Nussbaum's Orthodox Jews and Science

I wrote this letter to Skeptic: The Magazine in response to the article linked to in the title. What do you think?

A few points of criticism of Nussbaum’s article on anti-evolution beliefs amongst Orthodox Jews. First, I think it would tend to be a bit confusing for non-Jews who would not understand that Nussbaum’s references to Orthodox Jews refer only to Haredi Jews, not Modern Orthodox Jews, who believe that secular knowledge has inherent value. I doubt that this was Nussbaum’s intent, but it would make it seem that these attitudes reflect a larger body of Jews than is actually the case.

Secondly, I have a problem with two of the questions. Students were asked to indicate if they believed the statements were true or false. The first statement, “Evolution correctly explains the origins of life.” is indeed false regardless of whether one accepts evolution or not. Evolutionary theory begins with a single common ancestor or pool of common ancestors and shows how life increased in diversity through natural selection, random mutation, etc. It does not even consider how those first life forms came into being. The second statement, “Human beings evolved from apes” is also false as human beings are not in fact evolved from apes, but share a common ancestor with apes.

A person familiar with the theory of evolution would answer false to both of these. The questions and the testers interpretation of answers to them seem (although surely they were not intended to be?) loaded to make the students appear more anti-evolution than they may actually be. The third statement, which shows that most students felt that evolutionists were NOT lying may lead one to believe that the problems with statements 1 and 2 may have had this effect. Statements four and five show an obvious lack of knowledge about evolution and perhaps an anti-evolution bias, but not nearly the one a person would assume from the responses to statements 1 and 2. Again, the problems with statements 1 and 2 may have interfered with the accuracy of the experiment.

The nearly even split with responses to 6, 7, and 8 seem to indicate a mix of scientific ignorance (as well as ignorance of linguistics, not uncommon amongst Americans) and scientific knowledge, not necessarily anti-scientific views. An anecdote here, years ago the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans constructed a “Jurassic Park” exhibit to reap the benefits of the movie of that name. A few poor souls actually asked for the return of their entrance fees since there were no live dinosaurs in the exhibit. This lack of education, (admittedly linked to religious requirements amongst Haredi Jews) is shared by many who are not orthodox/fundamentalist in their beliefs. The state of science education in this country leaves much to be desired.

Although I’m certain that a great number of Haredi Jews remain ignorant of and hostile to secular science, I think the experiment’s flaws call the reliability of the results into question.

Katrina Plus One Year

One year ago today, I sat on the steps outside my motel room with my seven year old nephew. I wondered how much he understood of what had happened, this catastrophe that had ripped away everything and left us all homeless, property-less. So, I asked. His answer: "Yeah, it broke my house." What do you say to that? I decided to make him feel better by telling him a fairy tale.

Don't worry. Everything's going to be just fine. The government's going to help us. Your mom and I and your aunts and uncles and your dad, we all pay taxes. Do you know what taxes are? Well, you know how mommy gets a paycheck? Yeah. Well, the government takes a little bit of every paycheck and they use that money to help people in situations just like this. It won't be long before you'll have a new house and toys and a new school and friends. It won't be Chalmette. It won't be the same. But it'll all be okay. I promise.

I might as well have told him that Superman was going to come in and save the day, fly really fast around the world and turn back time, use that really strong breath of his to stop the water pouring into New Orleans. I'll never forgive this government for making me a liar.

What conservatives see...

When they read the NY Times. Hilarious.

Deconstruction: Part 3

TO MAKE THINGS EASIER TO SEE, I'LL PUT MY NEW COMMENTS IN ALL CAPS. I'M NOT FLAMING, I SWEAR.

Outrageous claim number 3: All religion is oppressive.

According to The International Manifesto for Atheistic Humanism, for instance, "Religion is oppressive. The act of subjugating human will to "divine will" is oppressive. The practice of obeying clergy, of letting them make our decisions for us, is oppressive and irresponsible."

