appropriately-scaled counterpart, and not the ethical type of humanism, or the epistemic disposition skepticism, or the broad lifestance category atheism. I fear, that the consequences of an identity label *on this scale* will breed sectarianism. Are you a Secular Humanist, or a Humanistic Jew? No, I'm a Boston Humanist. (Or a Positive Humanist, or a Humanist Plus, or a Cantabrigian Humanist, or a Reformed Secular Humanist, or...)<br />
<br />
If this kind of label proliferation (or though of in other terms: this kind of community sub-division) is inevitable, it would be prudent to pull back and reconsider the rationality of Coffin's exhortation to affiliate one's actions with something greater than oneself. Jack Miles, in his book <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-A-Biography-Jack-Miles/dp/0679743685?ie=UTF8&tag=thewonref-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">God: A Biography</a></i>, writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Philosophers of religion have sometimes claimed that all gods are projections of the human personality, and it may be so. But if so, we must at least recognize the empirical fact that many human beings, rather than project their own personalities upon gods wholly of their own creation, have chosen to introject—take into themselves—the religious projections of other human personalities.</blockquote>
This suggests a great definition for (lower-case, generic) humanism. Rather than projecting the best qualities of humanity onto an unknowable (and, in my view, fictitious) being outside of ourselves, humanists take these qualities into ourselves. Humans give the credit for human goodness to humans. We claim as our own, the highest values common to human experience and culture across all ages and nations; and we accept as our responsibility the need to come to terms with a universe in which all phenomena are natural, and all life is a rare and precious occurrence.<br />
<br />
The greater <i>something </i>a humanist identifies her actions with is... humanity. Or more precisely, human potential. This is probably too tautological to serve an an effective rallying cry, but is nonetheless where this casual analysis brings me. This circularity does suggest that humanists (and nontheists of all persuasions) are at a distinct rhetorical disadvantage. It isn't "their" divine mascot against "our" other-than-divine mascot; it's their mascot, God, against our nothing. And this will be the rhetorical terms of interfaith engagement and all forms of intersectional contact, until open-minded persons of good will are successful in challenging the rhetorical status quo.<br />
<br />
Let this be another place where I vote for the general adoption of the term "<a href="http://atheologically.blogspot.com/2013/01/alex-suggests-names-for-atheist-church.html" target="_blank">interpath</a>" (a term that I credit to theology student <a href="http://bookoffaith.ning.com/profile/DerekLewisKnox" target="_blank">Derek Lewis Knox</a>). Here is Coffin's slogan, now filtered through the interpath lens and thereby greatly altered:<br />
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
Let your actions be testimony to the value of humanism as an aspirational path.</h3>
Good advice. And, potentially, a banner for secular-minded people to wave in response and kindred spirit to theists waving the faith flag.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
*</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">NB: It isn't just the secular community that has to find a way through these knotty questions of terminology. The modern obsessive personality known variously as "nerd" and "geek" suffers a similar identity crisis. Not to worry; <a href="http://io9.com/the-difference-between-geeks-and-nerds-settled-by-a-ge-590379134" target="_blank">science will sort it all out</a>.</span></div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-527653137518453598.post-18758653531058830922013-06-11T04:36:00.000-07:002013-06-11T06:25:34.920-07:00On the "solitary leaker", and ethical autonomy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In case you didn't know what you should think about Edward Snowden's leak of NSA data-mining activity, authoritarian <i>NYTimes </i>columnist David Brooks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html" target="_blank">has done the thinking for you</a>.<br />
<br />
His advice? We needn't worry about the government! We just need to have the right kind of trust in the "series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighborhood, religious group, state, nation and world" that infiltrate and delineate our culture. It's Snowden and other "solitary" young men with spotty high school records we need to fear! Why? Because they are just the sort to take it upon themselves to puncture the useful fiction of our civic life.<br />
<br />
The problem exposed by Snowden's leak is not the gross overreach of government monitoring of private communications, but "the atomization of society, the loosening of social bonds." We haven't been betrayed by our elected officials; Snowden betrayed us when he broke the confidentiality he was sworn to: "He betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there is a leak like this, the powers that be close the circle of trust a little tighter." War is peace; ignorance is strength.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So why was it so hard for Snowden to trust Big Brother? My friend <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jonathanfigdor/posts/985137579315" target="_blank">Jonathan Figdor</a>, the <a href="http://stanfordhumanist.org/author/john-figdor" target="_blank">Humanist chaplain at Stanford University</a>, sees clearly how Snowden (and any thinking person) might suffer a crisis of civic faith: Maybe those institutions and authorities lost credibility when they violated the trust we had in them... Like when the banks got bailed out, but the middle class and working poor got evicted from their homes; or when Bush gave his buddies in the top .5 of 1% enormous tax cuts on the backs of the poor and middle class; or when Bush trotted out Colin Powell to make an erroneous case for war in Iraq and sent a lot of American troops to die overseas under false pretenses. Please, David, don't pretend like you have no idea where this lack of trust in authority comes from. It comes from years of abuse.</blockquote>
Speaking of uppity reactions to years of abuse, I guess Rosa Parks betrayed us all when she slipped the bonds of social propriety and refused to go to the back of the bus. If that analogy seems absurd to you, perhaps:<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>You are an <i>authoritarian</i>, and view Rosa Parks' civil disobedience as salutary only because the larger culture -- its media, schools, and other authorities -- has endorsed that interpretation as safe; or</li>
<li>You are <i>ethically autonomous</i>, and recognize that there is among human beings a moral obligation to one another that precedes (and indeed, gives rise to) the civic obligation to the rule of law. </li>
</ol>
<br />
The dogmatist, the absolutist, and the authoritarian agree: A person is only as good as his or her word.<br />
<br />
The relativist, the materialist, and the Humanist offer that a person who keeps his or her word without having a clean conscience has become an instrument of an authority's convenience... which is as good as definition I know of dehumanization. </div>
Zachary Boshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.com0