A few links

2007 in review for secular humanists.

This didn't surprise me much, given my experience with Todd Friel. And FYI, it's the latter, Todd.

Another unsurprising news item: Ron Paul is from Texas and is a...drum roll please...CREATIONIST.

Obama's holiday ad

Compare poor Rudy's fruitcake ad to Obama's holiday ad:

Poor Rudy

lolz

And nothing screams Republican Presidential nominee like a dude in a sweater vest lisping the words "fruit cake!" (Swampblog)

Alter on Krugman

Krugman has complained about Obama's insistence on having all the players at the table to talk about healthcare, implying that Obama is naive about politics and that this will not accomplish much of anything. I've been a bit reluctant to take sides on the Obama-Krugman spats, as I respect both men. I think Jonathan Alter makes a strong argument supporting Obama's approach to politics:

FDR's third-term success, dominated by World II, was dependent on his unifying the country.

Similarly, Woodrow Wilson's big legislative triumphs over entrenched interests in 1913 (for example, an income tax), Lyndon Johnson's in 1965 (Medicare and the Voting Rights Act) and Bill Clinton's in 1993 (painful tax increases) were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message.

Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul.

An important reason to support Obama

A little dated, but important to clarify why I lean strongly towards Obama over Hillary and Edwards:

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

There is no substitute for absolute public campaign financing to truly "reform" Washington -- blocking donations from all private sources: corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists...I think Obama is one of the very few people who may even consider moving the country in that direction. Unfortunately, it is quite unlikely that Congress will go along -- they're too mired in money.

Just one thing

I know I've been writing a lot more on politics lately than I used to. In part, this is because I got burnt out on the boilerplate atheist issues. In part, it's because I've been imparted with passion to see the GOP lose every possible seat in both Houses and the Executive by the seemingly-endless trail of corruption and evil policies.

I do have a motive in writing, though, about stories like this one: it seems that very few people really understand what is going on behind the scenes in Congress, and the low approval rating is likely a direct result of GOP obstructionism. They've set the historic record for the number of procedural blocks of legislation and in half the time usually required to do so.

It's just unbelievable. Stories like these don't get aired out by the mainstream media, so I feel an impetus to share them once I read them. And I just hope that some of the readers that check in here from time to time will find them 'newsworthy' enough to share with family & friends when the occasion arises.

"Intelligent Design not a true science"

As I recently mentioned, the Alligator's archives are screwed up and a great many links are broken from publications that I or Gator Freethought have gotten in the newspaper. As a result, I'm reposting as many of these as I have the time and ability to, just to preserve and provide an electronic copy of the documents. Below is the first thing I ever submitted to a newspaper in my life, and it got in. After that, I guess it got a little addictive.

Intelligent Design not a true science
by nsfl
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050826column2.php
published 8/26/2005

In response to Eric Wang's well-written, but somewhat shortsighted column, he cries foul that, "...there is not a marketplace of competing ideas in our public schools today, but only a monopoly of evolutionary theory." Today is the result of 2000+ years of competing ideas. Aristotle and Plato argued that nature, especially living things, showed "final causes" in their apparent design. Today, ID activists claim the same—that nature shows “the evidence of design”. Empedocles, among others, argued that change could occur in organisms to allow adaptation, giving the appearance of design. Darwin argued 150 years ago the same.

The crux of the issue is whether or not a force or "Designer" moves us towards a presumed goal, teleologically. The error in Wang's thinking is that science has, or can, reject or accept this philosophical notion. How? It can, and does, subject the premise of change and adaptation, both of which are natural phenomena, to its method of inquiry. Science is by definition methodological naturalism, and as such posits, tests, and questions only physical and natural phenomena. Science is limited in scope (and "on purpose") to questions of natural philosophy, not whether or not a "Designer" had it all in mind, or whether or not this "Designer" exists. It ignores the question because science is constrained to natural explanation of natural phenomena.

So now the question remains—can science empirically detect God’s fingerprints? Is it possible, without arguing from incredulity, to know scientifically, rather than “by faith” if “designed”? What is the a priori, natural evidence of supernatural creation/design? How does one distinguish ignorance of natural phenomena from knowledge of supernatural phenomena? Is it possible to scientifically argue for Design without arguing from incredulity? For hundreds of years, gaps in knowledge were filled with “God did it”. Now they are being filled with “Designer did it”. Has science proven either one philosophically wrong, or simply shown us that the mechanism by which posited Designers work is inextricable from the natural universe, and that the this universe and its natural laws is all that science can and will comment upon?

So in short, science describes a natural process, known as "descent with modification". If we want to teach science, we teach natural mechanisms and processes, without invoking supernatural causes. If we want to teach anything else, Wang and others had better realize we may no longer honestly call it “science”, but must admit we have moved into metaphysics, philosophy, or theology. Is there a “monopoly” of thought, or is science the one way of rationally, and objectively, viewing our natural universe? Why did the Kansas board consider redefining science itself into one of these latter three? Is it the job of our state, or of families, to lay the foundation for those?

If I get a new link for the Alligator's archive of this, I'll update it.

Blast from the past

I was just googling for a few handles and names I have used on the internet to see what sort of "dirt" people could potentially dig upon me, and stumbled across this copy of my interview on H&C. It's essentially the same video that I uploaded to Youtube, but a little better quality and without the copyright issue since it is hosted at FoxNews. I also pulled the .swf file link. See here for the full list of Dixie County articles and media.

I'm going to contact Brandon Hensler, Director of Communications of the ACLU of FL, as well as the PR department of the Liberty Counsel to get an update on where the case stands. For now, check out the latest I have on that story (with all media links) and everything I've written on it.

Dixie County media roundup (also see here):

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28/06


2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30/06


3. Alligator -- 11/30/06, or here


4. Alligator (editorial) -- 12/1/06, or here
   


5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1/06


6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02/06


7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con 12/2/06


8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7/06


9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro 12/12/06, con 12/17/06


10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/3/07


11. St. Petersburg Times (LTE) -- con, 1/13/07 (4th letter down; response to 1/3/07 article)


12. Gainesville Sun -- 2/7/07


13. ACLU News Release -- 2/7/07
    


14. Reuters (Miami) -- 2/7/07


15. Gainesville Sun -- 2/8/07


16. St. Petersburg Times -- 2/8/07


17. Alligator (LTE): -- con, 2/9/07, or here


18. Dixie County Advocate -- 2/15/07, or here


19. Gainesville Sun (LTE) -- pro, 2/17/07, or here


20. Dixie County Advocate (LTE) -- con, 2/24/07, or here


21. Liberty Counsel -- 3/8/07


22. CNS News -- 3/12/07


23. Florida Humanists Association -- 4/9/07, (also here and here)

other media (blogs):

1. KipEsquire -- 11/28/06


2. Florida Progressive Coalition -- 4/4/07


3. John Pieret -- 4/15/07

I'll update after I find more information on the case status.

My daemon

After reading Courtnix's review, I've decided to go check out the movie based on Pullman's first book in the His Dark Materials series, and then perhaps the books themselves. Heck, it's almost worth paying just to see RR folks get apoplectic over the earnings and popularity of it.

