Examining the Christian Arguments Against Cameron's Claims

**UPDATE: Looks like I was right to be skeptical.**

So now the book is coming out, which will detail the claims and the evidence, along with the movie, which I have embedded the trailer of below. The book should help us to know how likely this tomb really is to be that of Jesus of the Bible.

As I said, I'm not convinced about Cameron's claims; time will give me more evidence to know one way or the other. However, since I was pointed to a few Christian responses to the new claims about the tomb of Jesus being Jesus of the Bible, I want to examine them for their merits, in order to help me decide if Cameron's claims are more likely or less likely. The first is Stands to Reason, who forwards a correspondence from Paul L. Maier, Ph.D., Litt.D, History Dept. of WMU:

1) Nothing is new here: scholars have known about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980. The general public learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them in 1996. James Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist bandwagon as well. He [sic]

No one is claiming that the find is new, so I don't see how this is highly relevant. The reason this movie and documentary are coming out now, they claim, is that the DNA work has been completed, and the names on the ossuaries have all [finally] been translated. Point 1 is weak.

2) All the names – Yeshua, Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose -- are extremely frequent Jewish names for that time and place, and thus most schol-ars consider this merely coincidental, as they did from the start. One-quarter of Jewish women at that time, for example, were named Maria.

This seems to be the best question to ask, "How likely is it that there is another family, of the same relational status (with the same names and same DNA heredity) as that claimed for Jesus of the Bible, in Jerusalem in the 1st CE?" Well...so far, Christians have admitted the numbers, while claiming that it isn't very likely:

Here are the details on names provided to me by Prof Richard Bauckham of St. Andrews and sourced in a famous catalogue of ossuary names that has been out since 2002 with the information known about this locale since c. 1980.:

“Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. The first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraries.

1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4

For women, we have a total of 328 occurrences (women's names are much less often recorded than men's), and figures for the 4 most popular names are thus:

Mary/Mariamne 70 42
Salome 58 41
Shelamzion 24 19
Martha 20 17

You can see at once that all the names you're interested were extremely popular. 21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne (Mary). The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed.”

Once I saw these numbers, I was a bit surprised that the Christians tried to spin them as they did. Simply put, if only 218 and 99 out of 2625 males [8.30%, 3.77%] and 70 out of 328 females [21.3%] have these names, then a basic probability calculation based on randomness, determining the probability that Joseph, Jesus, Mary and Mary would be buried together, would tell you that: (218/2625) * (99/2625) * (70/328) * (70/328) is the probability that these would all occur in an interdependent fashion, assuming random distribution and based on the sample sizes for the population in general. That number is: 105,751,800/741,321,000,000, or 0.00014265, or .0143 out of 100.

I don't know how safe it is to assume a random distribution, but any way you spin this, the numbers don't make your case extremely strong. Furthermore, this is ignoring the familial relationship, which would, indeed make these odds even more staggering given extra probability factors for the likelihood that a man named Joseph and a woman named Mary would sire a man named Jesus, who would be buried with a wife named Mary Magdalene. Those odds would become astronomical.

If you took any one, or two of these admittedly common names and threw them together, then sure, no big deal. But in doing a careful statistical analysis, I don't think that Christians have a strong case here. Ancient Palestine was not nearly so large as we would think, with both Shiloh and Broshi estimating the region's maximum urban population during the Roman-Byzantine era at 372,000, and Palestine's entire maximal population at a million. Broshi estimates this maximum occurring at about 600 CE, but the socio-economic conditions he uses provide an upper limit for any point during the entire period. It is likely that 1st CE Palestine had less than did 7th CE, but let's be generous.

If we assume half are men, half women, then apply the percentages above, we see that there are likely to be about 15,440 people named Joseph, 7,010 named Jesus and 39,620 named Mary in urban areas at that time, and 2.688 times each of those for the entire population of Palestine (rural+urban). It seems reasonable to limit the possibilities of interest here to the urban population, given that neither Jesus nor his family are peasants, but instead are able to travel freely and practice a skilled trade.

Thus, at the end of the day, the probabilities of finding a tomb with one or two or three of these names is not conclusive, but finding the hereditary relationship and the four names is quite significant, whether Christians like it or not. Point 2 is what I think this all hangs on.

3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,” as Jacobovici claims.

Having no knowledge of languages, I will leave this one alone, but it seems odd, given that the inscription is plainly available for view, that a major claim would be this wrong. Anyone can view and translate it. Hmmm...

4) So what if her DNA is different from that of “Yeshua” ? That particular "Mariamme” (as it is usually spelled today) could indeed have been the wife of that particular “Yeshua.”

Again, it isn't really about one relationship, it's the question of how likely this entire family is to be the family of interest, based on several criteria.

5) What in the world is the “Jesus Family” doing, having a burial plot in Jerusalem, of all places, the very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was their home. In Galilee they could have had such a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which, church tradition – and Eusebius – are unanimous in reporting that Mary died in Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied Mary.

This may or may not be a strong point, but I don't see how one couldn't reconcile the notion that Eusebius had reliable information with this finding, if it is true. Moving bones from one place to another is hardly unheard of in those times. Especially if another part of the family is buried elsewhere.

6) If this were Jesus’ family burial, what is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Ma-tia” is thus to be translated?

I don't know if this does anything to detract from it. This doesn't have to be the Matthew of the Bible, first and foremost. Second, the last biblical mention of Matthew is in Acts, in Jerusalem. Third, Matthew could very well have requested to have been buried with his teacher, or perhaps he was the one who moved all their remains to his tomb and thus was buried there himself.

7) How come there is no tradition whatever – Christian, Jewish, or secular -- that any part of the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

This is an argument from silence, which suits Christians well here, but suits them very poorly in defense of the life of Jesus from contemporary secular sources. Christians do believe that Jesus was buried here, they just don't believe he stayed buried here. So far as I know, Christians don't have a reliable source to point to where Jesus' family was buried, although of course Catholics believe Mary ascended. Further, I don't know how to even analyze this claim at all, since I'm not familiar with how early these traditions are, aside from Josephus, and given that we all know that he never mentioned Jesus' tomb one way or the other. It seems quite reasonable that if Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem that he would've been buried there. Then, it seems reasonable to assume that his family would've wanted to have been buried with him if they could've been. This point is weak, as it hinges on the argument from silence and turns on an assumption that is unfounded.

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches. You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the man “explained” just everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament! It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again. – As for James Cameron, how do you follow The Titanic? Well, with an even more “titanic” story. He should have known better.

Argumentum ad hominem -- attacking the character of the person presenting evidence, rather than addressing the evidence itself. Either the evidence stands or falls, the person who found it doesn't matter. Point 8 is pitiful.

I think the 2nd point -- about statistical likelihood, is what all of this is contingent upon. There is, really, no way to prove any particular Jesus that one digs up from the 1st CE is the Jesus of the Bible, aside from the other things found in the tomb with that Jesus. In this case, I think the names of the family, and the correct hereditary relationships, is the crux of the issue. Simply not knowing how he got there, or pointing to a lack of tradition, doesn't present any serious refutation to the claims. I will reserve personal judgment until I see more data on the statistics and perhaps read the book.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion

Just Another Liberal Venting...Right?

Guess who said the following:

"Who is losing Afghanistan?

"George W. Bush, that's who. His watch. His administration. His incompetence. His arrogance. His failure to learn from failure.

"I wish I could say that I was surprised by this latest report from Aghanistan, but I'm not ... As I've said time and time before, the decision by the Bush administration to prioritize the drug war ahead of the war against the Taliban is, of course, madness. It's time for the Brits to take a stand, and announce that either Bush's drug warriors leave Afghanistan or Britain's troops do. Ninety days would seem to be adequate warning."

Who is it just ranting again about how the GOP really isn't strong on national security, on how they're losing the real war to the real enemy responsible for 9/11 and global terrorism? Some damn liberal, right?

Was it Hillary? Obama? Al Franken? Some generic Hollywood liberal?

