What's good about religion?

Recently, I've seen the muscle behind my atheism wither. This guy—Pat Condell, English stand-up comedian/writer/playwrite—had it surging with blood and vitality. He spits venom, which some find upsettig—but if you think about where Condell would fall on a scale of Non-Religious vs. Religious extremism, it would probably look something like this:
That is to say, humoristic jabs and thinly-veiled contempt can be seen as quite moderate when compared with blood-soaked fists and outright intolerance. Besides, it takes outspoken individuals to rattle people from complacency and promote dialogue.

Enjoy (or disavow) other Pat Condell entries on YouTube where he is currently the second most-subscribed-to-user of all time.

Mother Teresa Doubts

"...for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear..." -Mother Teresa in a letter to Rev. Michael van der Peet, her "spiritual confidant"

See "Mother Teresa's Crisis Of Faith" by David Van Biema (Time Magazine, August 23rd, 2007)

God's invisible hand, at it again...

"Science is littered with once-mysterious facts first imputed to God and later found out to be explicable solely through natural processes."

(From Jerry Coyne's review of Michael J. Behe's new book, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism")

In the scientific community, to be both a biologist and a creationist is exceptionally rare. Still, there are some—one might call them "Tenacious B's"—who lend their scientific credibility to the failing fight for institutionalized recognition of Intelligent Design; Michael Behe is of this type. The reviewer—scientist, Jerry Coyne—does a great job summerizing/dismantling Behe's arguments, and helps to clarify some common misconceptions regarding evolution.

Read "The Great Mutator: A Review by Jerry Coyne"

Other quotes from the review...

"It is more accurate, then, to call mutations "indifferent" rather than "random": the chance of a mutation happening is indifferent to whether it would be helpful or harmful."

"The explanation of seeming design by solely materialistic processes was Darwin's greatest achievement, and a major source of discomfort for those holding the view that nature was designed by God."

Petty Friday: The Creation Museum and Hogwarts

May 28th marked the opening of the long-awaited (6,000 years to be exact) Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The $27 million venture—an achievement of the Answers in Genesis ministry—boasts 60,000 square feet of walk-through history featuring realistic scenery, exotic animals, fossils, life-size models, "computer-generated visual effects," and animatronic dinosaurs (made to graze amongst prehistoric boys and girls, and presumably board Noah’s Ark before the flood) designed by the same Universal Studios exhibit director who did Jaws and King Kong. These attractions and more were all created in the spirit of "bringing the pages of the bible to life" and proving the literal truth of Genesis. Finally the world as it really is, and was!

Also soon to emerge is "The Wizarding World Of Harry Potter" [Potter fans froth], a J.K. Rowling-approved theme park promising to be "the world's first immersive Harry Potter themed environment."

'Potter-world' may cream the Creation Museum in first-year attendance (an upset that should have biting significance for fundamentalists) but at least the CM concerns itself with historical 'truth.'

***

(Potter fans, read: I may have used Hogwarts as a device here, the park isn't set to open til 2009. I'm sorry if I misled you. It's in Orlando, Florida, so you can start camping out now)

www.creationmuseum.org
Edward Rothstein, "Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs" The New York Times May 24th, 2007

"Source of life..." he continued.

Yesterday, in a speech delivered at my younger brother’s college graduation ceremony in Tacoma, Washington, I noticed the school’s President attempting to lead his audience in prayer. Not a typical prayer, mind you—though it did assume the unmistakable tone and diction of invocation—but this was more of a politically correct sort of modern-day adaptation of something resembling a prayer. The interesting bit was the preface he gave before embarking. He said something to the effect of: “Today, we have many ways of defining the powers that be. Some call those powers God. Others say that they can be found in the extraordinary and breathtaking constructs of nature. And some say those powers are evident in the best of human kind… Now, let us take a moment and reflect...”

“Source of life…” he continued, leading into the most diplomatic and amorphous of ‘prayers.’

‘Source of life?’ I thought. Ha! Only when someone is bending over backwards to be p.c. do phrases like ‘source of life’ come into play in this context (find and replace ‘God’ with ‘Source of life’—that’s cute). But this was a manifestation of something that I’ve been thinking about lately:

What is the proper/acceptable role of prayer/spirituality in a society that is clearly shying from religious ideals and moving gradually toward that of the non-theist?

In this case, the adapted prayer, which effectively transcended denomination and avoided reference to any given faith altogether, was actually inclusive of non-believers. I imagine there was a small minority of attendees who were miffed that the school President didn’t recognize God, the one true ‘God,’ but the general feeling was a good one and a nostalgic one. As people bowed their heads, shut their eyes, or became otherwise silent and attentive, it was clear that the ears of 8,000 people were somehow tuned to the distinct and familiar tone of religious oration, and though I am an atheist and took the speaker to be (maybe) non-religious too, I appreciated the opportunity to reflect and take part in what felt like a viable kind of shared spirituality—something that Atheists typically do value despite characterizations to the contrary.

Dawkin's 'Scale of Belief'

Not only is Richard Dawkin's proposed 'Scale Of Belief' well constructed and useful, I think it apt to couple it with Bertrand Russell's 'Celestial Teapot' analogy. So many of the commonly used 'god-analogies' created and employed by non-believers (unicorns, flying spaghetti monster, etc.) are at worst condescending, and at best aesthetically unpleasing. Russell's teapot analogy, on the other hand, is elegant and serves its purpose better than most.

The parable goes: Somewhere between Earth and Mars there is a perfect china teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun.

The point of this analogy is to show that while this claim may be difficult to disprove (like certain claims about God), the person making the claim would undoubtedly have a difficult time garnering support for such a belief. And while it would hardly be worth anyone's time to try and disprove this propostion (which probability seems to build a strong case against) the burden of proof would nonetheless rest on the claim-staker, were it of any consequence.

Claims about God, while similarly far-fetched, are considered to be of ultimate consequence. Still, it is not the responsibility of scientists or philosophers, or Safeway cashiers to disprove them, just as it is not anyone's responsibility to disprove the infinite number fathomable possibilities.

With Russell's analogy in mind, here is Dawkin's 'Scale of Belief.'

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning toward theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction Jung 'knows' there is one."

Dawkins says, "I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated."

Petty Friday