Since we began this blog, some key differences in worldview have been emerging between myself an others.  That is a good thing, not because we disagree, but because I am truly learning about myself and others.  This difference is becoming foremost in my mind: I am not a reductionist.  I find holism [wiki] attractive and emergence [wiki] convincing, but not reductionism [wiki] (though when I say that I might mean "greedy reductionsim").

In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins coins the term "hierarchical reductionism" in which he says everything can be explained by simplier things just one order lower than a particular thing and it's related components.  Humans, and all things human, like culture and psychology, can be explained by the things one order lower — namely as the sum of aspects of animal biology. Continue reading My Doubts on Reductionism

Perhaps I’ll be going on a rant here, but don’t take this personally. This began as a response to Ed Lynam, but spiraled out of my control. I am critical of his comments because of his certitude that Christianity is correct – not due to an argument for morality or the inerrancy of the Bible, but because it is both practiced across the globe and is applicable to many. I begin by answering his comment from here, then continued on for a bit, skirting several diverging issues. If you’re lost at any one point, it’s likely that I referred to something taking place in the comments of soulster’s excellent paper, The Ethics of Pleasure. That, or I’m just writing willy-nilly. 

Continue reading Me Arguing with No One in Particular

One of the core conversations of this blog is unsurprisingly morality, for, I think, a couple of reasons:  First, theists so often use arguements for their superior morality or atheists inferior morality as a defense that it has become a natural, if problematic, part of The Debate.  Second, morality is cultural and social and has to due with the many ways our lives overlap, therefore it is important and any moral insecurity creates many fears within us.  Readers on this site should be directed to the posts in the ethics category for a review of the conversation.  Much more information is also included in the comments to these and other posts.

While surfing our connecting sites, I ran across the post "Virtue & Vice" on the blog The Black Tulip by Frieslander.  I think it would be an interesting read since it confronts some currently popular cultural assumptions held by a broad sprectrum of moral orientations. Continue reading The Ethics of Pleasure

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

American psychologist and philosopher William James argued in his 1884 article “What is an emotion?” that our emotions begin in the body. While they feel ephemeral, they are rooted in the movements of muscles and flesh.

What kind of an emotion of fear would be left if the feeling of quickened heart beats nor of shallow breathing, neither of trembling lips nor of weakened limbs, neither of goose bumps nor of visceral stirrings, were present?

Without the body there would be no fear, for the emotion begins at the perception of a bodily change. The pupils dilate, the upper lip rises, the eyebrows rise and the forehead furrows, the lips stretch, the eyes widen, and the brow sweats. This theory was radical for his day, and made many people uncomfortable, so without the quantifiable scientific data to back this up, it was promptly tossed aside. Emotions must reside in the mind, it was said.

Continue reading Some Thoughts on Love

In alternate dispute resolution (ADR), the conflict theory I like the best, it is the things you do not talk about that get you.  Negative outcomes (war, division, predjudice, hate) are more a product of the failure of cooperation on underlying issues than of the symptomatic events themselves.  For example: It is the failure to deal with a underlying economic inequality that leads to the war, not the diplomatic incident they broadcast on TV — but the economics are unlikely to become central to the dialogue, thus the conflict cannot be resolved.  Because the root issues cannot be solved, at best you can expect a win-lose outcome, at worst a lose-lose, but never a win-win.

Keeping this in mind, I would like to present a sensitive issue to our community here: sexual misconduct among Christian leaders.

Continue reading Cooperative Problem Solving: Church Sex Scandals

I. Intro…

(This is going to be a long one, so you might want to grab a snack and a cup of coffee now.) 

Drunkentune has given a great explanation of one theory on where religion comes from in his post The Evolution of Religion: Is Religion Natural?.  Avid commentor, beepbeepitsme has also written much on this blog about the natural origins of religion.