Wrong -- Andrew Stuttaford, on the blog of conservative National Review. How many people will have to turn against their own party before someone impeaches the lunatic naked emperor?
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

New Eddy by Paul Kurtz on "Evangelical Atheists"

People like Paul Kurtz are a boon to the freethought community and a bane to theists. The man is brilliant, visionary enough to have founded the CFI and recognized the serious need to organize our ranks, a moral objectivist, an articulate philosopher and a cool head when the waters of discourse are often turbid with emotive ranting. His new editorial, "Are ‘Evangelical Atheists’ Too Outspoken?" is much-needed food for thought for those of us who are turned off, at times, by Dawkins-esque antics:

What is often overlooked by the critics of “evangelical atheism” is that skepticism about the existence of God does not by itself define who and what we are. For there is a commitment to the realization of human freedom and happiness in this life here and now and to a life of excellence, creativity, and fulfillment. Life is meaningful without the illusion of immortality.

A good point to ponder -- if we don't have something positive to offer, are we "evangelizing for atheism"? What positive thing could compel us to vehemently "evangelize" towards nonbelief? Sure, we could be motivated against fundamentalist religion and miltant religiosity...but even to rail against liberal believers, and Deistic types?

If we have no message to promote and spread, other than a critique of theism, then are we "evangelizing" at all? No. It wouldn't be the proper term. Secular fideism doesn't sit well with those who want to have a foundation of reason and morality to build upon to move away from religious superstitions and myths.

Are ‘Evangelical Atheists’ Too Outspoken?
by Paul Kurtz

The recent publication of four books—The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins; The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both by Sam Harris; and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett—has provoked great controversy and consternation.* The fact that books by Dawkins and Harris have made it to The New York Times best-seller list has apparently sent chills down the spines of many commentators; not only conservative religionists but also some otherwise liberal secularists are worried about this unexpected development. We note that the people now being attacked are affiliated with FREE INQUIRY and the Center for Inquiry. The editors of FREE INQUIRY, of course, are gratified that the views espoused in these pages have received a wider forum. What disturbs us is the preposterous outcry that atheists are “evangelical” and that they have gone too far in their criticism of religion.

Really? The public has been bombarded by pro-religious propaganda from time immemorial—today it comes from pulpits across the land, TV ministries, political hucksters, and best-selling books. Indeed, at the present moment, the apocalyptic Left Behind series, coauthored by evangelist Tim LaHaye, is an all-time blockbuster. Other best-sellers include The Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren and a slew of books attacking liberal secularists and humanists by religious conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly.

Let’s be fair: Until now, it has been virtually impossible to get a fair hearing for critical comment upon uncontested religious claims. It was considered impolite, in bad taste, and it threatened to raise doubts about God’s existence or hegemony. I have often said that it is as if an “iron curtain” had descended within America, for skeptics have discovered that the critical examination of religion has been virtually verboten. We have experienced firsthand how journalists and producers have killed stories about secular humanism for fear of offending the little old ladies and gentlemen in the suburbs, conservative advertisers, the Catholic hierarchy, or right-wing fundamentalists. It is difficult to find any politicians who are not intimidated and will admit that they are disbelievers or agnostics, let alone atheists. Today, there are very few, if any, clearly identified atheist personalities in the media—Bill Maher is a notable exception. The war against secularism by the Religious Right is unremitting. Even New York Times columnists are running scared. We note the column by Nicolas Kristof (December 3, 2006) calling for a “truce on religion.” He deplores the “often obnoxious atheist offensive” of “secular fundamentalism.”

Science columnist William J. Broad, in a piece published earlier this year in the Times (February 28, 2006), criticized both Daniel C. Dennett and Edward O. Wilson (another Center for Inquiry stalwart). Dennett, complains Broad, “likens spiritual belief to a disease” and looks to science “to explain its grip on humanity.” Broad faults E.O. Wilson for writing in an earlier book (Consilience [Knopf, 1998]) that “the insights of neuroscience and evolution . . . increasingly can illuminate even morality and ethics, with the scientific findings potentially leading ‘more directly and safely to stable moral codes’ than do the dictates of God’s will or the findings of transcendentalism.” Broad remonstrates against such views, maintaining that they exhibit “a kind of arrogance,” and he likewise recommends that scientists declare a truce in their critiques of religion. To which I reply that it is important that we apply scientific inquiry as best we can to all areas of human behavior, including religion and ethics. I fail to see why it is “arrogant” to attempt to do so.

Another Times op-ed piece by Bernard A. Shweder of the University of Chicago (“Atheists Agonistes,” [Novem¬ber 27, 2006]), denigrates the Enlighten¬ment and reminds us that John Locke, author of “Letter Concern¬ing Toleration,” de¬fended tolerance in democratic societies for everyone but atheists. We note that the National Review and the Jewish Forward are also worried by “militant secularists” who question established religions—they were ob¬jecting to an advertisement the Center for Inquiry/Transnational ran on the op-ed page of The New York Times (Novem¬ber 15, 2006), headlined “In Defense of Science and Secularism.” We think it appropriate to defend the integrity of science and the importance of secularism at a time when both are under heavy attack.

We should point out that, over the years, Prometheus Books, a company I founded, has consistently published books examining the claims of religion. Now, the fact that mainline publishers, largely owned as they are by conglomerates, have published books by scientists critical of belief in God—because they see that they can make a buck by doing it—has shocked the guardians of the entrenched faiths. But why should the nonreligious, nonaffiliated, secular minority in the country remain silent? We dissenters now comprise some 14 to 16 percent of the population. Why should religion be held immune from criticism, and why should the admission that one is a disbeliever be considered so disturbing? The Bush administration has supported faith-based charities—though their efficacy has not been adequately tested; it has prohibited federal funding for stem cell research; it has denied global warming; and it has imposed abstinence programs instead of promoting condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS. Much of this mischief is religiously inspired. How can we remain mute while Islam and the West are poised for a possible protracted world conflagration in the name of God?

Given all these facts, why should the criticism of religion provoke such an outcry?

THEOLOGICAL VERSUS HUMANIST ETHICS

One charge often hurled at disbelievers is that we have nothing positive to offer. On the contrary, we at Free Inquiry have always maintained that it is possible for an individual to lead a good life and be morally concerned about others without belief in God. We have pointed out that the traditional creeds often condoned heinous crimes: censorship, repression, slavery, war, torture, genocide, the domination of women, the denial of human freedom, and opposition to new frontiers of scientific research. We surely cannot condemn all religions, and we recognize that some religions have performed good works: providing charity to the poor and consoling the sick and weak at times of suffering or tragedy. Religions are among the oldest human institutions on the planet. They developed in agricultural and nomadic societies. “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” expresses the metaphors of premodern and prescientific cultures. Many of them would later oppose modern secular trends and fight against democratic reforms. Indeed, the achievements of human progress in the past have often been in spite of opposition from devout religious believers. Today is another day, and religious liberals now support many of the ideals and values of modern secularism and humanism; they may support science and even not be unsympathetic to biblical criticism. Yet in spite of this, they often cling to earlier mythological creeds spun out in the infancy of the race.

What is often overlooked by the critics of “evangelical atheism” is that skepticism about the existence of God does not by itself define who and what we are. For there is a commitment to the realization of human freedom and happiness in this life here and now and to a life of excellence, creativity, and fulfillment. Life is meaningful without the illusion of immortality. There is also the recognition that the cultivation of the common moral decencies—caring, em¬pathy, and altruism—is an essential part of our relating to other human beings in our communities of interaction. Humanists have always been concerned with achieving justice in society. Many of the heroes and heroines in human history were freethinkers who contributed significantly to democratic progress and a defense of human rights. Indeed, the agenda of secular humanism is twofold: first is the quest for truth, a critical examination of the assumptions of supernatural religion in the light of science; second is the development of affirmative ethical alternatives for the individual, the society in which he or she lives, and also the planetary community at large. To label us “evangelical atheists” without recognizing our affirmative commitment to secular humanist morality is an egregious error.

Sunni versus Shiite Muslims

Of special horror today is the carnage inflicted by the Sunnis and Shiites, the two major branches of Islam, upon each other in Iraq. We’re told that the conflict is “sectarian,” as though we should leave it at that. We beg to differ. This is a religious conflict, driven by clashes over theology and history. That fact, which the blander word sectarian underemphasizes, should not be overlooked.

