"Death of God" versus "Death of godlessness"

From the allegations of plagiarism (not the same old ones) to the pseudoscientific nonsense lifted from dishonest "work" by the Disco Institute, Ann Coulter's new book is basically nothing but cannon fodder by this point. I have nothing new to say about it, but you really ought to read what real scientists have said about her anti-evolutionary screed. In all honesty, most people dismiss the polemicist as the right-wing version of Michael Moore, and in so doing, allow her rhetoric to pump up her own choir, to which she enthusiastically preaches and gets a few feedback "Amen!" shouts from.

One of the things that really bothers me is when people use the word "bombshell" to describe Ann, or in any way imply that she is sexy/attractive. Look at this picture of the woman, and make sure you take some Phenergan first. She is dog ugly. Peroid.

While reading over some reviews of her new rant-rag, I noted that William Dembski had proudly endorsed her book on his site. He also boldly steps up for credit for "helping" with all of the "science" in her book. Reading over there, I attempted to leave a comment on Debmski's post after scanning it, in response to a Gildodgen there who asserted that godlessness is on the wane. Of course, might doesn't make right, so minority views aren't necessarily right or wrong as a virtue of their popularity. However, in this case, the veracity of Gildodgen's claim is highly dubious. My response follows:

(begin comment)
___

Gildodgen wrote:

The 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the death of God. At the turn of the 21st century we are witnessing the death of Godlessness. It’s all rather exciting.

I'm afraid that this hopeful assertion is terribly contradicted by recent studies, (ARIS) which rather conclusively showed that the number of people who went from any religion to no religion increased by 23% over the years studied.

In their words, the researchers note:

The top three "gainers" in America's vast religious market place appear to be Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as Non-Denominational Christians and those who profess no religion. Looking at patterns of religious change from this perspective, the evidence points as much to the rejection of faith as to the seeking of faith among American adults. Indeed, among those who previously had no religion, just 5% report current identification with one or another of the major religions.

The raw number of "no religion" folks swamps the Evangelicals by about 30-fold and non-denoms by about 14-fold. In numerical form, the "no religion" switch from some prior religion increased by approx. 6.6 million persons, and those "switching out" were approx. 1.1 million persons = approx. 5.5 million net deconverts.

Do the math on this, and you'll see that no other category even comes close. Not one. The next highest number of net converts is 1.4 million for "Christian" (fourfold less) and then 600,000 for "Pentecostal". So, you may want to start checking the data before baldly asserting that "godlessness" is somehow waning. On the contrary, friend, it is waxing full.

___
(end comment)

They probably won't publish the comment, but I wanted to give its major point an airing...somewhere. Unfortunately for Gildodgen, and Coulter, godlessness is a growing phenomenon, and one that they will have to learn to intelligently deal with, should they want to maintain [that's a joke] intellectual credibility in the 21st century.
________________
Technorati tags: Ann Coulter, Intelligent Design, Evolution, William Dembski, Discovery Institute, godless

Luther and Nazism

Dear Christian,

Is Martin Luther a hero [of the faith] of yours? Did you know that he wrote a book called, On the Jews and Their Lies? (1543)

Did you know that it contains such passages as:

So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.

?

In context, here is the full passage:

Since it has now been established that we do not hold them captive, how does it happen that we deserve the enmity of such noble and great saints? We do not call their women whores as they do Mary, Jesus' mother. We do not call them children of whores as they do our Lord Jesus. We do not say that they were conceived at the time of cleansing and were thus born as idiots, as they say of our Lord. We do not say that their women are *haria,*, as they do with regard to our dear Mary. We do not curse them but wish them well, physically and spiritually. We lodge them, we let them eat and drink with us. We do not kidnap their children and pierce them through; we do not poison their wells; we do not thirst for their blood. How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?

There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!

Did you know that:

he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." ^[3] He also appeared to sanction their murder^[4]

Did you also know that it has been very well argued and evidenced that Hitler adopted much of his Anti-Semitic views directly from Luther?

What, did you think that the Nazis were atheists? Oh, you could only wish so.

What, did you think that Darwin personally, or evolutionary theory generally, is somehow to blame for Nazism? Hardly so. Drawing moral extrapolations from natural observations is itself moving away from science. Science is only the statement of how things are, not how things ought to be, or how human beings should relate to one another. (I point this out, despite the fact that even if the Nazis [or anyone] tried to use a scientific theory to justify themselves, they would be committing Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy in so doing, and most people recognize this.)