My Golden Compass daemon is called Arphenia, a raccoon. I am "modest, a leader, assertive, shy and spontaneous." Those seem a little incongruent, but whatever.

PS: Apparently 'coons make up only 3.6% of the spectrum.

Obama and experience

Let's talk about Obama and the "experience" card.

Bill Clinton puts it this way:

“When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?” Mr. Clinton said. At another point, he appeared to compare Mr. Obama to a “gifted television commentator” running for president. “They’d have only one year less experience in national politics” than Mr. Obama, he said.

To answer this question, I advocate a look at some of history's presidents and their relative amounts of experience. Back in 1999, when W was in the running, a journalist noted that one of the greatest presidents of America's history, if not the greatest, had very little experience on the national stage -- Abe Lincoln -- in order to argue that W had enough experience:

...Abraham Lincoln, who is usually at the top of every list of great presidents. Yet he was the only president with no experience as a governor, senator, Cabinet member, general or vice president. Lincoln’s previous experience in public office consisted of one term in the U.S. House, several terms in the Illinois Legislature and a brief tenure as postmaster of New Salem, Ill. He was also an unsuccessful merchant, a successful lawyer and twice an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, James Buchanan, served 10 years in the U.S. House, 10 in the U.S. Senate, 4 as secretary of state and represented the United States in Britain and Russia before winning the White House in 1856. Yet historians are almost unanimous in portraying him as a president who dithered ineffectively while the country raced toward the precipice of civil war.

It is important to keep in mind that Honest Abe saw our nation through the greatest challenge it has ever faced, while two of the top three worst presidents of all time -- Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan -- had impressive experience and a long list of political credentials. It should also be noted that some of the greatest presidents lacked military experience. It seems obvious to me, but apparently not to others, that a person's character and raw intellectual talent is much more indicative of their success in any venture than just how long they've been around certain circles.

As Obama has pointed out before, there are plentiful examples of terrible politicians with long and impressive resumes:

"There are a couple guys named Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who had two of the longest resumes in Washington and led us into the biggest foreign policy disaster of a generation," Obama said at a campaign stop in Alton, New Hampshire. "So a long resume doesn't guarantee good judgment. A long resume says nothing about your character."

Bingo.

When the Boston Globe endorsed Obama, it stated:

Obama's critics, and even many who want to support him, worry about his relative lack of experience. It is true that other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes and have spent more time in Washington. But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government's constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities.

And I think this reflects, as Andrew Sullivan made a point of, a significant difference between Hillary and Barack: the 60s-era culture wars mentality that conjures up only visions of sexual freedom, gun rights and religious conservatism, while shrouded in the same sort of secrecy and embedded political machine as ever -- versus a new kind of politics focused on transparency and honesty.

On another note: Some people would watch this and come away convinced Mormonism is bad, making their own faith look better. Some would start to get the real point hidden inside O'Donnell's tirade and get uncomfortable: all religions have not only disparate scandals, but a unifying theme of regressive policies and dogmas -- from slavery to discrimination against women to torture to ...

*cross-posted to:
1) my Obama blog
2) Educators for Obama blog

Hilarious: whitehouse.org

I found this on whitehouse.org and had to share it:

President Addresses Nation on the Way Forward to Surging Back Towards Desperately Spinning the Clusterfuck That is Vietraq

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all imperialistic military empires, there come brief, fleeting moments that decide the direction of a multinational corporation masquerading as a democratic nation, and reveal the character of its blue-blooded aristocrats, conniving religious hucksters and corrupt, back-slapping robber barons. We have now been suspended in such a moment for over six calendar years.

A few politics notes

A few political notes:

This story is encouraging on many levels -- clergy are giving far more to Dems this year than Republicans. In particular, Obama is far ahead of the next two closest individuals, with $110K versus Romney's $39K and Huckabee's $23K.

The Bush administration's idea of a "victory" in the War on Terror^TM, domestic edition.

Hillary keeps hinting about having dirt on Obama. It really does reflect badly on her campaign.

The rhetoric versus the reality: Bush demands right to torture, even as he loudly declaims platitudes about how "we don't torture".

Re Bali: if it's in the footnotes, can they just ignore it?

Fantastic Intelligent Design posters

Some great ID posters from Touchstone @ banninated.blogspot.com; he calls these "Inspired Designs":

Precious.

Dems gain youth vote, VA tops health care

The reality contradicts the rhetoric alleging that government-run or government-paid-for health care will be substandard.

The 18-29 year old demographic identifies as Dem over GOP at almost 2:1. That's encouraging. So is the fact that our generation is less religious, more accepting of scientific findings and more progressive in general.

Religious atheists

How atheist "fundamentalists" are just like religious fundies (sarcasm):

(H/T: PZ)

Cohen on the transatlantic religious divide

From "Secular Europe's Merits":

That is why I find Romney’s speech and the society it reflects far more troubling than Europe’s vacant cathedrals.

Romney allows no place in the United States for atheists. He opines that, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” Yet secular Sweden is free while religious Iran is not. Buddhism, among other great Oriental religions, is forgotten.

He shows a Wikipedia-level appreciation of other religions, admiring “the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims” and “the ancient traditions of the Jews.” These vapid nostrums suggest his innermost conviction of America’s true faith. A devout Christian vision emerges of a U.S. society that is in fact increasingly diverse.

Romney rejects the “religion of secularism,” of which Europe tends to be proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the Reformation that reduced St. Andrews Cathedral to ruin are fires of faith that endure in different, but no less explosive, forms. Jefferson’s “wall of separation” must be restored if those who would destroy the West’s Enlightenment values are to be defeated.

Also see this.

Looks like Hillary is scared

Scared enough to smear Obama for teenage drug use. Gag.

From Andrew Sullivan's long-winded but potent argument that Hillary represents the ongoing "culture war" of the 60s and Obama really does represent change...

...to Steve Hayes' favorable overview of Obama in The Weekly Standard and Matthew Yglesias and Bloggingheads seeing it and pointing out that Republican voters are most comfortable with Obama as a Democrat (and Hillary's consistently high negatives: 55% unfavorability in Rasmussen Reports)...

she may have serious reason to be. Scared, that is.

I'm still divided over the issue of whose mandates/non-mandates plan is better. However, the longer I keep up with the goings-on, the more I like Obama and the less I like Hillary for the nomination. We'll have to wait and see. So much can change in politics so fast.

Some politics notes

Ezra asks,

for whatever reason, our politicians seem achingly incapable of simply leaving Iraq. So it's worth asking if a military deployment is really the most cost-effective way to spend billions and billions in Iraq. This site, in fact, asks the question well. "The US budget for Iraq in FY 2006 comes to $3,749/Iraqi. This is more than double their per person GDP. It's like spending $91,000 per person in the US. Why not just bribe the whole country?" But seriously: Why not just bribe the whole country? If we're determined to commit an enormous amount of resources to the Iraqi people, why not let the Ghost of Milton Friedman take over and simply design some sort of program that offers enormous economic benefits in exchange for reductions in violence?