The horrendous slaughter between two factions of Islam, claiming thousands not only killed but tortured each month in Iraq, proceeds from doctrinal differences about the origins of Islam and the proper successors of Muham¬mad. The Shiites (concentrated mostly in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) comprise about 15 percent of the world’s Muslims; the Sunni most of the remainder.

The Shia Muslims believe that the rightful successor of Muhammad after his death should have been Ali, the second person to accept Islam (after Muhammad’s wife Khadija). Ali was the male head of “the people of the prophet’s house” (Ahlul Bayt). Shiites believe that Ali was appointed by direct order of Muhammad himself. The branch supporting Ali is also known as the “Party of Ali.” Upon the death of Muhammad, however, the majority of Muslims favored Abu Bakr as the first caliph. He was succeeded by the second and third caliphs, Umar and Uthman; the fourth was Ali. The Sunnis recognize the heirs of the four Caliphs (including Ali) as the only legitimate Islamic leaders, the Shia recognize only those of Ali. There are also important doctrinal differences in the interpretation of the Hadith, allegedly based on the testimony of the Prophet’s original companions.

One can only imagine why, thirteen centuries later, men and women are so concerned about these differences that they will destroy each others’ mosques and slaughter one another over them. This, of course, is reminiscent of the battles between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Europe, such as the Hundred Years War in the early modern period, when there were disputes about the hegemony and authority of the Bishop of Rome. The alleged statement of Jesus to Peter in the New Testament, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” has led to vast bloodshed and violence when Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox rejected the authority of the pope. But this happened centuries ago, and Christians by and large have learned to tame their animosities and have abandoned the Inquisition and Holy Crusades. Appar¬ently, the disputes in the Muslim world are as great as ever, and the world watches in horror as violent jihad is unleashed. The key lesson to learn is that it’s not so much the existence of God (or Allah) that is in dispute, for both factions claim to believe in the deity, but the authenticity and legitimacy of divine Revelation, delivered, in this case, to Muhammad, who transmitted it to humanity. The key issue is whether these ancient revelations (those of Muham¬mad, Jesus, Paul, Moses, Abraham, etc.) have been corroborated by reliable eyewitnesses or rather have been corrupted by an oral tradition and insufficient eyewitnesses. But that is another matter.

“Enough already,” we say in disgust. Surely, there must be other sources of morality besides religion. From the fatherhood of God, one can deduce all sorts of contrary moral prescriptions, as one can justify bloodshed, torture, punishment, and death in the name of Allah. This is an old story in human history that has been repeated time and time again. When religion becomes dogmatic, when it becomes thoroughly entrenched in human civilization and institutions, the only way to overcome differences of creed seems to be violence. The best antidote for such devastating nonsense, in my judgment, is the cultivation of critical thinking and the administration of a dose of scientific skepticism to unmask the claims of faith.

The Iraqi Bloodbath

The war in Iraq has degenerated into a bloody religious war between two factions of Islam on the one hand, yet, on the other, it is also a brutal confrontation with Western interests and values.

The editors of FREE INQUIRY opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. We argued that a preemptive strike against Iraq without the support of the United Nations had no legal or moral justification, unlike Afghanistan. The fear that Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction was mistaken. Weapons of mass destruction could not be found. There did not seem to be any direct connection between Al Qaeda-supported terrorism and the Iraqi government. While we were well aware of the dangerous ideological views of radical Islamists across the region, we were concerned that the invasion of Iraq could make matters worse by exacerbating the situation (as it has).

We submit that the plausible motive for the preemptive strike against Iraq was to secure a base in order to protect the future export of oil and gas deposits in the region. The claim that we wished to establish democracy and human rights in Iraq (a noble, if perhaps impractical, goal) might be viewed as a rationalization after the fact.

One aspect of the Iraq war that has been unfortunately minimized by the media is the vast numbers of casualties among the Iraqi people. The lands surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers—the “cradle of civilization”—have undergone absolute devastation, an enormous human tragedy for the Iraqi people. The destruction of cultural artifacts and treasures in Iraq’s museums illustrates the insensitivity to priceless historic values. The number of Iraqi refuges who have fled the country is enormous. The malnutrition suffered by Iraqi children during the years of sanctions as well as during the war is another concern. We are especially disturbed, however, by the excessive loss of life in the civilian population—let alone the dead and wounded American soldiers.

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D–Ohio) convened a special House hearing on December 12, 2006, devoted to an examination of the extent of “collateral damage,” as it is euphemistically called. This was broadcast over C-SPAN. The key participants were Les Roberts (Columbia and Johns Hopkins) and Gilbert Burnham (Johns Hopkins), who had conducted a survey to ascertain the number of civilian deaths caused by violence over and beyond normal death rates. Their work was published in the British medical journal The Lancet, one of the leading publications of its kind in the world. Roberts and Burnham used the “cluster method” of tabulation, in which a randomized selection process in certain areas throughout Iraq was used as the basis for the survey. The Lancet article estimated that 650,000 to 900,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American and British invasion in 2003. The mass media has basically ignored or underreported the number of casualties. The Bush administration insisted that the number was much lower, but Roberts and Burnham maintain that there were actually at least 650,000 deaths among people who are in essence noncombatants. Some defenders of the administration question the cluster methodology for estimating deaths, but Roberts and Burn¬ham insist it is reliable. (It was reliable enough to be used by the American military in Bosnia, the Congo, and elsewhere.)

The basic issue concerns innocent civilians, not Iraqi soldiers nor the combatants of the various tribes that wander the streets and kill people. On the basis of these tragic casualties, a good case can be made that the “gang of four” (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice) have made enormous blunders and that Pres¬ident Bush may have committed impeachable offenses.

• The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)
• The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both by Sam Harris (W.W. Norton and Company, 2004, and Knopf, 2006, respectively)
• Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett (Viking Adult, 2006).
  

Paul Kurtz is Editor in Chief of Free Inquiry, a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University at Buffalo, and Chairman of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational.

Although it digresses a bit into politics unnecessarily, the points are well established.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Politics, Philosophy

The Long-awaited Scientific Mechanism of Intelligent Design Creationism: "Poof!"

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2007/02/25/
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

More on "Yeshua bar Yehosef"

I mentioned that Cameron claims to have found Jesus' tomb yesterday, and that they'll be airing more on the research on March 4 on Discovery (see website).

While I think it interesting that an ossuary was discovered bearing the inscription, "Jesus, son of Joseph," and that they claim DNA testing confirms the genetic relations of the other occupants of the tombs, also inscribed with Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc., I simply don't know enough history or archeology to evaluate a claim like this on my own. I'll wait to see what the skeptical/liberal experts have to say. If even they are dubious, then I think it quite unlikely that this means much.

So far, predictably, conservative scholars have slammed it.

Obviously, the names Mary, Jesus and Joseph were very common at this time. But the likelihood of finding them all together in one familial tomb, with proper inscriptions and with DNA evidence makes this find quite interesting. We'll have to wait and see as the evidence is released to the scientific community.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion

The Mini-Fridge that Launches Beer to You (on the couch) via Remote Control

No more, "Honey, can you get me a beer while you're up...?" I am sooo getting one of these:


Robotic Beer Launching Refrigerator


See here and here for more.
________________
Technorati tags: cool stuff

The Party of Caligula Loots the Smithsonian

Here's a story detailing the fraudulence and corruption under Republican employees at the Smithsonian.

I'm talking $1M salaries and, quote:"Lawrence M. Small, the top official at the Smithsonian Institution, accumulated nearly $90,000 in unauthorized expenses from 2000 to 2005, including charges for chartered jet travel, his wife's trip to Cambodia..."

This group of asshats allowed the Disco Institute to use their facilities to air creationist nonsense, in order to falsely impress upon the audience that the Smithsonian approved of their content or had reviewed it, but wouldn't let Olson's "Flock of Dodos" be shown. Go figure. More GOP corruption and pro-creationism (a.k.a. scientific ignorance): who'da thunk it?

James Cameron Claims Jesus' Tomb Discovered

Call me a skeptic, but I'll believe this one when I see more evidence. Where in the hell did he get DNA profiles to compare it with? Is there a reliable historic record of the lineages of Jesus' parents? Is someone down that line preserved, and the donor of the DNA profile?

How would someone like Cameron have information that the entire scientific community was locked out of?

See here and here for some details.

