I. It’s not just angel books, astrology, and acupuncture.

A front-page article in the New York Times of October 22, 1996 (subscription required), delved into the ‘conflict’ between two views of where Native American populations originated—the scientific archaeological account and the account offered by some Native American creation-myths. According to the former, humans first entered the Americas from Asia, crossing the Bering Strait more than 10,000 years ago. This answer, I should hope for most readers, provides an authoritative, extensively confirmed, scientific answer.

Some Native American creation accounts hold that native peoples have always lived in the Americas. That is, Native Americans have been present ever since their ancestors first emerged onto the surface of the earth from a subterranean world called the Lower Regions. If there’s anything we know, it’s that some things are definitively wrong.

That’s one of ‘em.

Yet, the Times noted that many archaeologists, torn between their commitment to scientific method and their appreciation for native culture, ‘have been driven close to a postmodern relativism in which science is just one more belief system.’ Roger Anyon, a British archaeologist who has worked for the Zuni people, was quoted as saying: ‘Science is just one of many ways of knowing the world. … [The Zunis’ worldview is] just as valid as the archeological viewpoint of what prehistory is about.’

Continue reading Postmodernism in a Theocracy

Frank Walton of Atheism Sucks! briefly stopped by to link to his views on The Rational Response Squad’s Gift of Life Day. After reading a few posts at Walton’s blog, I saw his reaction to the ‘debate’ between Richard Dawkins and Bill ‘falafel’ O’Reilly (you can read my more visceral reaction here). In this post I wish to firmly argue in favor of Dawkins’ position – even though I think he communicated his message very poorly to a demagogue. Much has been made (and Walton’s post and subsequent comments are a prime example) of Dawkins’ words ‘We’re working on it.’ What I think Dawkins failed to communicate was that science is always working on it; there is no finality to discovering the Truth.

Continue reading Dawkins & O’Reilly

Lately I’ve been encountering something that is disturbing to me. There is a popular version of postmodernism — an on-the-street version — far from the literary deconstruction where it was born. It seems to over-simplify a great deal of information, leaving behind a great deal of the nuance and intelligent dialogue for a sort of shallow relativism. Taking up the slogan of our age, it pronounces “whatever” on every aspect of life and every human endeavor. For one thing, such thinking uses the label “pluralism” to equalize and homogenize all faiths. Deep down, it believes religion is like blue jeans — all that’s different is the label.

Continue reading On Pluralism

How, by being an atheist in support of the ACLU and Americans United, I am religion’s greatest friend. (This post is a few days old; I had a few things I had to catch up on, so I delayed publishing this piece. It was meant to be a part of the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm.)

Continue reading The First Amendment

Chris Swift of Parabiodox, a Christian who believes in the inspired word of the Bible, has recently linked to us.* I think it would be worthwhile to comment on a recent short post of his.

I think Christians when faced with the constant barrage from Atheists can at least console themselves that they are doing a good job, providing these people with a sense of purpose in life, providing them with something concrete to concentrate on, even if it’s only a brick wall they wish to smash down.

Imagine the barreness [sic] of life for Atheists without religion, and in particular without Christianity to attack. They would be faced with having to examine their own philosophy for meaning, and what would they find ? A big black hole. (Parabiodox)

I wish to make this clear before I continue: my atheism is a direct result of my reliance on philosophical naturalism; this from methodological naturalism; and this from a desire to seek the truth. My atheism, as opposed to an atheist that accepts atheism out of an irrational fear, or illogic, or a popular counterculture stance, comes out of a grand history of philosophers of science. These men may be wrong — many have been in the past — but I find it insulting for Swift to imply that if there were more reason in the world, there’d be nothing but ‘a big black hole’ of philosophy.

Does Swift support such a claim, that (1) atheists attack Christians to get some deeper purpose to life, that (2) without Christianity atheism is bare, that (3) atheism is itself empty?

No, no, and no.

In fact, as I will argue, Swift has it all sideways, looking at a distorted image in the pool.