THIS WAS PROBABLY THE WRONG QUOTE TO USE FOR THIS. BUT LET ME ADDRESS THIS QUOTE ANYWAY. WHERE THERE IS CHOICE, THERE CAN BE NO OPPRESSION. WE SUBMIT OURSELVES TO THE DIVINE WILL OF OUR OWN VOLITION. MANY RELIGIOUS GROUPS ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO OBEY SOME PRIESTLY AUTHORITY. PART OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION WAS ERADICATING THIS ASPECT OF CHRISTIANITY, GIVING THE LAITY THE RIGHT TO STUDY AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. IN MOST PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS, THE LAITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE/FIRE THE MINISTER. AGAIN, WHERE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE IS MADE TO OBEY AN AUTHORITY OR TO SUBMIT TO THE WISDOM OF LEARNED THEOLOGICAL SCHOLARS, THERE IS NO OPPRESSION.

This one flies in the face of the evidence. Yes, it's very easy to show many instances of oppression stemming from religion. However, it is also easy to show many instances in which political and social progress were spearheaded by religious individuals based on the teachings of their particular faiths. Study the abolitionist movement or the civil rights movement and you will be hard pressed not to encounter the role of religion in these struggles for liberation. To go beyond Christianity, there is now a movement in Africa that teaches Muslim women how to read the Koran so that they can refute the false claim that that religion demands or even permits female genital mutilation. THERE ARE MANY WHO CONSTANTLY HARP ON THE EXCESSES/ATROCITIES COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. IN MOST HISTORICAL CASES, RELIGION WAS A SUPERFICIAL EXCUSE THAT COVERED THE TRUE MOTIVATIONS OF THOSE WHO MADE THE DECISION TO OPPRESS OTHERS. UNFORTUNATELY, HUMANS DO NOT REQUIRE RELIGION TO WANT TO OPPRESS OTHERS OR TO JUSTIFY IT. IN FACT, AFTER THE ENLIGHTENMENT, SCIENCE PROVIDED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SLAVERY (RACIAL THEORY), THE SUBJUGATION OF WOMEN (FEMALE PHYSICAL/MENTAL INFERIORITY) AND GENOCIDE (EUGENICS). FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT THE ISLAM EXAMPLE WAS A BAD ONE, ONE PERSON POINTED OUT THAT FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED BUT FOR ISLAM, I THINK YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PARTICULAR TRADITION IS LIMITED. FGM EXISTED LONG BEFORE ISLAM AND IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF ISLAM'S HOLY TEXTS. THIS IS A MATTER OF CULTURE TRUMPING RELIGION, AS IRSHAD MANJI IS SO FOND OF SAYING.

Religion, like any system of belief, is subject to the often contradictory nature of humanity and the tides of history. It is one thing at this moment and in this place and something completely different in another time and place. Oppression or liberation (with a few exceptions) are in the application, not necessarily inherent in the system of belief itself. For instance, communism may look fine on paper, but in the hands of the Russians post-revolution, it was used to support one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history. NO, I'M NOT A COMMUNIST. HOWEVER, ONE MUST AGREE THAT THE IDEALS LAID OUT IN THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO LEAVE NO ROOM FOR THE AUTHORITARIANISM, CULT OF PERSONALITY, AND PARTY ARISTOCRACY THAT CAME TO EXIST IN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES IN THE 20TH CENTURY. HUMANS AREN'T VERY GOOD AT PRACTICING THEIR OWN IDEALS/BELIEFS.

Outrageous claim number 4: The eradication of religion in favor of secularism will bring about utopia.

Marxists and anarchists, specifically, hold that the total eradication of religion is an essential but not sufficient step in the creation of an atheist utopia. In some interpretations of these systems of thought, false though they may be, the eradication of religion is thought to be sufficient to create utopia. AGAIN, THESE ARE FALSE INTERPRETATIONS OF MARXIST THEORY. I'LL CONCEDE TO THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT ONLY A FEW REAL NUTTERS WOULD ARGUE FOR UTOPIA. HOW ABOUT THOSE WHO SIMPLY THINK THE WORLD WILL BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE? THEY IGNORE THE VERY NATURE OF HUMANITY. IRRATIONALITY, ANGER, HATRED, GREED, NARCISSISM, ETC. ARE NOT CREATED BY RELIGION AND WILL NOT BE DESTROYED BY ITS ABSENCE.