I'm with PZ on this one: BS. I'm hopeful that it's right, of course, so that people can quit wasting their lives and billions of dollars on a dead guy who was deified. But I'm too cynical to actually think it will happen.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion

Buying Blue

In my last post, I mentioned avoiding Amazon and going for B&N:

(For those of you who don't know it, Amazon is a majority GOP contributor, while B&N gives them nada; I'm going to stop supporting the former altogether, and you should too.)

I thought it worthwhile to actually devote a post to following-up on this with a little emphasis.

Simply put, the elections are about 600 days away. Without millions of dollars in corporate and personal donations, candidates have little hope to win. While I am actually in favor of government-sponsored campaigns, wherein the candidates are not allowed a red cent towards getting themselves elected, and have only travel expenses and some radio and TV spots provided for them, we are not yet in that ideal system. In that system, campaign-related lobbying is bungled, if not slowed to a grinding halt, as candidates no longer have to take money while nodding, "Okay, I'll remember this." Given the state of the media, the internet and the need for ethics reform, I think my idea is actually quite logical. No candidate would worry about not having coverage, because the regulations would level the playing field, and media are always at events to give them free TV time. The "series of tubes" also has changed the face of politics forever, and its influence will exponentially increase over time with the younger, internet-addicted crowd becoming the bloc.

For now, we have to resign ourselves to the system as it is, and do what we can to support our candidates and oppose the worst theocrats of the lot, and the most hypocritical, on the other side. So what can we do to influence the other side? Simple: quit supporting companies that support them.

Go sign up and get involved at BuyBlue.org. Learn the companies that support science, the environment, human rights and civil liberties. Support those companies. Boycott all the rest. The Religious Right has being doing this for decades, and it's high time that pro-science, anti-discrimination, pro-civil liberties persons of all backgrounds (basically, the exact opposite of the RR) start doing it as well. It's still 600 days until the election, but it will take time, corporate quarters, and a concerted effort for them to notice and for the effect to begin to take hold. That's why it's crucial to start today.

Mark Monford wrote a seminal column on this topic for the SFGate back in 2004. Its logic is just as solid today:

This is what happened: there was this list, see, a long and rather surprising list of major consumer corporations in America, and it detailed just how much money each company forked over to the respective political parties last year in political-action-committee (PAC) donations.

Stop yawning. It gets better.

And the list was a bit revelatory and interesting, as such lists are often wont to be, and the companies' fiscal behavior might even surprise you a little, might even take you aback and make you reconsider your consumerist options, especially the part about how Amazon.com gave 60 percent of their donations to the GOP and except maybe for the part about how Coors Brewing gave almost every penny of their donations to Republicans in a concerted effort to, presumably, stop them icky Colorado gays from getting married and keep women in their place, all while furthering the cause of skanky undrinkable pisswater beer made for red-blooded Americans who lack taste buds and hope.

And this list, it recently winged its way around the Net and landed in a million liberal e-mail boxes and it became an instant mini sensation, and then did what any good electronic sensation does: it spawned a Web site.

And the site, called buyblue.org (along with its more detailed but less intuitively named counterpart, choosetheblue.com), spawned a mini movement and the mini movement spawned this very column and now you are right now encouraged to go see for yourself and discover the moderately shocking truths regarding which big shiny companies suck up to the happy sneering homophobic enviro-slappin' warmongering Repubs and which give thousands to the whiny limping kick-us-when-we're-down Demos.

And then what? Just what are you supposed to do with this information? Well, like any good American living in a gutted economy that's trillions in debt, all while a massive bogus unwinnable war is being waged by the most irresponsible cadre of pseudo-leaders this nation has ever known, you go shopping.

But maybe, just maybe, you shift your choices just a little. Maybe you change where your weakened and abused dollar goes as it slowly dawns on you that you might not be as powerless as you might've thought.

And maybe you recognize that if there's one thing that corporations absolutely goddamn never fail to respond to in a million years, it's the bottom line, consumer satisfaction, the almighty but increasingly limp dollar. You think?

Because I don't care how shriveled the souls of a given company's GOP-lovin' board of directors are, if they see profits dropping because all the shoppers in the huge and culturally potent blue cities -- the shoppers, in other words, who don't live in the red welfare states and hence who actually have a shred of disposable income and maybe a modicum of concern and integrity regarding who profits when they spend it -- if they notice that those shoppers are suddenly skipping nasty little Circuit City (98 percent to Repubs) and instead buy their compressed-plastic Japanese-made landfill-ready electronics at monstrous Price Club (98 percent to Dems), well, it sends them a message.

And the message is, in a calm and respectful nutshell, "Bite me."

Because this is what I get asked all the time: What can I do? How can I possibly help stop the ominous onslaught of born-again right-wing hypocrisy and fear and the Parents Television Council and all the bogus Texas machismo now flooding the nation like a bad country song? Here is part of your answer.

And no, it ain't exactly like marching in the streets and it ain't exactly as helpful as shifting your lifestyle over to organic foods and sustainable living and to buying local and supporting hybrid this and recyclable that, all while cranking your alt-spiritual vibration and having spectacular and deeply nonconservative sex.

But it's something. It's a start, a baby step. It is about getting informed, just a little, and realizing that you are, in fact, the fuel for America's economic engine, and if you decide to get yourself into massive credit card debt at the right kind of stores instead of those whose executives apparently believe that God really does hate gays and trees and women and the poor and anyone who wears a turban or speaks French, well, maybe it will make you feel just slightly more aligned and maybe it can make a tiny bit of difference and Goddess knows a difference is so desperately needed right now you can't even believe it.

What can you do? You can skip the Marriott or the Holiday Inn (76 and 73 percent to the GOP respectively), and stay at the lib-friendly Hyatt. Skip Yahoo.com (58 percent to the GOP -- what the hell?) and head over to Google, which gave 100 percent (!) of their donations to the Dems (side note: Google rules).

What else? Toss American and Continental, fly JetBlue. Join NetFlix. Screw Repub-lovin' Wal-Mart and K-Mart (and, if you're reading this column, chances are you need no prompting from me to avoid those epic karmic wastelands) and head over to the giant vortex of consumer madness known as Bed Bath & Beyond, which gave 93 percent to the Dems. I know. I hate that store, too. But now you get to hate them a little less.

Another amazing example? Starbucks. And as much as I despise their ruthless march into funky neighborhoods and strip malls across the nation, the coffee monolith does indeed have truly fabulous employee benefits and incredible customer service, and now you learn that they gave 100 percent of their donations, every single frothy frappaccinoed dime, to the Democrats. It's true. So leave that hideous Folgers and the Sanka swill to jittery BushCo. Go get yourself a peppermint mocha and feel good about it.

As for Amazon, well, it is a bit distressing for many of us who love that bulbous megastore and who shop there all the time to discover that they gave so much to Repubs, which is just odd and a bit inexplicable, especially given how they're based in hugely liberal Seattle and geeky CEO Jeff Bezos seemed at one time to be reasonably attuned and quirky and progressive, except maybe he's not.

Maybe he's just another hollow profiteer who supports war and disses foreigners and thinks gays are, you know, icky. But then again, Amazon did give 40 percent to Democrats. So it's a close call. After all, the venerable and terminally annoying Barnes & Noble gave 98 percent to the Dems, and I can't stand Barnes & Noble. But now, like Starbucks, I hate them a little less. And now maybe I'll just skip Amazon and buy my next gift copy of "The Surrender" or "What's the Matter with Kansas?" or "The Book of Bunny Suicides" from B&N instead.

See? See how easy? Baby steps, people. Baby steps.

Amen. I'm going to avoid supporting small business owners who I know are major contributors to the GOP and to Religious Right churches and candidates. I'm going to start checking here, in the categorized BuyBlue directory, every time I need to go make a serious purchase, and get in the habit of using these companies exclusively. It's a good start. And it makes me feel empowered -- I'm doing what little I can to defend my values against those who wish to replace mine with theirs. This is our way to fight back: without guns, and with a longer-lasting, more important effect. Plus you get to buy guilt-free $4 coffee. :-)
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

"Biology and Bullshit"

I found a rather long but very good review of 12 books on science and religion, along with social commentary, at the Richard Dawkins' site. The review is by David P. Barash, psychology professor and author of Madame Bovary's Ovaries: a Darwinian look at literature and is entitled "Biology and Bullshit".