Continue reading Tsuyoku Naritai

I realize now that my past few posts have been a bit off. Here’s one that begins at the limits and hopes to bring it back to a basic point.

I.

I hope it’s clear from what I initially wrote that in a tradition of poetry, the audience loses itself. One cannot pull back and see with a critical eye. What is required is a distance. Thus, this becomes a meta-conversation about distance and observation. We rely on eyesight, not listening. We don’t listen to the poet tell a story of a triangle and imagine; we discuss the triangle, an open conversation. We observe triangles, close our eyes, and think. This does not mean that listening or empathy is irrational while eyesight and discussion is rational, but this distance is one of critical thought and analysis. This is the Socratic method.

In modern physics textbooks, there usually is in the introduction a definition of ‘physics.’ It usually goes along the lines of, ‘Physics is…’ and then there is a list of things the class will cover, such as the study of light, sound, or movement. This means that physics is generally considered to be what physics do.

Continue reading The Outer Banks: A Follow-up

I. Prologue

Plato once wrote a text called The Republic, and it is commonly used today as an introductory text to political thought. It’s a heavy analogue, where a man says to Socrates, ‘What do you think of this?’ and Socrates says, ‘Well, this is what I think…’ and continues for eight or so pages. Then, another man says to Socrates, ‘What do you think of this other thing?’ and Socrates continues. And so it goes.

There are ten chapters, ten books, of this, and it’s very difficult to read. It delves into all manner of politics and social theory, how the heavens are arranged and how humans should be, but the last book, the last piece of ten, is strangely enough, on poetry. Eric Havelock’s amazing Preface to Plato makes clear that since this stands so far out from the rest of the book, that this chapter made people so uncomfortable, that for hundreds of years, a small piece was usually inserted in the margins of the chapter, going along the lines of, ‘It is unclear that this is part of The Republic’. In fact, some printers were convinced that this was not the work of Plato, and did not publish this last chapter, this 10th book.

What Plato said was that in the ideal society, far more nuanced than a mere utopia, there would be no poetry. This was not a totalitarian demand for the elimination of art; far from it. A far more plausible interpretation of what Plato meant is a matter of Homer and his antecedents. In Plato’s analogue of The Republic, in this last chapter, what Plato asks us to think of a society heavily indebted to the poet/leader. Has there ever been a moment in time where a John Wayne was a poet?

There has been, and everyone knows who he is. His name is five letters long. It’s easy.

Continue reading The 10th Book: Reason and Un-Reason

Ellen and Oprah, out of their shear magnanimity, have uncovered and shared with the humble masses “The Secret” (http://www.thesecret.tv) which has given untold wealth and success to all its bearers from ancient times untold. This 90-minute movie, made by down-and-out TV-producer Rhonda Byrne, reveals the amazing “Law of Attraction” upon which all the universe apparently rests, unbeknownst to most. This law alone, through the power of positive emotion, can attract to you love, health, bicycles, cars, houses, success, money, and more – all that you desire and the universe longs to give.

Continue reading Selling “The Secret”

You can find few people quoted and mis-quoted as often as Einstein on the internet. He was the catalyst who divided an age for us. His brillance began a galactic morph from a fixed, clock-work universe to one dynamic and shifting, and in so doing forever changed science and life on planet earth. No wonder people are quick to stand up Einstein and put words in his mouth — a ventrilaquist’s dummy for their rhetoric. And because of this, it is increasingly important to talk about what Einstein really said and meant, reviving the real person and letting him speak for himself.

Continue reading Einstein and the Mind of God

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)

This is the second and final post of my two (and a half) part series on naturalism, and why I reject the existence of the supernatural. My atheism, my unbelief (or disbelief, or rejection, if you will) of the existence of the Christian (or any other, for that matter) god is the result of my naturalistic worldview, specifically, the end result of accepting the scientific method, then methodological naturalism, and then philosophical naturalism. This post is a bit long, but I’ve tried to keep it straightforward in its presentation. I hope you enjoy!

Continue reading Naturalism, pt. II