Forgive me for discussing Torah, but I think the story of Adam and Eve (interpreted as a parable) is relevant here. Adam and Eve couldn't remain in the garden because they were fully human, with the free will that that implies. The message: humanity and paradise cannot exist together. In any society, no matter how ideal, there will be discontent, antisocial behavior, criminality, anger, uncontrolled passions, greed, avarice, disobedience, and dissent. There will be, at last, the human animal. Some new system of control and punishment will arise to cope with those aspects of the humanity and free will that endanger society. No utopia can withstand that. OKAY, ADAM AND EVE WERE A BAD IDEA.

Outrageous claim number 5: All religious people want to force you or convince you or coerce you to believe as they do.

This is perhaps the claim I've heard most often in conversations with friends and readers of the atheist persuasion, some of whom condemn it as false. I tried to find an "official" source for this hasty generalization with no luck, but chose to include it here based on personal experience. In addition to the fact that it's a logical fallacy based on a habit of many but not all atheists to judge all religions by their negative experiences with or feelings about Christianity, this claim also flies in the face of reality. I REFER YOU TO THE GUY IN MY "WHO ARE THESE EXTREMISTS?" POST WHO COMPARED RELIGION TO THE BORG COLLECTIVE, SWALLOWING EVERYTHING IN ITS PATH.

If I may, permit me to speak for those of the religious persuasion. Yes, many religious people do want to convert you, however, some of us could really care less what you believe. Personally, I wouldn't care if you believed that a big head of lettuce were going to come down and give us all strong bones and healthy teeth. Hey, as long as you're not interfering with someone else's rights, all hail the holy radicchio and bully for you. That's your business. Of course, I'm a practitioner of Judaism, which absolutely forbids proselytizing and any attempt at coercing or forcing someone to change his beliefs. In fact, many have even been denied conversion to Judaism and those who are finally accepted face a long and arduous process. Oh, wait. Judaism is a religon! SOMEONE SAID THAT "CONVINCE" WAS PROBABLY THE WRONG WORD, SINCE OF COURSE, PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO CONVINCE YOU AT LEAST. NO, IN JUDAISM, EVEN THE ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE SOMEONE OF YOUR BELIEFS IS FORBIDDEN. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A RABBI KNOCKED ON YOUR DOOR WITH TORAH IN HAND, TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU SHOULDN'T EAT PORK OR WORK ON SATURDAY? IN ISRAEL, PROSELYTIZING IS A CRIME AND MISSIONARY MATERIALS ARE REGULARLY SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. WHILE I DISAGREE WITH THAT PRACTICE, I THINK IT PROVES THE POINT.

After that brief foray into snark, we come to the dangers. In modern America, secular extremists as a group don't have the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives. However, we should learn from what has happened elsewhere and be prepared to meet them if or when they do. While most who believe in the separation of church and state hold that only government support of religion in the public sphere should be forbidden, the secular extremist may take it one step further to forbid the private display of religious symbols in public places. Remember the laws forbidding the wearing of yarmulkes, crosses, hijabs, and the like in France. THIS WAS INTENDED TO SAY THE LAWS WERE PASSED IN FRANCE, NOT THAT THESE THINGS WERE FORBIDDEN THROUGHOUT FRANCE. ALTHOUGH THESE LAWS WERE PASSED BY A CENTER-RIGHT GOVERNMENT, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THE EXTREME LEFT MAY BE CAPABLE OF... READ THE RELIGION DISCUSSION BOARDS OVER AT DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND AND NOTICE THE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT PEOPLE WEARING RELIGIOUS JEWELRY OR POSTING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ON THEIR PRIVATE CUBICLES JUST AS THEY WOULD A FAMILY PICTURE. HOW LONG BEFORE SOMEONE CLAIMS THAT THIS CREATES A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR ATHEISTS, SINCE IT OBVIOUSLY MAKES SOME OF THEM HORRIBLY UNCOMFORTABLE? Such laws are just as much a violation of the liberal ideals of freedom of religion and conscience as laws that require religious practices.