Now, to be fair to Luther, nearly all contemporary Catholics hated Jews too. (also see wiki)

So, dear Christian, what do you have to say in response to this? Perhaps you'll remember it the next time you quote Luther?

With respect to Christians and their Anti-Semitism...so much for 2 Cor. 5:17, eh? New creatures, indeed.

Perhaps you'll think of this the next time you want to blame science for immoral choices on the part of people who fallaciously attempt to use it to justify themselves, or the next time you blame atheism for Hitler's Holocaust?
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Martin Luther, Hitler, Judaism, Anti-Semitism

Quiet, Transition in Progress!

**UPDATE** MTV News has a follow-up article, in which Alter Bridge counters Living Things' version of events with their own. Funniest excerpt from AB's statement:

Alter Bridge fully supports every American's right to free speech...If any band chooses the stage to address their political views and to take shots at the current U.S. government, that is their right. However, it is not their right to slander our country and its people in the process... [Living Things] shouted obscenities and "repeatedly yelled 'F--- America!...I hate America!'

So, in other words, AB supports free speech, so long as that free speech isn't offensive or slanderous towards the US. Okay? Sounds like they have been getting their tips on "free expression" from the idiots pushing the flag-burning amendment. **END UPDATE**

"Regardless of anyone's political views this is simply ignorant, offensive and unacceptable,"

A recent news story in music follows. The reason the story appeals to me is that, despite the outright rejection of the labels "Christian" or "spiritual" to the band Alter Bridge, they have, willingly or not, inherited the religious conflict from their past. I found myself remembering their quasi-Christian heritage when Lynne tipped me off to their recent debacle in Switzerland.

When people hear "Creed", they think, minimally, "spiritual lyrics" and possibly [albeit erroneously] "Christian band". This seems to be the case despite repeated protests against the label "Christian" during the time of the band's inception. It is a long-standing interest of mine to study the "crossovers" from Christian music as they move into other genres--typically rock and pop. The transition is often accompanied (some may argue "paralleled", or "compelled") by a synchronous transition of faith, or entire loss thereof. From the famous case of Jerry Lee Lewis, to Arethra Franklin, Dionne Warwick, Elvis, to contemporary bands like Lifehouse, Amy Grant and POD, crossover bands and artists are worth a moment's thought. To me, they are simply spotlighted case studies in deconversion, a phenomenon that I personally identify with. They are famous, completely public examples of the sort of experience that millions of people have annually--losing faith. I find religious transitions, and especially deconversions, fascinating [particularly the psychological aspect of] and would love to be pointed to some scientific studies on the process.

The former band Creed broke up, with lead singer Scott Stapp going solo and the remaining band members reforming as Alter Bridge. Why do we care?

Apparently, at a show in Zurich on June 14th, Alter Bridge is being accused of assaulting Living Things, another rock band, as they spoke against the current administration and the ongoing war(s). From the myspace site for Living Things, some fans did indeed document, on the day of the concert, the veracity of LT's claim.

On the same site, the tour date roster purports, "June 14 in Zurich, Switzerland at Rohstofflager supporting Alter Bridge". This implies that LT was opening for AB, so far as I can tell, and is thus considered a bit subservient in terms of their popularity/demand. An MTV news article interviewed the band's lead singer, Lillian Berlin, about the incident, where he claims,

We were in the middle of our second song, and I had some stuff to say about the current administration and the way they're handling the Iraq war...The Swiss were all behind us, and the crowd was cheering me on. I was talking about this letter I got inviting me to a Democrat-bashing dinner at the White House. And we went into our fourth song, and some goon from that Creed band came out swinging an American flag and then threw it at our drummer, Bosh.

However, the spokesman for AB refutes this claim,

Alter Bridge was not happy that this band chose to deliver anti-American statements to their audience.

However, no Alter Bridge bandmembers were onstage, and their crew was in their designated working areas during this supposed incident. Alter Bridge thinks this is just a weak attempt by the opening band to drum up press for themselves. Alter Bridge will have no further comment on this as they are finishing up their extremely successful European tour and returning shortly to the U.S. to start work on their second album.

I'll have more info as it becomes available, but I would expect a lawsuit if the claim of LT holds water, especially since Lillian claims the band members suffered verifiable injuries, including black eyes. This news article was also picked up by chartattack and pr-inside. Whether it holds merit or not we will shortly see.