A win for progress in the war against "the war on drugs" -- the harsh crack sentencing guidelines are coming into line with those for powdered cocaine:

African-Americans were nearly 82 percent of defendants sentenced in federal court for dealing crack, but only 27 percent of those sentenced for dealing powder cocaine, according to 2006 federal statistics. Each year, federal courts handle about 11,000 cocaine sentences, which are roughly evenly divided between crack and cocaine cases.

The issue long has been a source of contention between government prosecutors and civil rights advocates, who argue crack dealers are often targeted for longer prison terms because that drug is prevalent in urban and minority communities, while the powdered version is more commonly associated with higher-income users.

I've said it before:

I strongly disagree with complete libertarians with respect to drug policy who think that controlling substances is unnecessary/illegal on the part of the government, especially in light of drugs like Oxycontin(TM). That said, the legalization of marijuana is necessary, even if it may cause a slowdown of brain processing speed. I don't even smoke it (honest, not since 1999), but it is definitely far past the time to de-criminalize it for a plethora of reasons.

I'd go further and point out that people who are convicted of felonies for using drugs are much less able to go on to lead productive lives afterwards due to their criminal record. This all but insures that they will remain trapped in a criminal lifestyle, and converts many formerly-productive citizens into drug dealers. I think many substances ought to be controlled by the government, but de-criminalized.

Remember, government-provided health care is terrible and will lead to a decline in quality, and Dick Cheney is proof of this!

The Dems have caved again, this time on the omnibus bill.

Doesn't surprise me

I took the quiz and am a "Social Justice Crusader" liberal -- what are you?

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Social Justice Crusader, also known as a rights activist. You believe in equality, fairness, and preventing neo-Confederate conservative troglodytes from rolling back fifty years of civil rights gains.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

Santa & God

It's inevitable: comparisons between Santa & God.

I've heard theists make a psychological profile of atheists before: they have bad father figures, they never got over the disillusionment of finding out Santa isn't real...this cartoon plays on that a bit:

If you can't make out the caption very easily, it reads:

Dear Children
One Day You Will Learn Everything About Santa Claus.
On That Day Remember Everything The Adults Have Told You About Jesus.

Much to the theists' chagrin, there are an awful lot of parallels between God and Santa, when one thinks of it. Seasame Street Atheism or no, the very same "childlike faith" we are required to have to sustain belief in God is similar with respect to belief in Santa. The unquestioning submission to authority and tradition are similar between children and adults compared to people and the Church/church doctrine...in ways, dissimilar in others.

God does these magical acts on very rare occassions, of which we have no hard evidence at all, that are supposed to justify our belief in him throughout the thousands of years after these events occurred. Santa just gets his magic thing on once a year, spending only 34 microseconds at each stop. Hopefully, Santa will get a little more green and reduce his reindeer's methane emissions using kangaroo enzymes; then he ought to ask people to shop online this Xmas to help lower CO₂ emissions.

The future is now

Honda has thrown down the gauntlet on H₂ fuel cell vehicles.

Availability of H₂ filling stations will hinder the distribution of the vehicle, although hydrogen infrastructure will eventually morph into existing gasoline stations. And, if it doesn't, no worries: the home power station Honda has been working on for years can solve that problem.

The idea is simple -- use solar cells to "split water" and form your own fuel at home, as shown in the figure below:


The most beautiful thing about this is that gas/oil/coal companies can't do a goddamned thing to stop people from buying these home units and choosing hydrogen. They can (and probably will) slow the distribution of hydrogen at filling stations by basically refusing to integrate the new technology at the rate at which they are capable. This compounds the already-noted issues with transitioning to a hydrogen economy.

I can't wait until oil goes the way of the dodo. Unfortunately, that won't probably happen for a loooooong time.

Kudos to Honda.

Giving credit where it is due

I wanted to add something to what I said earlier this morning about Mitt's speech on religion (reposted in full at the bottom).

First, for the sake of comparison, a quick check -- who said the following:

[M]y answer to people is, I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society.

A great—the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor [emphasis mine]. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad—I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you—you don't have to worship [emphasis mine]. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is—that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.

And who also said:

Let me talk about freedom of religion, as well, which is an incredibly important part of our society. My job as the President is to make sure -- this may get to your question, by the way, besides speech -- an incredibly important part about what you're asking is, can people worship freely, as well. Yes. That's the part of the job of the President, is to make sure that people can worship any way they want, any way they want. And they can choose any religion they want. Or they can choose no religion. You see, you're just as big a patriot -- as good a patriot as the next fellow if you choose not to worship. It's your choice to make. [emphasis mine] And the freedom of this country is that you can choose to do any way you want. And it's important that we keep that -- that freedom real and intact.

And finally:

First of all, we strongly believe in the separation of church and state here in Washington, D.C., and that's the way it's going to be. Secondly, I love the fact that people are able to worship freely in our country, and if you chose not to worship, you're just as patriotic as your neighbor. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice any religion you choose, or the freedom not to practice. [emphasis mine]

The answer is one that you are almost certainly going to be surprised by:

George W. Bush said all of the above.

For all the horrible things Bush has done to our country, I have to give him credit for one thing: he respects the non-religious in his public speeches. Do I think he respects us in his heart? No. Does he have to? No. But the man understands that a national community has to include all faiths...as well as those without faith at all. This is something Mitt got completely and seriously wrong in his speech.

And, if you want to see that spelled out very articulately, read Friday's NYT editorial on the topic:

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Conservative David Brooks even gives a critical note:

And yet, I confess my own reaction is more muted [to Romney's speech].

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. [emphasis mine] Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

Romney's speech will wither into the mist of history forgotten and mundane. It's just another ploy from another politician, not a genuine work of masterful prose and logic.

From WSJ's Peggy Noonan:

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. [emphasis mine] We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else. [emphasis mine]

Amen, sister.

(from earlier)

So the big news in politics for the past few days has been Mitt's long-awaited speech on religion. Basically he pandered to religious godidiots by talking about the "religion of secularism" and implied that atheists are not Americans.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

The idiot says the above, then goes on to admit that Europe is becoming more secular (but is still a country with more freedoms than we enjoy, thanks to King W) without seeing any contradiction. Jesus' General offers serious analysis of the issues at play and why considering a candidate's religion matters (from a secular standpoint).

Some politics notes

A few notes from politics and beyond:

So the big news in politics for the past few days has been Mitt's long-awaited speech on religion. Basically he pandered to religious godidiots by talking about the "religion of secularism" and implied that atheists are not Americans.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

The idiot says the above, then goes on to admit that Europe is becoming more secular (but is still a country with more freedoms than we enjoy, thanks to King W) without seeing any contradiction. Jesus' General offers serious analysis of the issues at play and why considering a candidate's religion matters (from a secular standpoint).

The Obama smear piece didn't work out so well.

The GOP's philosophy: "the government which governs least, governs best" -- boy, do they prove that one wrong.

The GOP's sex-ed policy proves itself an utter failure (yet again).