But that's far in the future for America if it ever comes to our shores at all; the greatest danger the secular extremist poses now is to the integrity and success of progressive movements. I THINK I DESCRIBED WHAT I MEANT BY THIS EARLIER. If we are to truly uphold the liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, we must stand against extremists of all stripes who would threaten those ideals. Secondly, in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the secular extremist as a legitimate voice of the left. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANYWHERE POLITICALLY (ELECTORALLY OR IDEOLOGICALLY) IF WELL-MEANING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT LEFTIST/LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE CAUSES AND IDEALS FEEL OSTRACIZED BY THE SCORN AND RIDICULE HEAPED UPON THEM. LIKE I TOLD AN EARLIER COMMENTER, TRY PARTICIPATING IN ANY DISCUSSION ON EVOLUTION (EVEN FROM THE PRO SIDE) WITHOUT ENCOUNTERING MASS ATTACKS ON THE "STUPIDITY" OF ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE (WHICH CONTINUE WITH NO REGARD FOR THE NON-RELIGIOUS FACTORS INVOLVED SUCH AS A STRUGGLING AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM). Finally, our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies being perpetuated in our name.

PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS, THE ONES I LEFT OUT. I MEAN THE ONES LIKE DAWKINS' QUOTE (PARROTED A FEW TIMES DURING THIS DEBACLE) THAT RAISING YOUR CHILDREN IN YOUR RELIGIOUS TRADITION IS CHILD ABUSE WORSE THAN SEXUAL MOLESTATION. OR THAT IT'S BRAINWASHING. OR THAT ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE STUPID, DELUDED, BIGOTED, HAVE NO COMMON SENSE, ETC. OR THE CLAIMS THAT BELIEVING IN G-D IS THE SAME AS BELIEVING IN SANTA CLAUS, WHEN WE KNOW WITHOUT QUESTION SANTA CLAUS IS A LEGEND DERIVED FROM THE STORY OF ST. NICHOLAS AND GIVEN HIS CURRENT FORM BY A COCA-COLA ADVERTISING CARTOON. (OF COURSE, THIS IS AN EASY WAY TO CLAIM THAT RELIGOUS PEOPLE ARE ALL NAIVE, STUPID, CRETINS WHO BELIEVE IN "OBVIOUS" IMAGINARY FRIENDS.)

OR THE ATTITUDE VERY PREVALENT TODAY THAT YOU GET TO TAKE WHAT EVER ABUSE HAS BEEN HEAPED ON YOU BY A SMALL PART OF A GROUP OUT ON THE ENTIRE GROUP. IF SOMEONE IN A MAJORITY GROUPS DOES THIS, WE CALL IT WHAT IT IS: BIGOTRY. WHY DO WE PRETEND AS IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT COMES FROM A MINORITY WITH WHOM WE CAN SYMPATHIZE? HAVING BEEN VICTIMIZED DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM EXCUSE ATTACKING INNOCENT PEOPLE (VERBALLY OR PHYSICALLY) BASED ON THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE SAME "GROUP" AS SOMEONE WHO DID YOU WRONG. NO, WE'RE NOT ALL ALIKE.

Interesting stuff

Tight on time during my lunch break, but here's some stuff for your reading enjoyment:

I've been trying to explain this to people. Skeptical Inquirer Magazine may explain it better. Another article in the same vein. And another.

A few sources for your perusal

I just read this and thought it was relevant, as well as this.

Something from Richard Dawkins:
Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's a fairly common experience. I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse.

No, he doesn't say all religious people are child molesters; he says that people who raise their children within their religious traditions are WORSE than child molesters. An atheist's criticism of Dawkins.

Sam Harris: I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.

An attack on religious tolerance, without which liberal society would not exist.

Steven Weinberg: With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Of course, scientists have shown in the lab that unquestioning obedience to any authority can cause good people to do evil things. Ever heard of this experiment?

An historical look at atheist extremism while I'm at it.