To summarize this view in my own words: Biologists agree that humans evolve in both physiology and psychology (some would argue primarily psychologically, and as an extension technologically, in our recent history). Our behaviors and thought patterns are just as much a part of how our species survives as are adaptations in our bodies, such as our leg-hips-spine configuration and upright locomotion. At some point in our specie's evolutionary history, we developed the thought pattrerns and behaviors associated with religion as a survival mechanism. Humans that believed in something beyond the material world were accessing certain social cues, memes [wiki], and powerful psychological structures, leading to more successful outcomes, evolutionarily speaking. For some people, it then follows from this theory that religion is not of divine origin in any sense, and that it is possible that the evolution of our species will one day outgrow religion if it no longer fulfills its evolutionary role.

Continue reading Is Naturalistic Religion Biblical?

I am a secularist, an atheist, a skeptic, and… a Jew. Surprise you? I guess not. I suppose I do fit the stereotype, but there’s always a kernel of truth in a generalization somewhere.
For example, take this joke, if you will:
Q: What do you call a Jew that doesn’t believe in God?

[Just drag your mouse after the “A:” to see the answer]

A: A Jew.

I made it up myself (a small pat on the back), and if you personally know a Jew, it demonstrates that a ‘Jew’ isn’t necessarily Jewish.

There are many intellectual atheists who proudly call themselves Jews and observe Jewish rites, perhaps out of loyalty to an ancient tradition or to murdered relatives, but also because of a confused and confusing willingness to label as 'religion' the pantheistic reverence which many of us share with its most distinguished exponent, Albert Einstein. (Richard Dawkins)

I find each of my labels to be in the minority wherever I go. I’d like for a minute to tie all four of these positions together, and give you a general overview.

Continue reading The Loyal Opposition

Sorry I haven't posted or been available for comments in a while.  I've had a couple of intense days….

I though with the holidays approaching (if you so choose to celebrate), we might take a short break at critiquing each other's deepest held values and claims and aim our intellectual cannons at Jolly Ole' St. Nick.

We've talked a lot in our dialogue so far about fictional beings and the irrationality of belief in them, how they may be used as proofs this way and that, etc.  It seems to me that it would be interesting for believers and atheists alike to talk about what you do with a popularly (near universally) promoted fictional character like Santa.  Many people know he's fictional (don't tell the kids), but our culture moves in mass as if he is real.  Many people tell their kids stories about him and give him credit for acts that they do.  There is currently a great market in selling myths about the man, and he seems to be pretty good for the economy.

Continue reading What to do with Santa?

I'd like to point out a recent piece by Sam Harris. Now, I'm not usually one to quote the man, but I think his analysis of atheism's argument is perhaps the best I have read. Besides, we seem to use him a bit to exemplify the rabid atheist [1], [2].

The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that all bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad, or wrong, or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful, less dangerous, more in touch with reality, etc. ) than dogmatism. The degree to which science is committed to the former, and religion to the latter remains one of the most salient and appalling disparities to be found in human discourse. Scientists spend an extraordinary amount of time worrying about being wrong and take great pains to prove others so. In fact, science is the one area of discourse in which a person can win considerable prestige by proving himself wrong. 

If there is an argument against "evangelical" atheists like Dawkins, Weinberg, and myself it must take one of these forms:

(1) Certain religious beliefs are true (or likely to be true); here's why…

(2) Religious beliefs, while not likely to be true, are so useful that they are necessary; here's the evidence…

(3) Many religious people are so irrational that it is simply too dangerous to criticize their beliefs. Please keep your mouth shut.

(Sam Harris, at Edge)

Aaron Kinney from Kill the Afterlife is wondering about my thoughts on the origin of morality.  He wanted my take on the Euthyphro Dilemma [wiki].  I told him that I didn't know what that was, so he pointed me to the appropriate wikipedia article.

In short, Euthyphro is a dialogue authored by Plato where Socrates works with Euthyphro on the nature of the "pious".  Socrates enters into discussion with Euthyphro because he is the preeminent religious persona of the day, and Socrates has been accused of corrupting the youth by causing them to question the gods.  Since such a charge bears the penalty of either exile or death, the matter is pretty serious.

Here's a bit of the wiki to summarize the problem:

Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it's commanded by God?”.

Continue reading The Euthyphro Dilemma