He is obviously coming from a left-leaning/secular viewpoint, but I think he does a good job of summarizing the factual points of the books and some social issues that have spurred them on. He lets his interpretation of the worthiness of those points shine through, but the reviews are valuable for those who have considered texts on science and religion. I have only modified some formatting, and added B&N links to all the books. (For those of you who don't know it, Amazon is a majority GOP contributor, while B&N gives them nada; I'm going to stop supporting the former altogether, and you should too.) Read it there or read it below:

Biology and Bullshit
by David P. Barash, posted 2/24/07

Books Discussed in this Essay:

• Religion Explained: the evolutionary origins of religious thought, by Pascal Boyer. (Basic Books, 2002)
• The Language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief, by Francis Collins. (The Free Press, 2006)
• The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)
• Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel C. Dennett. (Viking Press, 2006)
• Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris. (Knopf, 2006)
• Evolving God: a provocative view of the origins of religion, by Barbara King. (Doubleday, 2007)
• Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion, by L. A. Kirkpatrick. Guilford Publications, 2005.
• Evolution and Christian Faith: reflections of an evolutionary biologist, by Joan Roughgarden. (Island Press, 2006)
• The Varieties of Scientific Experience: a personal view of the search for god, by Carl Sagan. (The Penguin Press, 2006)
• Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society by David Sloan Wilson. (University of Chicago Press, 2002)
• The Creation: an appeal to save life on earth, by Edward. O. Wilson. (W. W. Norton, 2006)
• Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: the evolutionary origins of belief, by Lewis Wolpert. (W. W. Norton, 2007)
  

All books supporting religion are alike. All books attacking it do so in their own way (well, maybe not, but doesn't this start us off on a nice Tolstoyan note?). In any event, religion's interface with science - long fraught - seems especially so these days, with a bevy of books criticizing religion as well as defending it.

Why so much attention, just now? Exhibit A: creationist efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution, masquerading as "intelligent design." Next, the takeover of the US executive branch by right-wing ayatollahs, combined with presidential assertions that his policies are undertaken in furtherance of god's will, not to mention efforts to break down the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" between church and state. Add to this the so-called war on terror, which is largely a struggle with radical Islam in response to the latter's faith-based initiative against the United States.

Meanwhile, American stem-cell research continues to be hobbled by the insistence that every fertilized cell has been "ensouled" and is therefore human and holy. And don't forget the conspicuous rise of the right-wing evangelical movement in the United States – bastion of religiosity in the developed world - featuring such gems as Pat Robertson's assertion that catastrophes, from natural hurricanes to unnatural terrorism, are brought about by god's displeasure with the sexually or textually sinful.

In short, it is fair to say that "they" (religious zealots) started it, as they usually do. It was the Catholic Church that burned Bruno and persecuted Galileo, not the other way around. When have atheists claimed that religious devotees will burn in hell, or sought to hurry them along not with words but flaming faggots? Polls consistently show Americans more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who is an anencephalic ax murderer (but religious) than the most admirable atheist. In any event, it appears that despite – or, perhaps, because of – being an oppressed minority, some atheists are finally madder than hell (and/or mad at hell) and unwilling to "take it" any more.

In his 2003 book, The End of Faith, Sam Harris pointed out that alone of all human assertions, those qualifying as "religious," almost by definition, automatically demand and typically receive immense respect, even veneration. Claim that the Earth is flat, or that the Tooth Fairy exists, and you will be deservedly laughed at. But maintain that according to your religion, a 6th century desert tribal leader ascended to heaven on a winged horse, and you are immediately entitled to deference. (By the way, is the similar claim that a predecessor ascended to heaven, roughly 600 years earlier, without aid of a winged horse less ridiculous … or more?) It has long been, let us say, an article of faith that at least in polite company, religious faith – belief without evidence – should go unchallenged. Much of the recent uproar comes from just such challenging, among which biologists have been prominent.

Like Mark Twain's celebrated comment about stopping smoking, scholars have found it easy to explain religion: they've done it hundreds of times, in psychological, psychoanalytic, sociological, historical, anthropological and economic terms. Biologists, by contrast, have been Johnnies-come-lately, a neglect that has been changing of late, as growing numbers seek to explore the evolutionary factors – the likely "adaptive significance" – of religion. Indeed, given that religion is, in one form or another, a cross-cultural universal, that it has had such powerful effects on human beings (for good and ill), and yet its biological underpinnings remain so elusive, religion is an especially ripe topic for biologists' scrutiny.

It would seem both a fertile field and a frustrating one. Thus, on the one hand, religious belief of one sort of another seems to qualify as a cross-cultural universal, therefore suggesting that it might well have emerged, somehow, from the cross-cultural universality of human nature, the common evolutionary background shared by all Homo sapiens. But on the other, it often appears that religious practice is fitness-reducing rather than enhancing; if so, then genetically mediated tendencies toward religion should have been selected against. Think of the frequent religious advocacy of sexual restraint (not uncommonly, outright celibacy), of tithing, self-abnegating moral duty and other seeming diminutions of personal fitness, along with the characteristic denial of the "evidence of our senses" in favor of faith in things asserted but not clearly demonstrated. What might be the fitness-enhancing benefits of religion that compensate for these costs? The question itself is novel: social scientists, for example, have long considered religion as a thing sui generis, not as a behavioral predisposition that arose because in some way it contributed to the survival and reproduction of its participants.

For Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), as well as Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell), religion is primarily the misbegotten offspring of memes that promote themselves in human minds: essentially, religion as mental virus, and thus, something adaptive for "itself" and not for its "victims." Or it could be a nonadaptive byproduct of something adaptive in its own right. For example, children seem hard-wired to accept parental teaching, since such input is likely to be fitness-enhancing ("This is good to eat," "Don't pet the saber-tooth," and so forth). This, in turn, makes children vulnerable to whatever else they are taught ("Respect the Sabbath," "Cover your hair") as well as – if we are to believe Freud, in The Future of an Illusion – downright needy when it comes to parent-like beings, leading especially to the patriarchal sky-god of the Abrahamic faiths.

Anthropologist Weston La Barre developed a similar argument, in Shadow of Childhood, going on to propose that prayer is unique to our species, resulting from our prolonged, neotonous, developmental trajectory: "No other animal when in distress or danger magically commands or prayerfully begs the environment to change its nature for the organism's specific benefit. Calling upon the 'supernatural' to change the natural is an exclusively human reaction. … [O]ne doubts that even herding animals like the many antelope species in Africa have gods they call upon when they fall behind the fleeing herd and are about to be killed by lions, wild dogs, cheetahs or hyenas. Antelope infancy and parenthood do not present such formative extravagancies. And in the circumstances the belief itself would be highly maladaptive."

For Dawkins in particular, religious belief is not only maladaptive – and unjustified – but, given the susceptibility of young children to adult indoctrination, the very teaching of religion to defenseless children is a form of child abuse! Other hypotheses of religion as maladaptive include anthropologist Pascal Boyer's grandly titled Religion Explained, which essentially argues that natural selection would have favored a mechanism for detecting "agency" in nature, enabling its possessor to predict who is about to do what (often, to whom). Since false positives would be much less fitness-reducing than false negatives (i.e., better to attribute malign intent to a tornado – and thus take cover – than to assume it is benign and suffer as a result) selection would promote hypersensitivity, or "overdetection," essentially a hair-trigger system whereby motive is attributed not only to other people, and mastodons, but also trees, hurricanes, or the sun. Add, next, the benefit of "decoupling" such predictions from the actual presence of the being in question ("What might my rival be planning right now?") and the stage is set for attributing causation to "agents" whose agency might well be entirely imagined.

Boyer's work, in turn, converges on that of Stewart Guthrie, whose 1995 book, Faces in the Clouds, made a powerful case for the potency of anthropomorphism, the human tendency to see human (or human-like) images in natural phenomena. This human inclination has morphed into a more specific, named phenomenon: pareidolia, the perception of patterns where none exists (some recent, "real" examples: Jesus's face in a tortilla, the Virgin Mary's outline in a semi-melted hunk of chocolate, Mother Teresa's profile in a cinnamon bun.)