Paul Krugman explains why comparisons between Darth Vader and Cheney are unfair:

Back when Hillary Clinton described Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, a number of people pointed out that this was an unfair comparison. For example, Darth Vader once served in the military.

Here’s another reason the comparison is invalid: the contractors Darth Vader hired to build the Death Star actually got the job done.

In climate change-related news, hybrid sales are rocketing, the US is under mounting pressure to actually do something at Bali to help solve the global CO₂ problem, and the WSJ really is doing well in its new role as Fox News Lite:

WSJ editor insults scientists, attacks Gore.

In an op-ed this morning mocking former Vice President Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize win, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “attacks the international scientific consensus without providing a single piece of counterevidence.” In order to cast doubt on the consensus, Jenkins insults the entire scientific community as people who “do not wait for proof“:

It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn’t. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.

Climate Progress ably takes Jenkins to task for his insults and distortions.

Murdoch has certainly done well placing such editorials there.

Don't forget to Buy Blue this season (the site is undergoing reconstruction, so use the web archive links). I will.

Consider supporting some godless charities this holiday season, rather than giving money to organizations that proselytize.

Is anything Bush does surprising anymore?

To get at the heart of how much Bush and his GOP allies in Congress have changed the office of POTUS, Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI, ironic name, eh?) decided to dig in to the classified legal memos that have given "justification" to the president's, uh...liberties with the Constitution. The results are as sickening as you'd expect:

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations. [bold emphasis added throughout]

I don't know if/why this is surprising. Bush believes he can direct the emphatically-independent arm of oversight -- the Justice Department -- not to pursue legal investigations of wrongdoing in his administration, and that the Court itself is not able to tell him what he's doing is illegal.

Breakthrough evidence for string theory?

Having always been a fan of cosmology, and especially the cyclic model, a recent New Scientist article on the giant "hole" in the universe and how it may support string theory caught my eye. I took the time to scan and upload it so that you can read it too: here (.pdf, 3.1 MB).

On a roll

Two good articles to share with you.

Last month's Economist had a special section "In God's Name" (I've scanned all 18 pages, 3.6 MB, here as a .pdf). Most of the article is "meh" but I liked the refutation of the common claim that Europe is becoming "Eurabia" with some sort of huge takeover by Muslims. They point out:

The second part—the imminent arrival of Eurabia—can be dismissed as poor mathematics. Muslim minorities in Europe are indeed growing fast and causing political friction, but they account for less than 5% of the total population, a tiny proportion by American standards of immigration. Even if that proportion trebles in the next 20 years, Eurabia will still be a long way off.

The more interesting question is whether Christianity will recover. A new book by Philip Jenkins on European religion comes up with some gloomy statistics. Only 20% of Europeans say that God plays an important role in their lives, compared with 60% of Americans. A survey in 2004 found that only 44% of Britons believed in God, whereas 35% (45% among 18-34-year-olds) denied His existence. Only 15% of them go to church each week, against 40% of Americans. Even in the Catholic heartlands of Spain, Italy and Ireland attendance rates have dropped below 20%. And priests are dying out: in Dublin, home to 1m Catholics, precisely one was ordained in 2004.

There's much more there to be read, so take a peek.

Secondly, in between the trite mushiness of the New Scientist article from September and the no-holds-barred hard-ass atheism of the AA article by Whittenberger analyzing the logic of the atonement, we find a very worth-reading editorial in New Scientist from 11/10/07, "The Trouble with Reason," and an article, "God's Place in a Rational World."

The article is hosted at the Beyond Belief 2.0 conference website, and covers the event and its context (check out the new videos from the homepage). One of the funnier miscellany had to be the guy who wrote my university physical chemistry text, Peter Atkins, actually having said that atheist scientists should adopt a flag with a Mandelbrot Set on it...oh my. A flag. With a Mandelbrot Set. Wow.

Anyway, one of the things I liked the most with this new article was the focus on the issue of morality and its relationship to empiricism/scientism/science. The question of the evolutionary history and evolutionary purposes of morality are certainly fair game for science. However, jettisoning ethical philosophy because it is non-empirical or pretending that science is sufficient to deal with morality (scientism) are just plain irrational. A few good points were made that help to temper the red-hot passion for the elimination of religion; as Edward Slingerland said:

• Religion is not going away anytime soon (or maybe ever)


• Humans' rights & morality are just as unscientific in nature as God: I've written reams (much of it rambling and repetitive, I'm sure, of what others have already said on the topic) on trying to get my head around morality, and I don't know if I've succeeded or not. Judge for yourself: 1, 2
  

Irrespective of the difficulty in approaching morality from a scientific viewpoint, we have no choice but to analyze morality with the tools of reason and logic available to us. If we can find some way to explain morality as a "bet fit model" that simply shows us a way to live that ends up benefiting all of us to the greatest extent possible, then that's fine for me. It doesn't have to be metaphysically ultimate, as I used to wish. If ethics can just be objectively good, I'll be happy.

Lots of scientists are apparently starting to realize this second point by Slingerland, and embrace some forms of "spirituality" in order to explain issues like human meaning & morality given the vacuum left in those areas by science. As to the first point, it seems that Dawkins and all these other guys are still dreaming: religion will be with us as long as art and poetry and beauty will be -- a way to capture the human forms of transcendence and abstractions/ideals we're capable of seeing, but rarely attaining. Religion is beautiful when it's like that, like the dream we don't want to wake up from. On the other hand, atheism has a bit of a "cost" attached with it.

When you look at Atkins' proposal of an atheist "flag" and Kelly's interest in "ending religion," you see that atheists are really on a roll. And that roll is downhill. There is indeed a problem with atheism. Thankfully, the problems with fundamentalist religion are much more grave; deadly, in fact.

One of us is spot-on

Okay, maybe both of us...my words on 10/25 regarding the black hole of money that is Iraq:

...it stops hurting so much if you don't think about how many billions of our own taxpayer dollars wasted in war. Either the money is lining the pockets of criminals here at home, or is actually being rerouted to militias and terrorists abroad, against whom we are fighting; all the while, we can't afford to give health care coverage to our own children or ensure a quality education for all our own students.

And on 12/2:

...all this completely ignores the cancer of corruption that has eaten Iraq from the inside-out.

Bob Hebert's words today:

Priorities don’t get much more twisted. A country that can’t find the money to provide health coverage for its children, or to rebuild the city of New Orleans, or to create a first-class public school system, is flushing whole generations worth of cash into the bottomless pit of a failed and endless war.

“The No. 1 reason that the war in Iraq should end,” said Senator Charles Schumer, chairman of the joint committee, “is the loss of life that is occurring without accomplishing any of the goals that even President Bush put forward.”

But “right below that,” he said, is the need to stop squandering incredible amounts of money that could be put to better use — helping to “make people’s lives better” — here at home. That colossal and continuing waste, he said, “should cause anxiety in anyone who cares about the future of this country. I know it causes me anxiety.”

President Bush’s formal funding requests for Iraq have already exceeded $600 billion. In addition to that, the report offers estimates of the war’s “hidden costs” from its beginning to 2017: the long-term costs of treating the wounded and disabled; interest and other costs associated with borrowing to finance the war; the money needed to repair or replace military equipment; the increased costs of military recruitment and retention; and such difficult to gauge but very real costs as the loss of productivity from those who have been killed or wounded.