Deconstruction: Part 2

As before, my deconstructive comments are in bold. First, let me say, that no one single claim creates an extremist view, but all of these taken together compose the bedrock, in my opinion, of atheist extremism.

Outrageous claim number 1: Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is true; religion is false. Rather than using the rather vague term "atheism", which can take many forms, I should have worded this more specifically to discuss those known as "strong" or "positive" atheists, who insist that there is no G-d or gods, that the supernatural absolutely does not and cannot exist. Perhaps theism would also have been a better word than religion, which covers too much ground.
In his article "Atheism and Social Progress" found on the website of The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Keith Cornish expresses it the claim this way, "A few years ago a member of the Committee of the Atheist Foundation of Australia proposed a new definition of 'atheism' that removes any hint of negativity and puts the onus of justification right back where it should be - that is, on Christians. His definition is 'Atheism' is the acceptance that there is no credible, scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, god/s or the supernatural'. This was accepted as our official definition, though personally I would prefer the removal of the word 'credible' because of its association with 'faith' and 'belief'. It could well be replaced by 'logical'." (Emphasis mine.)

Emphasis for this was placed on the part that begins "This was accepted as..." and ends "...be replaced by 'logical'". Cornish, in my opinion, is playing a semantic game intended to artificially and dishonestly strengthen the claim for the nonexistence of a G-d. (I also take umbrage with the idea that the onus of justification rests on Christians since Christians neither invented nor do they dominate theism/monotheism.) For a more American source, I give you Sam Harris: Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend. Claiming the biblical deity as an imaginary friend would imply special knowledge of the "obvious" nonexistence of that deity... something which is currently impossible. I urge you to read the entire document to see what I mean.
Both atheism (here I'm referring to mere disbelief in the supernatural rather than the specific claim of knowledge of the nonexistence) and theism (Here I'm referring to mere belief without claim of absolute knowledge) contain elements of rational thought and reason. When an adherent of either position examines what the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being means for humanity and how we structure our lives and moral/ethical systems, thought is involved. Ultimately, however, the supernatural's existence or nonexistence cannot be supported by evidence or proven by reason. Both are a matter of faith (Faith is, according to the dictionary, not a decision to refuse to suspend disbelief, but instead belief in something for which there is no logical proof or material evidence. Those who have a solid belief in the nonexistence of the supernatural fit the criteria of faith.) and therefore belief. In the absense of verifiability, neither can claim to be absolute truth. Placing a burden of proof on either "side" (those who claim there is and those who claim there isn't a deity or deities) in the matter would be futile as neither could rise to the challenge. Tolerance for differences of belief would be far preferable.

Obviously if the discussion is as follows, burden of proof is on the theist:
Theist: There IS a G-d or gods.
Atheist: I don't believe you. Until I see proof, I'm going to assume that you're wrong.
If the discussion is as follows, burden of proof is on both sides:
Theist: There IS a G-d or gods.
Atheist: There IS NO G-d. There are no gods.

In the middle, as always, are the agnostics who hold that claims about the supernatural cannot be assessed as "true" or "false" because they invoke the unknown, the unknowable, and the incoherent. This is perhaps the most logically defensible stance, however, there are those who hold strong beliefs in the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities who acknowledge this logic as well, accepting the fallibility and limitation of human knowledge and the fact that their belief or disbelief (disbelief/belief rather than a definite claim of knowledge)cannot be supported by incontrovertible logical or evidentiary proof.

Agnosticism is a bit of a sticky wicket, but I've decided to stick with the official definition. As some have pointed out and as I note above in not so many words, agnostics can fall into the atheist or theist categories to some extent. One can also be an atheist or theist (even someone who practices an organized religion) and accept the logic of agnosticism.

Outrageous claim number 2: Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists.

This claim, one of the fundamental forms of ontological or metaphysical naturalism, is a blatant logical fallacy not to mention scientifically inaccurate. The logical fallacy is easy to refute: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The scientific part takes us into stickier territory.

First, I'd like to point out that metaphysical naturalism is NOT the scientific method. Science makes no definite claim that nature is all that does or can exist regarding the supernatural and is thus agnostic in a sense. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has been refuted by many using the example of an elephant in the middle of the room (amongst others). However, that example does not apply. Absence of evidence works in that example and the others showing proof of the absence of other material objects, because we know what evidence there would definitely be for an elephant in the middle of the room. Since we don't know for certain what the evidence would be of the supernatural, we can't assert that the absence of some definitive evidence that we can point to as evidence is evidence of the nonexistence of the supernatural.

Warning: Technobabble ahead! The known laws of physics and the discoveries of quantum physics show that our ability to observe the universe is limited by its and our innate properties. For instance, the impossibility of overcoming the speed of light means we see distant objects as they appeared far in the past, so some event may have happened so far in the past that we can't observe it. Although we are only able to observe three dimensions, many physicists now believe that there may be many that we can't observe and question why we're limited to three. The possibilities opened up by our examination of the universe and the acknowledgement of our own limitations has allowed scientists to consider the existence of a variety of things we neither have nor can observe, including multiple dimensions and multiple universes.

I was not using this to make any claim about the existence of the supernatural. This is only to show that scientific evidence supports the idea that there may be things which exist that we cannot adequately observe due to limitations in our ability to observe the world and the peculiarities of the universe. Our having never observed something, therefore, provides no evidence for its nonexistence. We also cannot claim that all that we have experienced/observed are, in fact, the sum total of reality. We know that nature exists, but not that it is all that exists or can exist.

In this context, the supernatural's existence cannot be refuted solely by our inability to observe it. Maybe a supreme being's properties or our own are simply preventing direct observation. It's a logical possibility. It is simply not one for science to consider. In the end, however, it is almost certain that there are things that exist that are beyond any of our philosophies.

Again, I'm not saying that this proves existence of the supernatural or that someone has to believe one way or another, only that both existence and nonexistence remain logical possibilities. I would hope that knowledge of our limitations would provide us with the humility to admit that we could be wrong. A failure to acknowledge these limitations (arrogance perhaps), evident in metaphysical naturalism, leads us to overestimate our own strengths and underestimate the other sides weaknesses. This certainty that we are right and the other side wrong in an area where no definitive knowledge is possible can lead to extremism.

Scotland Yard Rocks!!!!!!!

Hat's off to Scotland Yard for their amazing work in foiling the latest international terrorist plot. The fine men and women of SY, as I'm sure you've heard by now, have disrupted a plan to blow up airplanes travelling from the UK to the US. The plan, if carried out, would have resulted in a tremendous, perhaps incalculable, loss of human life in the United States. All are on high alert to be perfectly sure that all aspects of the plot are dealt with and no currently unknown stragglers are able to continue with the plot, but nonetheless, this is a great day. Today, we should all be Britons, united in our pride for the men and women in uniform who have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives... all in a day's work.

One section at a time

To avoid confusion and in the interests of time, I'm going to deconstruct my own work one passage at a time. My deconstructive comments are in bold.

The religious nutballs on the extreme right Interesting that no one took umbrage at my use of the term 'religious nutballs'. have kept us rational lefties so busy that we've neglected an important although onerous duty -- cleaning the secular whackjobs out of our own attic, the extreme left. Whackjob...a play on words of the common pairing of that term with religious. The pun, obviously, was ill-received.(Of course, extremisms of the religious or atheistic nature are only a small part of the sum total of extremism. Each form of thought has its own whackjobs of varying stripes.) Why face off with the secular whackjobs? Because extremism is extremism is extremism. No rational movement dedicated to intellectual courage and honesty should maintain a relationship with those for whom intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and cowardice are a way of life. Doing what must be done to insure the integrity of the left will require identifying our extremists, countering their mythologies, and acknowledging the dangers they pose to a truly liberal society. As I mentioned earlier, extremism of thought builds the foundation for extremist actions. This is my intent behind the phrase "extremism is extremism is extremism." Although extremist action amongst even the most radical/militant of atheists is limited to general rudeness at this time, any future extremist action may build on the ideological framework provided by ideologues like Sam Harris, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins. There, I named names. Happy?
First, what is a secular whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular extremists are atheists, not all atheists are secular extremists. Definitely, a badly written paragraph with editing changes (mine) that muddied the waters. This and the following were once one paragraph. With the sentence beginning "The term secular..." in parentheses, which perhaps would have avoided some of the conclusion. As some have pointed out, the actual definition of secular whackjob is below.Also, as pointed out in my post on the dictionary, I did NOT make up this definition of secular.
The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism Perhaps I should have used different words here to indicate only those who insist in the absolute that the supernatural does not/cannot exist and they know this for a fact. and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or postive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression. Just as the religious extremist holds that his belief in a supreme being alone makes him morally and spiritually superior, the secular extremist holds that his belief that no such being exists and virulent opposition to the reverse make him intellectually and ethically superior. Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims.

So, what are the secular extremist's claims? They are legion, but I will stick to some of the major claims I've encountered in "respected" secularist media and in debate with atheist friends and readers. I chose to stick to those that I thought were the dividing line between reasonable atheist belief (Let's not get sematic on the belief thing. Belief/disbelief are all parts of the same mental processes.) and extremism. Perhaps I should have gone with the most bizarre and outrageous claims, but I thought that would be a little too "straw man". Forgive me as I am a bit too amused at the irony.

Comments Moderation

I have turned comments moderation off. Please don't bombard me with 80 comments from one person or I'll be forced to turn it back on. I would really rather everyone be able to discuss civilly, regardless of whether they agree with me or each other.

Why now?

In consideration of my limited time, I'm going to answer one of the many questions sent my way during this months-long debacle. Why now? Why pay any attention at all to extreme atheism (or feminism or environmentalism as I'll go into later) in the face of the overwhelming threat from the religious right? Aren't I just emboldening the right? Giving them ammunition to come after us? Hmmmmmm...

Well, first, I'd like to point out to those who have condemned me for the timing of my criticism of the left that they are (unwittingly I assume) parroting just the sort of claptrap that we've condemned when it comes from the right. Remember our response to George W. Bush and his pet neocons when they claimed that anti-war dissent "emboldened the terrorists"? Dissent, we argued, is not just the right of every citizen, but our responsibility when we see our country going the wrong way. Is this any less true of our reponsibilities when we see our movements or parties going the wrong way? I would say that unquestioning consent out of fear is an affront to the finest of liberal ideals. Progress is not possible without the debate and self-assessment born of dissent.

So, why now? Why not just face down the biggest threat and leave the small fries for later? Why worry about a threat that is far from actualizing itself if it ever will at all? After all, the extremists of the left aren't planning to take over the Democratic party or anything. I would remind you of a little bit of history.

In the 1970's and 80's, the United States viewed the Soviet Union as THE threat, ignoring the possibility that radical Islamism may someday pose a threat of its own. So, we gave the Muslim extremists just enough rope to hang us.

In the 60's and 70's, the military industrial complex was considered the premiere enemy of the left. Religious extremists here in America were written off as just a few crazy people with no hope of ever wielding enough power to harm us. It's not like they even dreamed of taking over the Republican party. Besides, they weren't organized enough to do any thing, or so we thought. Then, the 80's and 90's came and the religious right became one of the most powerful forces in American politics. I don't need to remind you of the consequences.

Both radical Islamists and the American religious right were once small, noninfluential minorities limited to polemical screeds, evangelizing, and religious proclamations from on high. What changed? Everything. Rapid social, political, and economic change in the Middle East and the United States respectively ramped up the anxiety and fear of those who felt out of place and even threatened by the new world order. Desperate to hang on to what they'd "lost" (often, an overly idealized view of the way things had been) and unable or unwilling to adapt, they organized and they took action. The rest of us sat idly by, completely ignoring those we considered incapable of the kind of organization, power and influence that would make them a threat worth facing. Now, we have lived to regret it.

The rapid social, political, and economic changes of the last few years have sparked legitimate fear and anxiety, especially amongst those of us targeted by the religious right. The atheists, women, LGBT, environmentalists, etc. have the most to lose from the world order proposed by the Bushies and their ilk. We are therefore most likely to organize and take action. Unfortunately, tremendous fear and anxiety are not necessarily conducive to good decision-making. Desperate for anyone willing to lead, anyone able to strike against the right, we may make the wrong choice: the choice to allow the extremists amongst us (the most vocal and seemingly the "strongest") to lead the way, tapping into the worst in us rather than the best. An extremist-led victory is victory in name only, without purpose and at the cost of our ideals.

The current threat is not extremists taking over the Democratic party, although we should not ignore that as a possibility. (I'd like to point out once again here, that althought I vote Democratic, I am NOT a member of the Democratic party and am not urging a purge of its membership roles.) Instead, extremism poses an immediate threat to the integrity and success of the left as a movement.

What do I mean by integrity? We cannot condemn the right for giving in to its extremists, for failing to deny them power, if we are not willing to stand up against the extremists amongst us. That, my friends, is hypocrisy plain and simple. No, our extremists aren't taking action now, but let us not forget that those who propagate extremist views build the ideological foundation for those who do take action.

What do I mean by success? No, not "votes" for the Democrats. Although we shouldn't forget the importance of winning elections. By success, I am referring to our ability to unite the disparate movements of the left into a cohesive whole with the strength to combat the right electorally and ideologically and to put pressure on the seats of power (corporations, the government, and the media)to follow policies which serve the best interests of the many rather than the few.

Some have argued that we can hate and denigrate one another but still work together for common goals. They speak of a "tolerance" of barely concealed contempt that is to make that possible. Perhaps, in an "ideal" world, this might be true. Humanity, however, is not ideal. Few, if any, would willingly struggle beside those who hate and denigrate them. Those who take the risks and make the sacrifices entailed in political and economic struggle should never be rewarded by being openly berated.

True tolerance, that tolerance to which the left aspires and which we must have in order to succeed, is the tolerance of humility (the ability to admit we might be wrong on some things) that allows us to see our own weaknesses so that we may acknowledge the possibility of the other's strength. It is the tolerance that recognizes the basic human dignity to which we are all entitled, regardless of superficial or not-so-superficial divisions. It is the tolerance that destroys hate rather than conceals it.

It is in the name of this type of tolerance, in the name of the integrity of our movements, and in the name of a victory that is more than just victory for its own sake, that we must face down the extremists amongst us.

And that is why now.

Some Atheism Links

Here are your recommendations for atheism links and my own:
MAAF
American Atheists
Ignostic Atheism
Agnostic Atheism
Atheism
Invisible Pink Unicorn
Pastafarianism
Logical Postivisism
More on Logical Positivism
Noncognitivism
Council for Secular Humanism
Internet Infidels
About.com's Atheism/Agnosticism Guide
Mitchell Stephens

No, I'm not just being lazy

Life at Casa Melinda has been rather rough as of late. First, something I've learned recently, NEVER EVER break your laptop, especially if it's your only computer. They're not as easy to fix as you'd think, especially when you're too damned broke to buy the parts. Life without an internet connection has been a bit sucky. Secondly, I'd rather not go into too much detail, but due to serious health concerns and the side effects of the meds used to treat them, I've been physically and mentally exhausted most of the time. Just putting in my 40 hours has required all of the energy I have. (I actually considered giving up on writing entirely, but the webkahunah convinced me that I should keep on keeping on.) My docs are working with me on ways to combat the exhaustion since going off the meds would place my life at risk, LITERALLY. Nearly every day has been a struggle between my desire to get things done (You should see the train wreck that is my apartment.) and my body's violent opposition to anything but rest and sleep. I may actually write something at some point about my condition, as it is a rare one that is often misdiagnosed and very difficult to get under control; some kind of public service announcement type entry. (Most doctors don't even know what it is.) Brief summary: It's called prinzmetals syndrome or variant angina and is characterized by spasms in the arteries that feed oxygen to the heart. Ever had a muscle spasm? Imagine one in your heart. Yeah, they suck. Hit the link and if you think this may apply to you, run don't walk to your nearest cardiologist.
Your patience is greatly appreciated.
Shalom Aleichem,
Melinda Barton