Not all biologically based hypotheses for the evolution of religion are negative, however. In Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson explores the possibility that religious belief is advantageous for its practitioners because it contributes to solidarity – including but not limited to moral codes – that benefits the group and wouldn't otherwise be within reach. This notion, appealing as it might be, is actually a logical and mathematical stretch for most biologists, relying as it does upon "group selection." The problem is that even if groups displaying a particular trait do better than groups lacking it, selection acting within such groups should favor individuals who "cheat." Mathematical models have shown that group selection can work, in theory, but only if the differential survival of religious groups more than compensates for any disadvantage suffered by individuals within each group. It is at least possible that human beings meet this requirement, especially when it comes to religion, since within-group self-policing could maintain religiosity; it certainly did during the Inquisition.

Biologist Lewis Wolpert seeks to examine the penchant for faith in a book whose title derives from an interchange between Alice and the Red Queen, in which the latter points out that "sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Wolpert describes and interprets various widespread logical fallacies, examining their diverse origins in brain pathology, neurochemical impacts, and other cognitive limitations, seeking to understand why so many people, in the words of H. L. Mencken, "believe passionately in the palpably not true." His book is a useful compendium of hallucinations, confabulations and other self-delusions, with the intriguing added thesis that much science is itself counter-intuitive (the Earth going round the sun rather than vice versa, the fact that even a demonstrably solid object is mostly empty space, the mutability of species, quantum "weirdness," etc.)

Wolpert maintains that "true causal reasoning" is unknown among other animals and often highly flawed in our own species. Yet, as anthropologist Clifford Geertz pointed out, people simply cannot look at the world "in dumb astonishment or blind apathy," so they struggle for explanations – objectively valid or not - resulting inevitably in beliefs. Wolpert then suggests that "those with such beliefs most likely did better." But the bulk of Six Impossible Things … details inaccurate beliefs: How might the holders of false beliefs "do better"? (In short, what is the adaptive significance?) One possibility is that faith in miracles, in golden plates upon which divine wisdom has been inscribed, or in the reality of bright blue elephant-headed gods are not false after all. Another is that such faith has beneficial by-products, like placebo. For now, it isn't clear how attachment to one or many gods actually paid off, since, although a deity may have turned water into wine and helped bring down the walls of Jericho in the distant past, such parent-like beneficence hasn't been reliably documented in recent millennia.

Primatologist and anthropologist Barbara King enters the fray with Evolving God, a knowledgeable, readable, and entertaining excursion into the prehistory of religion, with a refreshing orientation toward nonhuman primates as well as early hominids; Evolving God also has the added merit of pushing beyond the Abrahamic "big three," including a handy account of religious archeology. King's touchstone is "belongingness," that "[h]ominids turned to the sacred realm because they evolved to relate in deeply emotional ways with their social partners, because the resulting mutuality engendered its own creativity and generated increasingly nuanced expressions of belongingness over time, and because the human brain evolved to allow an extension of this belongingness beyond the here and now."

King is convincing about the merits and allure of belongingness, but less so – indeed, she is distressingly silent - when it comes to the adaptive significance of cozying up to the ineffable. If, as she suggests, "at bedrock is the belief that one may be seen, heard, protected, harmed, loved, frightened, or soothed by interaction with God, gods, or spirits," then what in the real world of biology and reproductive fitness has anchored human biology to this bedrock? A feeling of belongingness sounds nice, as does one of cheerfulness, or the contentment that comes from having a full belly … but to be adaptive, one ought to have a genuinely full belly. By the same token, there is little doubt that many people derive consolation from religion, but it would little avail our ancestors, confronted by a saber-tooth, to be consoled by a faith-based certainty that it is really a pussy cat, or that to be mauled by said feline guarantees a rapid ascent to heaven – especially if it makes such ascent more likely! No matter how exalted, feelings divorced from reality can be dangerous delusions.

King is quick to dismiss a "genetic approach" to understanding the evolution of religiosity, heaping what may be appropriate scorn on Dean Hamer's simplistic, over-hyped claim for The God Gene. But the author of Evolving God doesn't seem to realize that any evolutionary approach is necessarily, at its heart, a genetic one. We must conclude, sadly, that a convincing evolutionary explanation for the origin of religion has yet to be formulated. Such an account, were it to arise, would doubtless be unconvincing to believers in any event, because whatever it postulated, it would not conclude that religious belief arose because (1) it simply represents an accurate perception of god, like identification of a predator or of a prospective mate, or (2) it was installed in the human mind and/or genome by god, presumably for his glory and our counter-evidentiary enlightenment.


David Hume began his essay, The Natural History of Religion (1757) as follows: "As every enquiry which regards religion is of the utmost importance, there are two questions in particular which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature." So far, we've been concerned with religion's "origin in human nature." Next, it's "foundation in reason."

The four horsemen of the current antireligious apocalypse are Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Sagan. All are (or in the case of Carl Sagan, who died in 1996, were) passionate advocates of reason, committed to the proposition that religion is essentially unreasonable.

Sagan delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Glasgow in 1985, and we can all be grateful that they are finally available in print; only slightly updated by Ann Druyan, Sagan's wisdom is fresh and relevant today, offering the humane, courageous, and rational vision that became the astronomer's trademark. We owe much to Carl Sagan, not least his Sisyphean efforts at banishing scientific illiteracy and his tireless exhortations in favor of basic planetary hygiene, all abundantly on display in The Varieties of Scientific Experience. Readers will want to join me, as well, in offering a posthumous thank you to Sagan for acquainting us with Rupert Brooke's hilarious poem, "Heaven." (It's too long to quote here, but, as Casey Stengel used to say, you can look it up – on the Web.)

William James delivered an earlier set of Gifford Lectures, turning them into his renowned The Varieties of Religious Experience, in which he defined religion as a "feeling of being at home in the Universe." Carl Sagan certainly had that sense and labored, with great success, to share it. His Varieties leave no doubt that for Sagan, this feeling leaves little or no room for religion, a point he makes with extraordinary grace and often, laugh-out-loud humor.

Carl Sagan is associated with the assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," a dictum applicable not only to various assertions of the paranormal, but to religion as well … assuming that one has the chutzpah to subject such claims to critical scrutiny. Bertrand Russell, for example, once asked how we might respond to someone's heartfelt assertion that a perfect China teapot, too small to be detected, was in elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars. Whose responsibility, for example, would it be to "prove" it? And if the teapot's non-existence could not be verifiably ruled out, does this mean that claims in its favor must be granted equal plausibility with the alternative, null hypothesis?

These and other issues are also confronted by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, whose overt hostility to religion, combined with the brashness and brilliance of his writing, has evoked fury among the faithful and consternation among the decorous. He has the effrontery to dispatch various "proofs" of god's existence: those of Aquinas, Anselm, and what he calls the arguments from beauty, from personal experience, from scripture, and from admired religious scientists. He also tackles the evolution of religion and what's bad about the "good book," while disputing the claim that religion is necessary for morality, all the while pulling no punches about why he is so unabashedly hostile to religion. (Honestly, is there anything hostile about suggesting that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"?)

Most effective is Dawkins' chapter titled "Why there almost certainly is no god," which not only sheds logical light on the so-called anthropic principle and the "worship of gaps," but – not surprisingly for a renowned evolutionary biologist – demolishes (yet again) the hoary "argument from design." This chestnut has had numerous stakes driven through its heart, but like a cinematic version of the undead, it keeps resurrecting itself, staggering, zombie-like and covered with flies, back into public view. Dawkins confronts the version concocted by renowned astronomer Fred Hoyle, who evidently knew more about stars than about evolution. According to Hoyle, the probability of living things having been created by a completely chance process is about that of a windstorm, blowing through a junkyard, spontaneously creating a Boeing 747.

Dawkins agrees that indeed, chance alone would not be up to the task but then shows, painstakingly, that natural selection is precisely the opposite of chance: its an extraordinarily efficient way of generating extreme nonrandomness. Moreover, god as ultimate explanatory device for complexity is especially depauperate since we cannot credibly maintain that god is less complex than a Boeing 747. In short, god, for Dawkins, is "the ultimate 747": insofar as the problem is explaining complexity, it hardly suffices to posit, as a satisfactory answer, the spontaneous and uncaused existence of something infinite orders of magnitude more complex.