What matters more than the precision of these estimates (Republicans are not happy with them) is the undeniable fact that the costs associated with the Iraq war are huge and carry with them enormous societal consequences.

The black hole of money that is Iraq:

A few religion-related things

Stanley Fish has redeemed himself a little since his last foray into comment on religion. This time, he emphasizes sound legal logic:

...the issues Locke identified and analyzed will never be resolved. In her dissent in Boerne, Justice O’Connor wrote, “Our Nation’s Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, not a secular society in which religious expression is tolerated only when it does not conflict with generally applicable law.”

Yes, that’s the question. Do we begin by assuming the special status of religious expression and reason from there? Or do we begin with the rule of law and look with suspicion on any claim to be exempt for it, even if the claim is made in the name of apparently benign religious motives? [emphasis mine]

His language is tilted towards the former policy, and that means he's gained back a little of my respect.

Also, a great day for the Constitution and church-state separation as the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state-sponsored religious program of Chuck Colson in prisons.

And on another religious note, there's an interesting new analysis of the Gospel of Judas, and one which claims the other interpretations are thoroughly wrong:

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the “Thirteenth.” In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons — an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals. Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream Christians’ belief in the atoning value of Jesus’ death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

The author strongly criticizes National Geographic for getting it wrong. Interesting, but not very likely to impact the scholarly Christian rejection of the document either way. Mainstream Evangelicals would probably be more likely to support the document now, though, since it jives better with their interpretation of Judas.

Mitt & Mormonism

So "Magic Underwear Mitt" will be addressing us on how reasonable Mormonism really is? What a laugh. Funny that anyone really thinks that this will help. Go read up on Mormonism and you'll find it hard to see how keeping people's attention on his faith will help him. The polls from a while back seem to show only about 1 in 4 claim that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon (compared to a majority -- 53%, who wouldn't vote for an atheist), but I think these numbers are always too low because of socially desirable response bias. I just don't think the majority of Evangelicals will vote for him.

The RR still doesn't know quite what to do: back the serial-adulterer Giuliani with a liberal track-record on judicial appointments, Mormon "Magic Underwear" Romney -- someone they know only became "pro-life" 5 minutes ago (both he and Giuiliani fit into this category), or someone they know will not win? Dobson swears he'll choose the latter.

Giuliani isn't just involved in a scandal over using tax dollars to finance his extramarital affair; he's also got a brewing scandal involving his ties to terrorists. I really think his campaign is done, kaput...or else people are ignoring the mounds of dirt on this guy. See TCR's summary of Giuliani's worst week ever.

I don't think that there is anything comparable on Mitt's side, aside from a few gaffes and some reversals; no substantive corruption, but it may come out later. On the other hand, dirt on Huckabee is piling up, and he is looking dirtier all the time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...

Arguments for atheism

You wouldn't know it, but these 34 arguments are actually for atheism (.pdf); I like this handy list of links and this nice compilation of miscellaneous online arguments too.

Something re atheism

I started reading Doubt: A History, by Jennifer Hecht this weekend (a damned behemoth, with 500 pages spanning 12 chapters -- not counting the 25 pages of notes, 7 pages of bibliography and 20 pages of index). The book has been reviewed and covered well: NPR, APM, PoI. It's interesting so far, and some of the front matter actually hit directly on the topic of my debate with Andrew on facebook: what she calls "the great schism" between "our human world...a world of reason and plans, love and purpose," and "the world beyond our human life--an equally real world in which there is no sign of caring or value, planning or judgment, love or joy." A similar take was given here, but this author talks about a sort of schism between "heart and head". Some beliefs are definitely more reasonable than others, but we still long to believe unreasonable things. Why?

As I began reading, I was transported back a few months in my own mind.

I think that for a long while there, especially when I was writing regularly at Debunking Christianity and arguing incessantly with people like Triablogue and (please forgive me) CalvinDude, I was really struggling with my own set of beliefs. I knew I had lost faith in the idea of an all-good and all-powerful God, but I wasn't sure what that meant, or how I was going to set about replacing my old beliefs with new ones, or what those new ones were.

What about meaning and value? What about morality and virtue? I would sometimes stare out of my window and feel the urge to finish my graduate degree completely gone. I began to think about things from a cosmic perspective -- how damned insignificant our dreams and hopes are, in the scheme of things. I flirted with existentialism and tried to find meaning in a godless universe:

My own burden at the moment is in maintaining rationalism -- a commitment to reason, and optimism -- a commitment not to only see things as better, but to be better and in so doing, this purpose makes "all well".

I soon realized I was depressed...

I don't know if ex-believers ever really come to peace with the "great schism" any more than devout believers do. The ones I envy are those people in the middle; the people whose apathy and lack of curiosity and intellectual drive confers upon them a sort of "ignorant bliss" from which they can merrily go about life either believing or disbelieving but not spending a great deal of emotional/mental capital on either one.

I don't know exactly how I'd describe my current state of ataraxia, a sort of tenuous equilibrium in which I've found I have completely lost the obsession I used to have with arguing with theists online. I also started to evolve in my thinking during my time transforming UF's atheist group (AAFSA) into a freethought group. I would say that I now regard "organized atheism" in a completely different light than I used to. I see things like the "coming out" campaign and I wonder if, in the end, this is just a passing fad as it was in the early 20C. I worry about global politics and environmentalism now much more than I worry about "discrimination" that non-believers face. Although I still see the dangers that religion can have, I see the twin danger that some organizations of atheists pose to themselves in not acting effectively towards common goods.

While I think that a lot of good work remains to be done by groups committed to freethought, I think it is primarily political and concerned with issues like church-state separation. Eddie Tabash had a nice speech on this topic given at the AAI conference a few months back (he also visited UF and spoke to my old freethought group on this subject). Some groups aren't focused on real-world issues and instead are "activists against religion," so to speak.

IMHO, atheist "activists" like these are contributing to the problem with atheism; people like the RRS give the rhetoric "secular fundamentalism" validity. Their desperation to exist as some sort of full-time anti-theist organization is almost a ministry, and one which they've found themselves increasingly desperate to keep funded. But beyond sad, it goes to a littl scary: on Kelly's MySpace profile, she says her general interest is "ending religion" (a little piece of me dies when I see this and this) -- something that bothers me to even consider. It not only reads like a statement straight out of the early 20C fascist book, it completely overlooks the benign aspects of things like Zen Buddhism and lumps all religion together as "bad". In April I wrote against such nonsense:

I also agree with Elaine Pagels and Michael Novak -- we cannot paint religion with such a broad brush as to attack all forms of religiosity and call names and hold to the old, insulting phraseologies ("reality-based community" and "I live by reason" are tacit insults). We must remind ourselves that there are voices of reason in the religious community, no matter how silly we feel some of their views are. And the Pagels of the world are those we atheists and we scientists need to sit down and have more discussion with. If that happened, there would be a great deal more respect on each side of the fence.

While Pagels (and intellectuals like her) are focused on getting the fundies to grow their brains a little to encompass the more sophisticated aspects of theology, and PZ et al on getting the fundies to stop their anti-scientific crusades, perhaps they could realize that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Perhaps more honest discussion between the "evangelical", "uppity", "angry", "passionate" and "militant" atheists and liberal/moderate Christians would yield a rich reward in finding the assistance we can afford each other in reaching mutual goals.

Never mind that things like this just add fuel to the fire of the Pope's new screed on how "atheism causes social evil" and other such nonsense (of course, he's sweating a bit as the Vatican's coffers continue to shrink as Europe de-Christianizes). I don't think the dumb words of atheists nullify the fact of God's non-existence any more than the deviant sexual practices of Christians nullify historical questions about Jesus. I also don't think that trying to argue that Christians are dumb or that atheists are immoral are a good way to approach to these issues.

Although the importance of religion in our society must not be underestimated, neither must secular America, especially the trend as it applies towards younger Americans, something I've emphasized before:

The proportion of atheists and agnostics increases from 6% of Elders (ages 61+) and 9% of Boomers (ages 42-60), to 14% of Busters (23-41) and 19% of adult Mosaics (18-22).

Looking at very recent polls, around 18% of Americans do not believe in God. This trend is in line with other recent assessments of the state of atheism, and the disparity in numbers between "atheist" and "82% of people believe in God" confirms that people are still reluctant to self-identify with "the A word" despite their admission that they don't believe in God. In the largest religious self-identification survey ever undertaken, 14% of those surveyed reported "no religion" but only 0.4% explicitly as "atheist". A more recent Baylor study found only 50% of "religious nones" identify as "atheists" -- again note the disparity between non-religious persons and people willing to identify as "atheist" and/or be active in some sort of atheist organization. Another recent poll in The Nation shows that the number of nonbelievers is much higher than commonly recognized - at around 27% not believing in a God (those willing to self-identify as atheists is still much lower).

Regardless of the exact number, the number of atheists visible in politics is next to zero, and that is unlikely to change. Atheists are still distrusted and that prejudice won't change overnight. And that's a lot of why people are reluctant to use the label, even when they admit that they aren't theists; I really think part of it boils down to groups like the RRS. Part of it can be attributed to the corrupt and increasingly-irrelevant Religious Right and their hatred and intolerance. When atheists start to look like those people (intolerant of religion in general), we're the mirror image of Falwell and D. James Kennedy, which turns people off in droves.

And that's scary.

Booblefrip & an all-evil God

A great article on the problem of evil (my fave) by Stephen Law to pass on:

The God of Eth: are the usual religious defenses of belief in God really up to the job? A dialogue
Skeptical Inquirer, Sept-Oct, 2005 by Stephen Law

Most people who believe in, God assume their belief to be pretty reasonable. "Perhaps Gods existence can't be conclusively proved," they'll say, but it s a fairly sensible thing to believe--far more sensible than, say, belief in fairies or Santa Claus." But are they right?

Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe that God is both all-powerful and all-good. Indeed, God is often characterized as an infinitely loving father. Yet most of the popular arguments for the existence of God allow us to deduce little if anything about his moral character. Take the argument from design, for example. Even if it can be shown that the universe does show signs of design, what's the evidence that its creator is all-good?

There is also a well-known argument that, even if the universe was created by an all-powerful being, that being is not all-good. The argument is called the problem of evil, and runs roughly as follows: if God is both all-powerful and all-good, why is there so much suffering in the world? Why does God inflict earthquakes, floods, famines, and the Black Death upon us? Why does he give small children cancer? Why does he make life so grindingly miserable for so many? Why does he arrange for millions of us to end our lives horrendously scarred in many cases both physically and psychologically crippled--by the world he created for us? This hardly sounds like the behavior of a supremely compassionate and loving father figure, does it? Surely, there's overwhelming evidence that the universe is not under the control of a limitlessly powerful and benevolent character.

Many find this argument compelling. But of course, there are plenty who believe the problem of evil can be dealt with. How? Religious thinkers have, over the centuries, developed a number of ingenious solutions. Here are some popular examples:

The free-will solution. God gave us free will. We are not blind automata, but free agents, capable of making our own choices and acting on them. As a result of God having given us free will, we sometimes choose to do wrong. We start wars, steal, and so on. So some suffering results from our possessing free will. However, it is still better that we have free will. Free will is a very great good that more than compensates for the suffering it can bring.

The character-building solution. We know that a bad experience can sometimes make us stronger. We can learn and be enriched, through suffering. For example, people who have suffered a terrible disease sometimes say they gained greatly from it. Similarly, by causing us pain and suffering, God allows us to grow and develop both morally and spiritually. It is only through our experiencing this suffering that we can ultimately become the noble souls God wants us to be.

Some goods require evils. Theists often point out that God inevitably had to include quite a bit of suffering in his creation in order that certain important goods could exist. Take, for example, charity and sympathy. Charity is a great virtue. Yet you can only be charitable if there exist others who are needy. Similarly, you can only sympathize with someone whom you perceive to be suffering. Charity and sympathy are so-called "second order" goods that require "first order" evils like neediness and suffering (or at least the appearance of such evils) to exist. It's argued that these second order goods outweigh the first order evils, which is why God allows the evils to occur.

Play the mystery card. Some theists point out that God works in mysterious ways. It's arrogant of us to suppose that we can understand the mind of an infinitely powerful and wise being. The evil God inflicts upon us is, actually, all for the best. It's just that we, being mere humans, can't see how.

Many believe that these and other similar arguments largely take the sting out of the problem of evil. Some think they dispose of the problem altogether. I find them utterly inadequate. The following dialogue is my attempt to convey why.

Welcome to Eth, a modestly proportioned planet on the far side of our galaxy. Here, beneath the great marble spires of Eth's finest university, the debate of the age is taking place. Arrayed on either side of the university's Great Chamber are Eth's finest scholars and thinkers. They are here to decide the most controversial and emotional issue dividing the inhabitants of Eth: Does God exist?

To the right of the Great Chamber are arrayed the believers. To the left sit the skeptics. The public galleries are nearly bursting with those waiting to observe the proceedings. At the end of the debate, the audience will vote.

Booblefrip, the birdlike Professor of Origin, and Gizimoth, the portly Arch-logos Inquisitor, lead the debate.

GIZIMOTH: Here, on Eth, many of us believe in God, do we not?

BOOBLEFRIP: Certainly.

GIZIMOTH: So what is God like?

BOOBLEFRIP: Well, God is all-powerful, of course. God can do anything. He created the entire universe, including every last one of us. God's awesome power knows no bounds!

(A whisper of approval ripples across the believers on the right side of the Great Chamber.)

GIZIMOTH: Let's agree about that, then. God, if he exists, is omnipotent. But here on Eth, those who believe in God also attribute another property to him, don't they?

BOOBLEFRIP: Yes. As you know, we also believe that God is all-evil.

GIZIMOTH: Can you explain what you mean by that?