Thought: if Alter Bridge was not inexorably tied to a quasi-Christian heritage and subsequent image, would we even care about this? Typical rock/metal/punk concerts are almost boring without some sort of violence or tirade. Why is this newsworthy, and eye-catching? It must be the association between AB and Christianity.

As an aside, it appears that Living Things' enthused political commentary from the stage has made news before.
________________
Technorati tags: Alter Bridge, Creed, Scott Stapp, Religion

The Evolution of Gay Animals (Including Humans)

There is a quite interesting article in SEED magazine about sexual selection and homosexual behavior in animals. The interview with Joan Roughgarden, an evolutionary biologist, examines the role of evolution in animal homosexual behavior. As usual, PZ Myers' trenchant analysis shines light on the relationship between sexual selection, homosexual behavior in animals, and evolutionary biology.

The major points/possibilities where these converge, which PZ analyzes:

1) Homosexuality is selectively neutral (in PZ's hilarious words, "Many heterosexual couples elect not to have children, and many homosexuals elect to have them. This shouldn't be a surprise; all it takes to start a baby is a few pokes and a spurt, and it really doesn't take much effort to overcome an inclination for such a brief event. We are sex-obsessed animals, so redirecting an ejaculation to a particular orifice isn't that astonishing.")
2) Homosexuality promotes community bonding (conflict avoidance = more survival)
3) Homosexuality is coupled to other advantageous traits (coupling)
4) Homosexuality is a product of weak genetic specification (e.g. "brains are plastic")
5) Homosexuality is a byproduct (e.g. developmental/environmental, not genetic)

Obviously, one or more of these has to be right. Hopefully, the more genetics becomes understood in its relationship to evo-devo, we can begin to attach hard data to these hypotheses.

The well-known gay behaviors in animals (read the SEED article for details) are often used to "justify" homosexual behavior. Without going into detail, I do think it is funny how people will fall into Moore's naturalistic fallacy in concluding moral behavior from observations in nature: "It happens in nature, therefore it's natural, therefore it's moral!" Of course, the problems with these arguments go far and wide, but the most obvious and gut-wrenching refutations hinge on the exploitation of this same illogic in genocides, Übermensch, and in Hitler-esque "survival of the fittest" mentalities.
________________
Technorati tags: Homosexual, Evolution, Biology

Bakunin on God

Mikhail Bakunin was born on this day in 1814. I want to consider a few of his sayings from his essay, "God and the State", and open the remarks for criticism.

The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty-Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

What we see in Genesis 3:22 certainly raises my own eyebrows:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

A plain reading of the Bible reveals the obvious issue of whether or not man "knew good and evil" before, or after, the Fall -- and thus whether or not man ought be responsible if the former. Nearly every time Bakunin's major point is raised with an apologist, the apologist insists that man "knowing" good and evil here means experiencing it. I brought to the attention of one recent apologist the fact that the same phraseology is used with respect to God, and thus a consistent hermeneutic would require an inference that God has also experienced evil. The apologist, needless to say, did not agree, yet was unable to provide a satisfactory reply.

An important question remains -- is the "Fall of Man" simply the acquisition of a moral conscience? It seems so at first glance. For indeed, if man does not know good from evil, then how could the choice to eat the fruit have been "sin" at all? Did the serpent lie about this? It appears that God gives substantiation to the claim in 3:22. Further, God cursed the serpent, and why would God curse the serpent for telling the truth?

The next section is particularly relevant in this day of theonomist revival:

On behalf of human liberty, dignity and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover from heaven the goods which it has stolen and return them to earth.

If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist.

A jealous lover of human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."
-- Mikhaill Bakunin, "God and the State," 1883

If God exists, it is a moral affront to man to call himself "free". Let us consider this for a moment -- is there a "free will" at all, if God exists? Does man have the ability to choose freely between actions? Obviously not, according to orthodox interpretations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. According to these traditions, man has only one choice -- God's way or hell. That is not freedom at all. That is indeed slavery.

It is thus impossible to hold to theism and man's freedom without a contradiction. In the regress of events, if God lies behind them, our freedom is not only an illusion, but a mockery of God's sovereignty -- Calvinists agree. They claim Paul and Jesus did too [c.f. Rom 9].

See his Wikipedia entry for more.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, God