Dawkins grants that god cannot be conclusively disproved, but he also urges that religion not be granted any special benefit of doubt. "if by 'God,' wrote Carl Sagan, "one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying … it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Dawkins adds that "The metaphysical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason."

The boilerplate, and politically safe if intellectually craven stance on science and religion has long been that the two are independent domains, the former telling what is and the latter, why (this was the gravimen of Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages, which argued for "nonoverlapping magesteria" between science and religion). Part of the attention-grabbing novelty of the Four Horsemen has been their refusal to abide by this dichotomy, their insistence that when religion makes egregiously false "truth claims" against science, it must be confronted, and that, moreover, religion itself can and should be "naturalized," that is, subjected to the same scrutiny that science brings to other phenomena.

This project is especially intense for America's most biologically astute philosopher, Daniel Dennett, whose Breaking the Spell involves breaking the taboo against looking skeptically and scientifically at religion. He doesn't like what he sees. And for Sam Harris (a graduate student in neurobiology when not endeavoring to épater les religieux) there is a felt need to take the United States in particular by the scruff of its neck and rub its nose in the dangers and absurdities of religious belief. His Letter to a Christian Nation was written in response to criticisms leveled by believers, following his earlier antireligious pronouncement, The End of Faith. His Letter is aptly named: more a letter than a book (perhaps coincidentally, many of the volumes herein considered are very slender). In both books, Harris is especially provocative in condemning not only religious excess, but even religious tolerance as, essentially, a "gateway drug" that opens the door not only to faith (irrationality, as Harris sees it) but also to its more extreme and violent manifestations. It would be interesting to see if, as the result of the recent drumbeat of antireligious books, the number of out-of-the-closet atheists increases, as others feel more validated in publicly affirming their unbelief … or if, turned off by the vehemence of the opponents, the ranks of faithful actually increases.

In any event, Harris is especially incensed at the consequences of what he views as religious extremism, and whereas The End of Faith was especially critical of Islam – although not sparing of Christianity or Judaism – Letter is explicitly concerned with fundamentalist Christianity and is unyielding in its alarm and disdain:

[I]f the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen—the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves—socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. … The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

Reacting to what he saw as the excesses of the Enlightenment, William Blake wrote his great poem, "Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau," which continued: "Mock on, mock on: 'tis all in vain!/ You throw the sand against the wind,/ And the wind blows it back again," and ends: "The Atoms of Democritus/ And Newton's Particles of Light/ Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,/ Where Israel's tents do shine so bright."

It has been said that the 20th century was dominated by physics, and the 19th, by chemistry and geology. The 21st? - at least, so far? Biology: with genomics, cloning, stem-cell research, neurobiology and evolutionary biology having replaced "rocket science" as emblematic of difficult/important. It is therefore notable – and not surprising – that biologists have been so much in the vanguard of science looking at religion, and that, moreover, other biologists have also been prominent in responding to the current, biology-inspired Enlightenment Redux. Instead of those Atoms of Democritus and Newton's Particles of Light, we have Darwin's evolution by natural selection and Dawkins' selfish genes. Mock on, mock on, Dawkins and Harris, Dennett and Sagan … Francis Collins and Joan Roughgarden have picked up Blake's mantle, pitching their bright, shining tents against the vain sands of your disbelief.

While the Four Horsemen resort to a modern version of Kant's sapere aude ("dare to know"), Collins and Roughgarden dare to believe, and to bespeak their faith. At the same time, neither are strangers to scientific knowing: Collins is a renowned medical geneticist, head of the Human Genome Project, and Roughgarden, a mathematical ecologist and evolutionary theorist. In The Language of God, Collins shares his personal journey from atheist to Evangelical Christian. (Throughout this extended Road-to-Damascus moment, C. S. Lewis – whose misogyny and militarism Collins delicately ignores – features prominently.) Collins is no fundamentalist, however; he acknowledges the consilience of modern evolutionary science, arguing passionately and effectively that "New Earth Creationists" do not only science but their own faith a disservice by denying reason and evidence. He approvingly quotes Galileo: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." But he also claims that "The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation." (And here I thought it cries out for physics.)

Collins argues that his faith comes primarily from two sources, the existence of what he calls "the Moral Law," and the "universal human longing for God." As to the former, is there really one – the - Moral Law? Some people feel it is lawful to suppress and kill those who disagree with them, or to worship idols, mutilate their genitals (typically with religious sanction), or define themselves as the only true human beings. Collins is greatly impressed, nonetheless, that people have a single, deep, shared knowledge of right and wrong, which he might find less impressive if he were more familiar with basic sociobiology. Thus, Collins seems not to understand that infanticidal male behavior in langur monkeys does not preclude the use of "altruism" at other times, and by other species, as a means of mate attraction, or that the evolutionary biology of altruism via kin selection is based on identity of genes via common descent, not just in ants but in any sexually reproducing organisms. Taken together or in various combinations, kin selection, reciprocal altruism, group selection, third-party effects, courtship possibilities, as well as simple susceptibility to social and cultural indoctrination - to which one might add the Kantian Categorical Imperative - provide biologists with more than enough for a Laplacean conclusion: god is no longer needed to explain Moral Law. (This is not to say that god is hereby excluded, just that the existence of such presumed Law is a thin reed upon which to lean religious faith, given that other, biologically verified interpretations exist.)

As to that longing for god, Francis Collins asks "Why would such a universal and uniquely human hunger exist, if it were not connected to some opportunity for fulfillment? … Why do we have a 'God-shaped vacuum' in our hearts and minds unless it is meant to be filled?" As his spiritual mentor, C. S. Lewis, pointed out "A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water." Many people would love to live forever. Does this mean that there is immortality? (I guess so: if they believe in the right religion.) Indeed, why would Janis Joplin have sung, "Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?" unless a Mercedes Benz exists? Evidently the existence of a Mercedes-shaped hole in Ms. Joplin's heart means that it was meant to be filled.

Collins is more persuasive, although certainly not original, when trotting out the Anthropic Principle, the argument that the universe is uniquely pre-tuned to bring about life in general and human life in particular. There are a number of physical constants and laws such that if any had been even slightly different, life might well have been impossible. For example, for roughly every billion quarks and antiquarks, there is an excess of one quark – otherwise, no matter. If the rate of expansion immediately after the Big Bang had been a teeny tiny fraction smaller than it was, the universe would have recollapsed long ago. If the strong nuclear forces holding atomic nuclei together had been just a smidgeon weaker, then only hydrogen would exist; if a hair stronger, all hydrogen would promptly have become helium, and the solar furnaces inside stars –which we can thank for the heavier elements – would never have existed.

Both Dawkins and Sagan also examine this argument, which Dawkins caricatures as "god-as-dial-twiddler." It is oddly tautological, in that if the universe were not as it is, we indeed would not be here to wonder about it. In Fred Hoyle's science fiction novel, The Black Cloud, it is explained that the probability of a golf ball landing on any particular spot is exceedingly low – and yet, it has to land somewhere! The Anthropic Principle can also be "solved" by multiple universes, of which ours could simply be the one in which we exist; this might apply not only to horizontally existing multi-verses, but to the same one occurring differently in time if there have been (and will be) unending expansions and contractions. Moreover, it isn't at all clear that the various physical dials are independent, or that the physical constants in the universe could be any different, given the nature of matter and energy. And isn't it more than a little arrogant to maintain that the gazillions of galaxies, with their mega-gazillions of stars, were expressly created by god so that he could bring forth Homo sapiens on the third planet from our particular sun, just so that we might "seek fellowship" with him?

The Language of God reveals Collins to be a decent, kind, generous and humane individual (ditto, by the way, for the writings of the Four Horsemen). Unlike the latter, however, Collins desperately hopes for a reconciliation – or at least, a lessening of animosity – between believers and non, and one hopes he might serve as an ambassador from science to evangelical Christianity, immunizing the latter against fear of the former. He would also like to missionize in the other direction. Recall the rabbi, visited by two members of his congregation who hold mutually contradictory positions, whereupon he reassures each that he is correct. The rabbi's wife reproves him, noting, "They can't both be right," whereupon the rabbi agrees, "You're right too!" Collins fervently maintains that both religion and science can be right.