BOOBLEFRIP: Not only does God's power know no bounds, neither does his depravity. His cruelty is infinite; his malice without end.

(Booblefrip casts a cool look across the right side of the chamber.)

GIZIMOTH: I see. All powerful. And all-evil. Now Professor Booblefrip, do you think that you could briefly explain why you think it's reasonable to believe in such a being? What grounds can you provide to justify belief in this evil God?

BOOBLEFRIP: Well, I don't say I can conclusively prove beyond doubt that God exists. But it seems to me that there are at least two rather good reasons for believing in God. First, it seems obvious to me, as it does to many, that the universe must have come from somewhere. Don't you agree?

GIZIMOTH: Of course. The scientists assembled here will tell you that there is a perfectly good scientific explanation for the existence of the universe--the Big Bang. About 14 billion years ago, an unimaginably violent explosion occurred, in which all matter and energy came into existence, and in which space and even time itself began.

BOOBLEFRIP: We're all familiar with the Big Bang theory, Professor Gizimoth. But of course, the Big Bang really only postpones the mystery of why there is anything at all, doesn't it? For now we need to explain why there was a Big Bang. Why did the Big Bang happen? Science can't explain that, can it? There's a real mystery here, isn't there?

GIZIMOTH: Hmm. Perhaps.

BOOBLEFRIP: The only satisfactory explanation we have for why the universe came into existence in the first place is that God created it. So, there's my first reason to believe in God.

(Gizimoth frowns--he's clearly not buying Booblefrip's argument--but he encourages Booblefrip to continue.)

GIZIMOTH: And your second reason?

BOOBLEFRIP: Take a look around you at the wonders of the universe. Life. Conscious beings like ourselves. Do you suppose that all this appeared just by chance?. Surely not. The universe shows clear signs of design. And where there's design, there's a designer!

GIZIMOTH: But science can explain life. What about the theory of natural selection? That explains how, over millions of years, life forms evolved and developed. It explains how complex life-forms can gradually evolve from even the simplest of bacteria. Science can perfectly well explain life without introducing your supernatural designer.

BOOBLEFRIP: Natural selection can't explain everything. For example, it can't explain why the universe was set up to allow natural selection to take place in the first place, can it?

GIZIMOTH: Hmm. Well, no, it can't explain that.

BOOBLEFRIP: Did you know that if the laws governing the universe had been only very slightly different, the universe would not have survived more than a second or two? Either that or it would have quickly dissipated into a thin sterile soup, incapable of producing life. For life to emerge and evolve, you need very specific conditions. The universe must be set up in an extremely precise fashion. And of course, we know that it was set up in just this way, don't we!

GIZIMOTH: I guess so.

BOOBLEFRIP: Now, that it should just happen to be set up in just this way by chance is too much to swallow. That would be a fluke of cosmic proportions. It's much more sensible, surely, to suppose that someone deliberately designed the universe this way, so as to produce life and ultimately ourselves. That someone is God!

(Another warm ripple of approval arises from the right side of the Great Chamber. The assembled academics feel that, so far at least, Booblefrip is getting the better of the argument. But Gizimoth is perplexed.)

GIZIMOTH: Very well, let's suppose the universe does show clear signs of having been designed by an intelligent being.

BOOBLEFRIP: Ah, a convert!

GIZIMOTH: Not at all. I'm supposing this only for the sake of argument. You still haven't given me much reason to suppose that this designer is all-evil, have you?

BOOBLEFRIP: But God is, by definition, all-evil.

GIZIMOTH: But why define God that way? Why not suppose, instead, that God is neither good nor evil? Or why not suppose he is all-good?

(Booblefrip thinks Gizimoth has gone too far.)

BOOBLEFRIP: What a bizarre suggestion. It's obvious our creator is very clearly evil! Take a look around you! Witness the horrendous suffering he inflicts upon us. The floods. The ethquakes. Cancer. The vile, rotting stench of God's creation is overwhelming!

GIZIMOTH: Yes, our creator may do some evil. But it's not clear he's all-evil, is it? It's certainly not obvious that his wickedness is infinite, that his malice and cruelty know no bounds. You're deliberately ignoring a famous argument against the existence of God--the problem of good.

BOOBLEFRIP: I'm familiar with the problem of good--we theologians of Eth have been debating it for centuries. But it's not fatal to belief in God.

GIZIMOTH: Really? Let's see. The problem of good, as you know, is essentially very simple. If the universe was designed by an all-powerful, all-evil God, then why is there so much good in the world?

BOOBLEFRIP: That's the supposed problem, yes.

GIZIMOTH: Why, for example, does God allow at least some people to live out happy, contented, and fulfilled lives? Why doesn't he torture them instead? If God is all-powerful, he certainly could torture them, couldn't he?

BOOBLEFRIP: Well, yes, he could.

GIZIMOTH: In fact, he could make their lives utterly miserable. And we know that, since he is also supremely evil, he must want them to suffer. Yet, he gives some people every consideration. Why? It makes no sense, does it?

BOOBLEFRIP: Perhaps not at first sight, no.

GIZIMOTH: Here's another example. Why does God allow us to do good deeds, to help our fellow Ethians? He even allows us to lay down our lives for each other. These selfless actions improve the quality of our lives no end. So why does God allow them? Why doesn't he force us to be nasty and do evil, just like him?

BOOBLEFRIP: I grant you that the fact that God allows so much noble and selfless behavior might seem like very good evidence that he is not all-evil. But appearances can be deceptive.

GIZIMOTH: Also, if God is absolutely evil, why did he put so much beauty in the world for us to enjoy? Why did he create such sublime sunsets?

BOOBLEFRIP: Good question.

GIZIMOTH: And why does God give us children, who bring us immeasurable happiness? You see? There are countless ways in which our lives are enriched by God's creation.

BOOBLEFRIP: But there's also evil!

GIZIMOTH: True, there's evil in the world. But there's an awful lot of good. Far too much good, in fact, for anyone reasonably to conclude that the universe was created by an all-evil God. Belief in a supremely wicked creator is palpably absurd.

(There is much quiet nodding to the left of the Great Chamber. Gizimoth's argument has struck a chord even with the unbelievers. But Booblefrip thinks Gizimoth's argument is far from conclusive.)

BOOBLEFRIP: Look, I admit that the amount of good in the world might seem to undermine belief in an all-powerful, all-evil god. But actually, we believers can explain why a supremely evil God would allow all these good things to happen.

GIZIMOTH: By all means try.

BOOBLEFRIP: Surely you are familiar with the free-will defense?

GIZIMOTH: Perhaps you would care to explain it.

BOOBLEFRIP: Very well. God's malevolence is without end. True, he lets us do good. He allows us to act selflessly for the betterment of others, for example. But there's a reason for that.

GIZIMOTH: What reason?

BOOBLEFRIP: God gave us free will.

GIZIMOTH: Free will?

BOOBLEFRIP: Yes. God could have made us mere automata that always did the wrong thing. But he didn't do that. He gave us the freedom to choose how we act.

GIZIMOTH: Why?

BOOBLEFRIP: By giving us free will, God actually increased the amount of suffering there is in the world. He made the world far more terrible than it would otherwise have been!

GIZIMOTH: How?

BOOBLEFRIP: Think about it. By giving us free will, God can be sure we will agonize endlessly about what we should do. For free will brings with it the torture of temptation. And then, when we succumb to temptation, we feel guilty. Knowing that being free, we could have done otherwise, we feel awful about what we have done. We end up torturing ourselves. The exquisitely evil irony of it all!

GIZIMOTH: Hmm.

BOOBLEFRIP: By giving us free will, God allowed for far more intense and subtle forms of suffering than would otherwise be possible.

GIZIMOTH: But what about the good that people sometimes do?

BOOBLEFRIP: It's true that people do sometimes choose to act selflessly and nobly and that this can produce good. But this good is far outweighed by the additional suffering free will brings. Just take a look at the world, for goodness sake! It's a world full of people who not only behave despicably but also agonize endlessly about what they have done!

GIZIMOTH: But this is ridiculous!

BOOBLEFRIP: Why?

GIZIMOTH: Well, for a start, this only explains the good that we bring about by acting freely. It doesn't explain the existence of naturally occurring good.

BOOBLEFRIP: Such as?

GIZIMOTH: Well, what about the glories of nature: sublime sunsets, stunning landscapes, the splendor of the heavens? We're not responsible for those things, are we?

BOOBLEFRIP: No. God is.

GIZIMOTH: But why would an all-evil God create something that gives us pleasure? Also, why does he give us beautiful children to love? And why does he choose to give some people extraordinary good fortune--health, wealth, and happiness in abundance? Surely, the existence of these goods provides us with overwhelming evidence that, even if the universe has a creator, he's not all bad?

BOOBLEFRIP: You're mistaken, Gizimoth. Such things are exactly what we should expect if God is supremely evil.

GIZIMOTH: But why?

BOOBLEFRIP: Some natural beauty is certainly to be expected. If everything was uniformly ugly, we wouldn't be tormented by the ugliness half as much as we are when it's laced with some beauty. To truly appreciate the ghastliness of the environment most of us inhabited--urine-stained, concrete-and-asphalt wasteland peppered with advertising billboards, drug addicts, and dog dirt--we need to be reminded every now and then that things could be different. God put some natural beauty into the world to make our recognition of the ugliness and dreariness of day-to-day life all the more acute.

GIZIMOTH: Hmm. But why would a supremely wicked God give us beautiful children to love?

BOOBLEFRIP: Because he knows we'll spend our entire lives worrying about them. Only a parent can know the depth of torture a child brings.

GIZIMOTH: Why does he give us healthy, young bodies?

BOOBLEFRIP: He makes sure that both our bodies and their vitality and health are short-lived. You see, by giving us something and then snatching it away, our evil creator can make us suffer even more than if we had never had it.

GIZIMOTH: But then, why does God allow some people to live out such contented lives?

BOOBLEFRIP: Of course an evil God is going to bestow upon a few people lavish lifestyles, good health, and immense success. Their happiness is designed to make the suffering of the rest of us even more acute! We'll be wracked by feelings of envy, jealousy, and failure! Who can be content while others have so much more!

GIZIMOTH: Oh, honestly!

BOOBLEFRIP: Don't you see? The world clearly was designed to produce life--to produce conscious beings like ourselves. Why? So that its designer can torture us. The world is designed to physically and psychologically crush us, so that we are ultimately overwhelmed by life's futility and bow out in despair.

(Gizimoth is becoming frustrated. Every time he comes up with another piece of evidence that the universe wasn't designed by a supremely evil deity, Booblefrip turns out to have yet another ingenious explanation up his sleeve. And yet, thinks Gizimoth, the evidence against the existence of an utterly evil God is overwhelming.)

GIZIMOTH: This is ridiculous. You have an answer for everything!

BOOBLEFRIP: Yes, I do have an answer to all your arguments. So far, you've given me not the slightest reason to suppose that the world was not created by a supremely evil being. But if you're unhappy with my answers, let me try a rather different approach. There are some evils that require good in order to exist, aren't there?

GIZIMOTH: Such as?

BOOBLEFRIP: Take the evil of jealousy. Jealousy requires something to be jealous of. God gave good things to some people so that others would feel jealous. Or take lying. Lying requires that people often tell the truth--otherwise, there would be no point in lying, because no one would believe you. The evil of dishonesty requires that there be a certain amount of honesty.

GIZIMOTH: And you think this evil outweighs the good it depends on?

BOOBLEFRIP: Exactly. God allows some good things into his creation. It's the price he has to pay for the greater evil.

GIZIMOTH: These tricky replies of yours are patently absurd. You can't seriously maintain that the world you see around you--a world full of natural beauty and laughing children--is really the handiwork of an infinitely evil God?

BOOBLEFRIP: I do maintain that, yes. True, I may not be able to account for every last drop of good in the world. But remember that we are dealing here with the mind of God. Who are you to suppose you can understand the mind of an infinitely intelligent and knowledgeable being? Isn't it arrogant of you to suppose that you can figure out God's master plan?

GIZIMOTH: I'm arrogant?.

(There's some subtle nodding from the believers on the right.)

BOOBLEFRIP: Yes, arrogant. Evil God works in mysterious ways. Ultimately, everything really is all for the worst. It's just that, being mere humans, we can't always figure out how.

GIZIMOTH: Oh, really. This is--

BOOBLEFRIP: I think it's arrogant of you to suppose otherwise--to suppose that you must be able to figure it all out. (At the end of the debate, the audience votes. After the deliberation, a spokesperson steps forward with their verdict.)

SPOKESMAN: It seems to us that Booblefrip has made a powerful case for supposing the world was created by God. In addition, Booblefrip has provided a compelling defense of belief in this evil being. He has successfully explained why even an evil God would allow a great deal of good. And so the motion is carried--we are persuaded that Evil God exists.

Are you persuaded by Booblefrip's defense of belief in a supremely evil God? Of course not. His explanations are clearly utterly feeble. Surely, despite all of Booblefrip's convoluted maneuverings, the fact remains that belief in a supremely evil God is patently absurd.

But of course, Booblefrip's defense merely flips around the standard explanations that theists offer in defense of belief in a good God. His attempts to explain what good there is in the world mirror the theist's attempts to explain the evil. If Booblefrip's explanations are deeply inadequate, why aren't the theist's explanations? That's the question theists needs to answer.

Of course, theists consider belief in an all-evil God to be downright silly. And rightly so: there's clearly far too much good in the world. So why is it that they consistently fail to recognize that the sheer quantity of suffering in the world renders their belief in an all-good God equally silly? Surely, even if the universe does have a designer/creator, isn't it patently obvious that this being is neither all-evil, nor all-good?

Stephen Law is a lecturer in philosophy at London University. He edits the Royal Institute of Philosophy's journal Think: Philosophy for Everyone and is the author of The Philosophy Gym. He has a Web site at www.thinking-big.co.uk.

This nice dialogue reminds me of the The Screwtape Letters.

The argument from evil simply refutes theism. End of story.