Thus, he explicitly denies a strict interpretation of scripture – e.g., Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, Jonah inside the whale, etc. – eschewing literality when biblical accounts run obviously contrary to current science. At the same time, he believes fervently in other things, notably Jesus' resurrection, and the reality of a personal god who answers prayer. What, then, is his preferred basis for choosing to believe some Bible stories and not others? If Collins is simply clinging to those tenets that cannot be disproved, while disavowing those that can, then isn't he indulging in another incarnation of the "god of the gaps" that he very reasonably claims to oppose? What about, say, the Book of Revelations? Does the director of the Human Genome Project maintain that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin and inseminated by the Holy Ghost? Was he haploid or diploid? Is it necessarily churlish to ask what it is, precisely, that a believer believes? In the devil, angels, eternal hellfire, damnation, archangels, incubi and succubi, walking on water, raising Lazarus?

Joan Roughgarden is more limited in her purview, specifically aiming at a reconciliation between Evolution and Christian Faith, rather than Collins' concern with Christian faith and science more generally. Advocates of "Theistic Evolution" (the claim that god chose to work via evolution, thereby eliminating any incompatibility) will doubtless applaud, while fundamentalist believers and materialist-minded unbelievers will not, although devotees of either will agree that Roughgarden is well-meaning, and adroit at summoning up New Testament parables in support of her nonconfrontationalist position.

Her bottom-line claim is that "the Bible is perfectly consistent with the two main facts of evolution – that all of life belongs to a common family tree and that species change over generations." But as to that "common family tree," what are we to make of the soul, which Roughgarden clearly believes is real, and uniquely possessed by human beings? How could "ensoulment" not bespeak a radical discontinuity, unless chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc., are granted souls (or semi-souls) as well? What about dogs? Crickets? Cantaloupes? Regarding "species change over generations," Genesis clearly asserts god's command that each living thing is to bring forth offspring "after his kind," which would certainly preclude changing into another kind.

Roughgarden ostensibly speaks from her scientific roots when she avers that "Jesus' teachings about generosity, kindness, love, and inclusion of all don't depend one whit on miracles." But on the next page, she recounts that "Even after his death, Jesus continued to downplay miracles. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to a group of his disciples …" Wait a minute! If the resurrection of Jesus is not a miracle, what then is it? An article of faith, and thus exempt? A scientific fact?

Evolution and Christian Faith is a "plague-on-both-your houses" chastisement of "selfish genery" as well as of intolerant fundamentalism, and thus likely (along with Collins' book) to appeal to the "can't we all get along?" moderates among us: "We simply don't have to let ourselves get caught up in these polarizing positions," according to Roughgarden. "We can insist on a better tenor of discourse."

Edward O. Wilson – reigning dean of American organismal biologists – is also eager for reconciliation between science and religion, for the sake of policy, not polity. The Creation, written as an epistolary reaching-out to an unnamed southern Baptist preacher, is subtitled "an appeal to save life on earth." Wilson's journey was the inverse of Collins' – reared a pious Baptist in rural Alabama, he became a famous atheist scientist. Wilson's anguish, however, is not so much over the reduction in civility across the science-theology divide than about the reduction in planetary biodiversity, the imminence of large-scale, anthropogenic, species extinctions. Wilson's hope, powerfully expressed, is that doctrinal differences between religion and science could be put aside in favor of shared struggle defending the natural world: "Let us see, then, if we can, and you are willing, to meet on the near side of metaphysics in order to deal with the real world we share. … I suggest that we set aside our differences in order to save the Creation … Surely we can agree that each species, however inconspicuous and humble it may seem to us at this moment, is a masterpiece of biology, and well worth saving. … Prudence alone dictates that we act quickly to prevent the extinction of species and, with it, the pauperization of Earth's ecosystems – hence of the Creation."

In an oft-noted article published four decades ago in SCIENCE, historian Lynn White argued that the historical roots of our ecological crisis derive from the book of Genesis, which gave human beings their marching orders: to achieve dominion over nature. And to be sure, Judeo-Christian theologians have not generally distinguished themselves in support of nature (St. Francis and a few others excepted). Yet there is reason for hope, for the prospect of common cause on behalf of "the creation." The National Association of Evangelicals, for example, has become increasingly open to environmental defense, including concerns about global warming. This welcome development is based on precisely the switch from "dominion" to "stewardship" that Wilson advocates. Nor is it likely to be unique. I would bet that somewhere – even in that Heart of Darkness that constitutes the Bush Administration - there beats at least some sensitivity to preserving the Earth's natural treasures.

"However the tensions eventually play out between our opposing worldviews," Wilson observes to his imaginary pastor at the end of The Creation, "however science and religion wax and wane in the minds of men, there remains the earthborn, yet transcendental, obligation we are both morally bound to share."

Amen

Some good points in the mix, eh? When I have a bit more time, I may do a little analysis.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Church-state, Politics, Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

Darwin on Eugenics

It is oft-repeated amongst creationists that evolution = evil, because evolution = eugenics. When Tom Short came to UF and regurgitated this faulty line of reasoning, applying it to the effect that evolution = Hitler = genocide, I called him on it. I also called D. James Kennedy, a creationist pastor whose fraudulent claims are only exceeded by his hubris in delivering them, to the carpet for lying about Darwin and eugenics, all the while ignoring the clear link between Nazi Germany and the Lutheran and Catholic anti-Semitic philosophies.

I examined the non sequiturs in jumping from a description of the way that the natural world operates to a moral 'ought' about how we should or will operate in society. Simple parallels exist to show the fallacy of the logic:

1. Science describes gravity
   
2. Gravity causes things to fall down
3. Therefore, we ought to cause things to fall down

Is not substantially different from:

1. Science describes natural selection
2. Natural selection causes organisms to survive which are more 'fit' and weaker ones to go extinct
   
3. Therefore, we ought to cause organisms/humans to go extinct whom we deem are weaker [even though we have now started artificially selecting since our criteria for 'fitness' are not natural]

See the non sequitur? It is an accurate description of the world to say that all living things share common ancestors. It is not a logical conclusion to draw, a priori, that we ought thus do anything about it or to change it. End of story. To try to draw moral prescriptions from scientific descriptions is a failed leap in logic and is unsupported by the descriptions themselves.

Yet, since so many people love to do what is easy -- namely, to "defeat" evolution by throwing morally outrageous claims against it, it is useful to look at Darwin's own published thoughts on eugenics in The Descent of Man. Let's see what he said about it, although we must all always remember that just as the laws of motion are not equivalent to Newton, so evolution is not solely Charles Darwin, nor general relativity Einstein. These men founded the ideas, did the foundational work, and then died. The science of those things was not the person behind them, and the ideas have expanded and changed and developed throughout time. Nonetheless, let's see what the man thought, keeping in mind that just because the man thought it, doesn't mean evolution requires it.

In Chapter 5, he writes about the problem with vaccinations and how they allow people without natural resistances to survive to reproduce and pass on this lack of resistance:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

It sounds pretty evil, doesn't it? But at the same time, it sounds like he's not yet passing a conclusive ought in here, only saying that it seems that our actions to preserve the lineages of people with serious heredity flaws is "highly injurious to the race of man." So far, he hasn't prescribed any actions, only attempted to describe our humanistic efforts to preserve life. So...what does Darwin think of these actions? Well, the sentences directly after clarify it for us:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil [emphasis added].

Well, you won't hear that from the mouths of the creationists. Darwin here tells us that if we try to preserve our genetic lineage without corruption, it will only be for a contingent benefit at the cost of an overwhelming present evil, and that we will deteriorate the noblest part of our nature.

His only "solution" to the "problem", then, is a very passive one, indeed:

We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.

He observes that some of the feeble/retarded/sick are unable to be married and have kids as easily as the mentally competent/healthy, and that there is thus already a natural check in place. He then says that we can just hope for this check to work, notice he says nothing here of enforcing a no-marriage policy.

Darwin's words on eugenics are not those of Hitler, not those of Stalin, not those of creationists. All three of the latter twisted science to serve their own goals and ends in an attempt to justify their immoral beliefs. All three of the latter distort science to preserve falsehoods. The immorality of creationism is its denial of truth, its fight to eradicate scientific fact from our culture, and their refusal to live in reality.
________________
Technorati tags: Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism