QOTD: Confused about the nature of the problem

Quote of the Day:

Many of our secular critics worry that if we oblige people to choose between reason and faith, they will choose faith and cease to support scientific research; if, on the other hand, we ceaselessly reiterate that there is no conflict between religion and science, we might cajole great multitudes into accepting the truth of evolution (as though this were an end in itself). Here is a version of this charge that, I fear, most people would accept, taken from journalist Chris Mooney and marine biologist Sheril Kirshenbaum’s book Unscientific America:

If the goal is to create an America more friendly toward science and reason, the combativeness of the New Atheists is strongly counterproductive. If anything, they work in ironic combination with their dire enemies, the anti-science conservative Christians who populate the creation science and intelligent design movements, to ensure we’ll continue to be polarized over subjects like the teaching of evolution when we don’t have to be. America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former. The New Atheists err in insisting that such a choice needs to be made. Atheism is not the logically inevitable outcome of scientific reasoning, any more than intelligent design is a necessary corollary of religious faith. A great many scientists believe in God with no sense of internal contradiction, just as many religious believers accept evolution as the correct theory to explain the development, diversity, and inter-relatedness of life on Earth. The New Atheists, like the fundamentalists they so despise, are setting up a false dichotomy that can only damage the cause of scientific literacy for generations to come. It threatens to leave science itself caught in the middle between extremes, unable to find cover in a destructive, seemingly unending, culture war.

The first thing to observe is that Mooney and Kirshenbaum are confused about the nature of the problem. The goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory. Doubt about evolution is merely a symptom of an underlying condition; the condition is faith itself — conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas obscured by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc. Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to imagine that we can get people to value intellectual honesty by lying to them.

While it is invariably advertised as an expression of “respect” for people of faith, the accommodationism that Mooney and Kirshenbaum recommend is nothing more than naked condescension, motivated by fear. They assure us that people will choose religion over science, no matter how good a case is made against religion. In certain contexts, this fear is probably warranted. I wouldn’t be eager to spell out the irrationality of Islam while standing in the Great Mosque in Mecca. But let’s be honest about how Mooney and Kirshenbaum view public discourse in the United States: Watch what you say, or the Christian mob will burn down the Library of Alexandria all over again. By comparison, the “combativeness” of the “New Atheists” seems quite collegial. We are merely guilty of assuming that our fellow Homo sapiens possess the requisite intelligence and emotional maturity to respond to rational argument, satire, and ridicule on the subject of religion — just as they respond to these discursive pressures on all other subjects. Of course, we could be wrong. But let’s admit which side in this debate currently views our neighbors as dangerous children and which views them as adults who might prefer not to be completely mistaken about the nature of reality. - Sam Harris

Mark your calendar

OK, remember, the Rapture is Saturday. Yes, time flies, doesn't it? But make sure you've got your affairs in order. You don't want to be wondering for all eternity if you turned off the oven.

And speaking of flying, enjoy your trip. I don't think you have to worry about baggage, and you probably won't have to take off your shoes or get a pat-down by security officials for this one. After all, if you stick a bomb in your underwear, it probably won't cause problems for anyone else.

Above all, have faith. Yeah, this may seem crazier than a sack of squirrels, but hey, how else are you going to decide what to believe? Reason and evidence? Don't be ridiculous!

Is accommodationism short-term thinking?

One of the perennial arguments among atheists is between accommodationists, who don't want to upset religious believers, and the so-called "new" atheists, who don't mind upsetting people at all.

Keep in mind that this is just about tactics. It's not anything more profound than that. But still, the arguments can get pretty fierce. It's still a very intense disagreement.

I should say right off that I tend to side with the "new" atheists, although I think that both sides make some valid points. Well, if you read this blog at all, you should realize that, right? But I also don't see why only one tactic makes sense. If you're the accommodationist type, fine. Soft-sell might work for some people.

If blunt-speaking scares people off, maybe your gentler approach will seem more reasonable and rational in comparison. But at the same time, other people may need to be shocked out of their complacency. Atheists have used the gentle approach for decades, if not centuries - where they didn't fear for their lives - without much effect (not here in America, at least - they've been far more successful in Europe).

And although I enjoy speaking bluntly, I have no interest in angering believers for the sake of angering believers. Indeed, I welcome believers as my allies when it comes to maintaining the separation of church and state, protecting our environment, and in many other political and social issues. We may disagree about some things, but still agree on others. In fact, I doubt that I agree with anyone about everything.

Anyway, Chris Mooney, science journalist and author of The Republican War on Science, tends to be an accommodationist. He seems to be a good guy, but I still tend to disagree with him about that. As a journalist, he normally interviews other people, but he recently became the interviewee on a Point of Inquiry podcast. And it's been getting a lot of attention from other atheists.

I must admit that I haven't listened to the podcast myself, not yet. There simply isn't enough time for everything. I heard about it at Pharyngula, is all. And I simply wanted to note this comment by PZ Myers:

Once again, the problem revolves around a central argument for the Mooneyites: that harsh criticism of cherished beliefs, like religion, leads to an immediate, emotion-based shutdown of critical faculties by the target, and makes them refractory to rational evaluation of their ideas. To which I say, yeah, so? I agree with that. I know that happens. It's what I expect to happen.

But that's all short-term thinking, and I don't care what happens in the mind of a believer five minutes or a day after I make an argument (the usual domain of the psychology experiments accommodations love to cite in defense of their position; there's an awful lot of psychology done in our universities with horizons no longer than the next publication deadline). What I'm interested in seeing happen is the development of a strong cadre of vocal atheists who will make a sustained argument, over the course of years or generations, who will keep pressing on the foolishness of faith. I also don't mind seeing believers get angry and stomping off determined to prove I'm a colossal jackhole — that means they're thinking, even if they're disagreeing with me. ...

I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive. Look at all those assertive Gnu/New Atheists — they are not making Spock-like dispassionate arguments only, although there is a strong rational core — we are hitting people in the gut and telling them to open their eyes. It gives us that unseemly aggressive reputation, but at the same time it's a very effective way to let people know we think they are dead wrong.

What do you think? Is accommodationism short-term thinking?

If you call someone an idiot, he's going to stop listening to you. But the fact is, he probably wasn't going to listen to you anyway. When people debate, they only listen to the other person in order to martial their own arguments. Normally, we've already made up our minds, and nothing is likely to change them.

In fact, studies have shown that presenting clear evidence a belief is wrong just gets a true believer to hold that belief even more strongly. We humans are very, very resistant to changing our beliefs, despite the evidence. Our tendency is always to confirm what we already think, and there are many ways we do that, often unconsciously.

[As an aside, that's why the scientific method is so valuable. Scientists are only human, too, and they are just as resistant to changing their minds. They do try to disprove their own thinking, but that goes against human nature. However, science is a social process. It's a group effort. It works, in part, because scientists have no problem finding flaws in someone else's thinking. And so the scientific consensus tends to get it right, even if some individual scientists still stubbornly stick to their original idea.]

This argumentative theory may or may not be right, but it's still a fact that reason doesn't work too well. Even reason combined with evidence - which is easily the best way of determining the truth we've ever discovered - doesn't work particularly well with individuals, because we're just naturally resistant to changing our minds. Even scientists struggle with this, though they've got an entire culture devoted to following the evidence wherever it leads.

So, is it hopeless, then? Well, PZ Myers says that this is short-term thinking. What happens after years, or even generations, of reasoned argument? It's an interesting thought, don't you think?

For one thing, it's very difficult to get an adult to change his mind. But adolescents are far more open to new ideas. Yes, they still have their beliefs - they've been raised from infancy to have those beliefs, and you won't change their minds easily - but young people in general just aren't as rigid as older ones.

And usually, in order to change their beliefs, people first have to hear arguments to the contrary. It's hard to adopt even a new belief if you've never heard of it before. Accommodationists don't want to anger believers, but believers get angry at just knowing atheists exist. We "new" atheists may make them even angrier, but at least we get noticed. At least we get attention. And without that kind of publicity, how will we ever see change come to America? (It's the same way with politics, too, I'd say.)

All my life, until recent years, I kept my atheism pretty much to myself. Well, it wasn't anyone else's business, right? I didn't know any other atheists, and it rarely came up in conversation (we didn't have such widespread, in-your-face evangelicalism back then). But during the Bush years, I finally decided I had to stand up for my opinions,... unless I wanted to end up living in a theocracy. I still don't go door to door like an atheist missionary, but I make sure my position is known.

We atheists just can't afford to be quiet these days. And if we're not quiet, perfectly quiet, we're going to anger believers. There's just no way around that, since we question what they really, really want to believe.

True, I doubt that I've ever convinced anyone to my way of thinking. I've posted a whole series of articles about my non-belief, and more than a hundred posts about religion in general, without likely having a single convert.

But so what? Now my friends at least know that I'm an atheist, and many of them know why. Some of them aren't happy about it, I'm sure - and certainly some of my relatives aren't - but keeping people happy isn't necessarily the best of all possible goals. Well, some people I do try to keep happy. But honesty is also important.

You know, they had this same debate in the gay community, too. Most atheists are still in the closet, just like most gays were (and maybe still are, I don't know). But when gays started outing themselves, some were actively, defiantly, flamboyantly queer (taking a derogatory term as their own and basically daring the straight world to try to ignore them). Others were concerned about showing Americans that they were just like everyone else, good neighbors, good co-workers, and good friends.

I can't say that one side was right and one side was wrong, and why does anyone have to make that argument? One way or another - or, more likely, both ways - gay rights has come a long way in a remarkably short period of time. Yeah, you might not think that if you're gay yourself, but change has been lightning fast for a social issue like this (just look at the long, long struggle for racial equality).

When it comes to atheism, I think similarly. I have absolutely no problem with accommodationists, but I don't think they should be criticizing atheists who aren't so concerned about getting along. If believers aren't going to support science just because atheists do support science, well, their support would clearly be pretty weak, anyway. I mean, really, what's with that?

We can disagree about some things while still agreeing about others - indeed, while still working together on other issues. Your religious belief is your own business, and I'll fight to keep it that way. But I won't keep quiet about my own disbelief. And I think it's especially crazy for atheists to ask that of me.

If Mooney is wrong about this (I'll note again that I haven't listened to that podcast, and I don't want to put words in his mouth), he's certainly right about the Republican war on science. Again, we can disagree on some things while agreeing on others. I won't mute my criticism when I think he's wrong, but I'll still support him when I think he's right.

For a long, long time in America, religion has had the special privilege of being immune to criticism. There were some good reasons for that, since religious disputes have been the horror of the world. And in America, with our freedom of religion and the complete separation of church and state, your neighbor's religion was not supposed to be your concern. We were all still Americans, whatever your religious belief.

But religion came to believe that it should be immune to criticism, even as it got more and more involved with politics. For two hundred years, believers have been chipping away at that wall of separation between church and state. Now, they're even trying to rewrite history. But they still think they should get our automatic respect.

Well, I can criticize your beliefs while still supporting your right to believe them. It's not that difficult a concept, is it? I think you're wrong, but  you have the right to be wrong. You don't, however, have the right to keep my from expressing my own opinion.

PS. I thought about adding this to my Non-Belief series, but I'm not sure if it fits with the rest of those articles. I suppose I'll think about it some more. Maybe I'll put a link there, even without renaming this post. What do you think?

After approving NBC buyout...

From Ars Technica:

Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the two Republican Commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission, plans to step down—and right into a top lobbying job at Comcast-NBC.

The news, reported this afternoon by the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, and Politico, comes after the hugely controversial merger of Comcast and NBC earlier this year. At the time, Baker objected to FCC attempts to impose conditions on the deal and argued that the "complex and significant transaction" could "bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms."

Four months after approving the massive transaction, Attwell Baker will take a top DC lobbying job for the new Comcast-NBC entity, according to reports.

Could it be any clearer that much of our government is for sale to the highest bidder? As a public official, Attwell Baker argues vociferously on Comcast's behalf,... and is rewarded just four months later with a very lucrative job. That's not coincidence. If she'd opposed the merger, do you really think she'd have been offered this position?

But then, Republicans believe in government by corporation. In Citizens United, right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court overturned precedent to let corporations donate unlimited sums of money to political campaigns. After all, aren't corporations just people - very, very wealthy people - too?

Of course, corporations aren't people. All of the decisions in a corporation are made by actual people. But the people making the decisions aren't necessarily the people who own the corporation. If you own shares of stock or mutual funds - say in your retirement plan? - then you own parts of these corporations. But you don't control them. Other people control them.

So a wealthy CEO can now spend your money, in effect, for whatever purposes he likes. Is it any surprise that he'll tend to like politicians who promise to cut taxes on the rich? "Corporations" don't make these decisions, people do. And now, they don't even have to use their own money!

Sure, if you own a lot of shares of stock in a particular corporation, then you'll have some influence over this. So wealthy Chinese or Saudi Arabians might have some real influence over which American politician gets corporate support. But you? Not at all. Heck, if you own mutual funds, you might not even know which corporations you (partially) own. But that's still your money they're using to buy politicians for their own benefit.

Now Republicans consider wealth itself to be a virtue. A very wealthy man is just better than the rest of us, no matter how he got the money. Did you just inherit your money from a wealthy grandfather? No problem. That still shows you're better than everyone else. Clearly, God wanted you to be rich.

So Meredith Attwell Baker is doing exactly the right thing, in their eyes. First, she stood up for a big corporation, which is always right by Republican thinking. And then, she got a lucrative position with them, which makes her wealthier. And since being wealthy is virtuous in itself, she becomes a better person from that alone.

It's win/win. You may think it's corrupt - and it is - but if you buy into Republican thinking, it's exactly the right thing to do.

And human nature being what it is, I'm sure that Attwell Baker doesn't think she did anything wrong, either. It's always easy to justify what benefits you, yourself. It's always easy to believe what we really want to believe.

QOTD: The end of the world

Quote of the Day:

Q. Family Radio evangelist Harold Camping believes that he has calculated the exact date of the rapture: May 21, 2011. While many are laughing at the suggestion, Camping’s followers are taking him seriously, bringing his message of impending doom to billboards and public spaces around the country. What does your tradition teach about the end of the world? How does end time theology impact real world behavior?

A. Why is a serious newspaper like the Washington Post giving space to a raving loon? I suppose the answer must be that, unlike the average loon, this one has managed to raise enough money to launch a radio station and pay for billboards. I don’t know where he gets the money, but it would be no surprise to discover that it is contributed by gullible followers – gullible enough, we may guess, to go along with him when he will inevitably explain, on May 22nd, that there must have been some error in the calculation, the rapture is postponed to . . . and please send more money to pay for updated billboards.

So, the question becomes, why are there so many well-heeled, gullible idiots out there? Why is it that an idea can be as nuts as you like and still con enough backers to finance its advertising to acquire yet more backers . . . until eventually a national newspaper notices and makes it into a silly season filler?

I won’t waste any more time on that, but I do want to mention a less trivial point arising from the question posed by the Washington Post: ‘What does your tradition teach about the end of the world?’ It’s that word ‘tradition’ that should raise our critical hackles. It refers to a collection of beliefs handed down through generations – as opposed to beliefs founded on evidence. Evidence-free beliefs are, by definition, groundless. What my ‘tradition’ (or your ‘tradition’ or the Dalai Lama’s ‘tradition’ or Osama bin Laden’s ‘tradition’ or the bad-trip ‘tradition’ of whoever wrote Revelation) says about anything in the real world (including its end) is no more likely to be true than any urban legend, idle rumor, superstition, or science fiction novel. Yet, the moment you slap the word ‘tradition’ onto a made-up story you confer on it a spurious dignity, which we are solemnly asked to ‘respect’.

Science is not a tradition, it is the organized use of evidence from the real world to make inferences about the real world... - Richard Dawkins

High schooler challenges Bachmann to debate

(Steve Sack)

From The Minnesota Independent:

A high school sophomore from New Jersey is challenging Rep. Michele Bachmann to a debate on civics and the U.S. Constitution. In an open letter to to Bachmann, Amy Myers of Cherry Hill, N.J., said, “I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted.”

“I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics,” Myers wrote, according to a report by City Pages’ Nick Pinto.

Politifact rated Bachmann’s statements about the U.S. Constitution’s census requirements in 2009 as “Pants on Fire” false. CNN’s Anderson Cooper dinged Bachmann back in January for her revisionist history regarding the U.S. Constitution’s racist past.

I don't know about this. I think I agree with Indecision Forever that this hardly seems like a fair match. That high school student, Amy Myers, should be required to get drunk first.

Is your governor getting stupider?

Does your Republican governor seem to be getting stupider? There could be a reason for that.

From Salon, here's five signs your Republican governor might be planning to run for President:

Candidate develops doubts about evolution

Evolution, a scientific fact, is not recognized by one of America's two major political parties, and a majority of Americans are either creationists or at least express "doubts" about evolution, so it just makes sense for people seeking the Republican nomination to align themselves with people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old.

But belief in evolution correlates to education level, and most of the elites in politics and media are well-educated, so you don't want to become a creationist -- then you will be mercilessly mocked -- you just need to signal your tacit support for creationism and promise to let it be taught in schools. ...

Candidate suddenly agnostic on or openly hostile to climate science

Not that long ago, most Republicans agreed that climate change was real and something should be done about it. Nearly everyone currently running for the Republican nomination supported cap-and-trade, which was the moderate alternative to a proper carbon tax. Now, though, not so much!

Now, even those who still profess to believe in climate science think the government shouldn't do anything to stop it (the "reasonable" Jon Huntsman approach) and the rest of them no longer think climate change is happening, because Al Gore, who is fat, is also now divorced (the shameless Gingrich approach).

I won't copy all five signs here. You can check the Salon article yourself for the last three, if you like. Oddly enough, becoming a "birther" isn't one of them. But maybe the past two weeks has finally put paid to that nonsense?

Still, before then, Republican hopefuls were, if not as enthusiastically endorsing that lunacy as Donald Trump, at the very least showing their tacit support. Yup, just like denying evolution, being an out-and-out "birther" would get them laughed at by anyone with any sense at all. But it was popular among the base, and you just can't tell the Republican rank and file that they're complete idiots, even when - especially when - it's true.

Does your Republican governor seem to be getting stupider and stupider? Maybe he's just ambitious.

I'm back

Blogger has been down the last couple of days, and I think I lost some posts when they rolled everything back to Wednesday. Last night, they said that "nearly all posts since Wednesday are restored," but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

The problem was apparently data corruption, happening during scheduled maintenance Wednesday night. As early as Thursday morning, there were indications of problems, but they eventually took the whole system down. And then they rolled everything back to Wednesday, before the corruption took place.

I don't have copies of any posts after that. I don't even remember what they were. Once I post something, it's pretty dismissed from my mind. I've lost some comments, too, I know (one calling me an idiot - I don't suppose I'll miss that one much).

Well, this is a pain, but I've been blogging for more than a year now, and it's the first time I've had a serious problem. So I'm not going to worry about it much.

Why bother being good?

(Jesus & Mo)

U.S. braced for a fight with Pakistan

This is probably nothing new to most of you, since the media have been all over this event. But I can't seem to stop thinking about it. I can't even imagine the pressure on President Obama and his commanders ahead of time, thinking about all of the ways this could have gone horribly wrong.

And then to think of him laughing and joking at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner, while all this was still up in the air,... well, I guess that's just one reason why I'm not President of the United States, huh?

Anyway, I thought this was interesting. From The New York Times:

President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby: One to bury Bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators and translators in case he was captured alive. That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, most likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea.

Mr. Obama’s decision to increase the size of the force sent into Pakistan shows that he was willing to risk a military confrontation with a close ally in order to capture or kill the leader of Al Qaeda.

Such a fight would have set off an even larger breach with the Pakistanis than has taken place since officials in Islamabad learned that helicopters filled with members of a Navy Seals team had flown undetected into one of their cities, and burst into a compound where Bin Laden was hiding.

One senior Obama administration official, pressed on the rules of engagement for one of the riskiest clandestine operations attempted by the C.I.A. and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command in many years, said: “Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorized to do it.”

Obviously, we didn't - couldn't - trust the Pakistani government or their military. That's not to say that they're our enemies, but some of them probably are. At any rate,  you know that al-Qaeda must have them pretty thoroughly infiltrated.

And I'd heard originally that one of the helicopters stalled - luckily, close to the ground - which is why they had to destroy it and leave in the other. But it sounds like it just made a combat landing that was a bit too hard - very understandable, in the circumstances - but other helicopters were available as backup.

About 10 days before the raid, Mr. Obama reviewed the plans and pressed his commanders as to whether they were taking along enough forces to fight their way out if the Pakistanis arrived on the scene and tried to interfere with the operation.

That resulted in the decision to send two more helicopters carrying additional troops. These followed the two lead Black Hawk helicopters that carried the actual assault team. While there was no confrontation with the Pakistanis, one of those backup helicopters was ultimately brought in to the scene of the raid when a Black Hawk was damaged while making a hard landing.

I'd say that was a very wise decision, although you couldn't have asked for a more picture-perfect operation, damaged helicopter and all. They got in, undetected by both al-Qaeda and Pakistan, got Osama bin Laden, plus all sorts of intelligence data, and then got out again, all without losing a man.

Lucky? Yes, no doubt. But I doubt if they depended on luck. This was a matter of skill and careful planning. Of course, it could still have gone wrong. I'll bet the whole thing was a real nail-biting affair for everyone.

Hasidic newspaper removes Hillary Clinton

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Hasidic Newspaper Removes Hillary Clinton
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

You think this is funny, because you're not Hasidic. But think about it. Can you imagine anything this crazy if religion were not involved?

People can still be insane without religion, and of course people can be wrong without religion. But for normal, sane people to do something this crazy, that takes religion.

Once you decide that your beliefs should be based on faith - which faith depending on how you were raised, of course - then nothing, literally nothing, is too crazy to believe.

Do you believe that a cracker actually, literally turns into the flesh of your god? It would take complete insanity to believe that without religion. But with religion, it's fervently-believed dogma, a belief shared by millions of faithful Catholics.

So yeah, laugh at the crazy beliefs of other religions. You should. But this is the fundamental problem with all religions. Belief in dogma, belief based on faith and tradition, is wrong. Even if you happen to get the right answer, the process is hopelessly flawed.

After all, if you believe based on faith, you really can't criticize anyone else for what they believe, also based on faith. And if what you believe is actually, you know,... true, you shouldn't need faith. Evidence-based thinking - basically, the scientific method - works great for determining the truth, so why should you need to have faith at all?

More importantly, why should you fear evidence-based thinking, if what you believe really is true?

This video clip demonstrates the problem with religion in general, but how many people will just laugh at those silly Hasidim, without seeing how this demonstrates the fallacy behind their own beliefs?

The candidates debate

This is almost as funny as the real debate would be. Honestly, is "crazy" the only quality Republicans look for these days? Well, besides "naked ambition"?

QOTD: The prime theological question

Quote of the Day:

Here is the prime theological question. The one whose answer affects all others. And yet, one that is almost never asked:

Is there moral or logical justification for a creator to wield capricious power of life and death over his creations … and is there any fundamental moral reason why those creations should have to obey?

Humanity long ago replied with a resounding “no!”… at least when talking about parents and their offspring. (There have been a few exceptions, such as the principle of pater familias in Roman law, which permitted a father to kill even adult offspring, if they offended him.) In most cultures, the created—our kids—eventually get full authority and a right to make their own way. In some societies, they are even welcome to argue with their creators along the way.

And yet, without noticing any irony, we have implicitly answered the same question “yes” when it came to God! The Creator, it seemed, was owed unquestioning servitude, just because this creator made us.

It is the ghost at the banquet, the underlying assumption of all religions, taken for granted for far too long. Is it puzzling that—after more than four millennia of theological wrangling, and the investment of millions of hours of thought to religious matters—this question only comes up now? - David Brin

Unwinding "hide the decline"

I think this is the clearest explanation of that 'hide the decline' crock I've ever seen. Global warming deniers picked one suspicious-sounding phrase out of thousands of stolen emails and tried to convince the uninformed that it was reason to deny all of the science.

In reality, of course, it was the kind of ill-chosen phrase anyone might use in a private email to someone else who knew exactly what he meant. There wasn't anything nefarious in it at all. It was just a convenient short-hand for a situation all climatologists understood.

Frankly, this just shows the dishonesty in the deniers' camp. If they didn't know this, it was because they didn't want to know, and didn't bother to ask. Well, why should they? Their goal is to discredit climatological science, not to actually find out the truth.

After all, what's more likely, that the consensus of climatologists is right or that some politician or pundit knows more about the science behind this than the people with the education, background, and experience who work professionally in this field?

When it comes to science, you can find pretty much any individual opinion about anything. But choosing what to believe that way is just believing what you want to believe. The only rational way to behave is to accept - provisionally, as all science is provisional - the current scientific consensus.

And that's just as true about global warming as it is about evolution or the age of the universe or that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You may wish the Earth was flat, but if you believe that, when the scientific consensus says otherwise, you're simply believing what you want to believe.

Anyway, this is a very clear explanation of that "hide the decline" "trick." Will this convince a true believer conspiracy enthusiast? Of course not. Nothing will convince a true believer conspiracy enthusiast.

But if you're still rational, this should show you not only why it's not the smoking gun of a scientific conspiracy, but also why you shouldn't believe such claims in the first place. Climatologists have worked, and continue to work, very hard at determining the truth. They may be wrong, but there's absolutely no better bet than to assume that the consensus of climatologists is right.

After all, in the unlikely event they are wrong, they'll be the first to discover that. And then the consensus will change (and my opinion will, too).

What your teachers are doing

PZ Myers has a great post at Pharyngula about teachers not getting to be human, not getting to have private lives. It's in response to a Salon article that I can't seem to access right now.

At any rate, Myers has some great things to say, but I thought I'd excerpt this bit:

When I was in eighth grade, one of the best teachers I ever had taught me geometry. Mr Anderson was fat; he sweated excessively. He always wore baggy slacks and a white short-sleeved shirt, and he had a crew cut. And he was ferocious. He would yell at bad students and tell them to work harder, and if he caught you being inattentive in class he'd throw an eraser at you. Those students mocked him mercilessly, behind his back. He was also passionate about the subject — I can still see him in my mind's eye excitedly making that chalk fly across the board, talking excitedly about a proof, giggling at how cool a result was.

Every year he rewarded the best of his students with an invitation to his house for a formal party, with snacks and Nehi soda. He was single and weird, but there was no worry about impropriety — there'd be a score of us there, who would all be treated politely as adults, which was mind-blowing right there. He'd play music for us: opera and show tunes.

Show tunes. He adored Ethel Merman, and sometimes even in class he'd start humming something from his beloved musicals.

He made the adults uncomfortable, and you can guess what kinds of rumors the school jocks spread about him. The people who didn't care that he was a fantastic, enthusiastic math teacher who taught students self-respect and to love math only saw a strange man who didn't fit in, who was odd, who fit certain stereotypes, and who obviously could not be trusted.

So one year, poof, he was gone. Dismissed. The best damned math teacher they had, sent away on the heels of a sordid campaign of bigoted whispers.

Even now, it stirs a little outrage in me, that teachers get judged not by the quality of their work and their positive effects on their students, but how well they fit the conventions of the most closed-minded members of the community, by people, even, who despise good educations that raise kids to think independently.

You know, I can't imagine being a teacher, especially of older kids. Adolescents are idiots. I know I was. And parents are even worse. And their bosses are cowards, like all politicians. Dealing with the public isn't much fun in the best of circumstances, but this must be one of the worst.

When I grew up, I had good teachers and poor ones - quite a few poor ones, actually. We paid less than our neighbors next door, so when we got young teachers who were really good, we generally wouldn't keep them long.

But every single one of those teachers tried to do his/her best. I had no doubt of that, even at the time. In high school, most of the class couldn't be bothered to pay attention, and all of us, I think, made fun of the teachers. Well, as I say, we were idiots. But it was easy to tell that my teachers were doing their best in a difficult situation.

Plenty of my teachers should have been doing something else. They really weren't very good at it. But even back then, teaching wasn't a highly-respected position, not for a college graduate. And it certainly wasn't a way to get rich. In our district, as I say, we paid less than most. So we tended to get the teachers who couldn't get hired elsewhere.

Oh, not entirely. There are plenty of reasons for teachers to stay at a school. But in general, if you want really good teachers, you have to pay them well and give them the kind of support they need.

And if you want the best teachers, college students have to see the teaching profession as being highly respected in America - and financially lucrative, too. And they have to see that teachers can have a private life, without every repressed prude in the community being outraged.

Well, it's easy to see where our priorities are, and it's not in the education of our children. It's easy to see why we've lost our global lead in good schools, isn't it? Nothing matters these days but continual tax cuts, especially for the rich.

And half of America actually fears that their children will get a good education, because then they might start thinking for themselves. It's no wonder other nations are beating our pants off.

But who cares? Not enough of us, apparently.

QOTD: Our bin Laden hypocrisy

Quote of the Day:

When Japan finally surrendered at the end of World War Two, patriotic, cheering crowds thronged the streets to celebrate — including, most famously, in New York's Times Square.

When news broke on Sunday that U.S. forces had finally killed Osama bin Laden, chanting, cheering crowds figured they'd follow suit.

But that's where the similarity ends.

Americans made real sacrifices in the Second World War. Millions served under arms. Most families had soldiers in harm's way, and many lost them. Even those in civilian work at home bore direct burdens. They accepted rationing and lowered standards of living to help the war. They accepted high taxes. While the Federal Government ran up huge deficits, these were largely financed here by private sector savings here at home.

Now consider the legacy of the past 10 years and our "war on terror."

Few served under arms. We do not have the draft. And perhaps we don't need one for this war.

But what other sacrifices has the population made? ...

Linda Bilmes, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School and one of the leading experts on the topic, says the direct costs of "war on terror" have so far exceeded $2 trillion. She believes that when the full tab is compiled, including the costs of a lifetime of medical care for the wounded, the costs will come to $5 trillion to $6 trillion.

How much of this burden have the rest of us actually paid?

None of it. On the eve of 9/11, U.S. gross federal debt stood at $5.5 trillion. Today it's around $14 trillion. In other words, over the past 10 years we've put more than $8 trillion on the national credit card. That's maybe four times the total direct costs of the "war on terror" to date, and more than the total likely bill.

And of course, unlike in World War Two, our government has been forced to borrow most of this money from abroad, because during the same period American businesses and households also went on a debt orgy. ...

In other words, not only have we not made material sacrifices for this war — we've taken it as an excuse to party.

Perhaps this is why no "relief rally" turned up on Wall Street on Monday, to the consternation of the commentators. Relief from what? Compare this infantile behavior to the discipline, maturity, dedication and sacrifice of those under arms who are actually fighting the war on Al Quaida.

The Pentagon says that 4,704 American servicemen and women have been killed in action in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Leave aside, please, the dispute about whether Iraq was necessary. The troops served heroically). Another 43,184 have been wounded. Many of those have been wounded grievously, coming home without eyes, or limbs, or with head traumas, or with other terrible injuries, to pick up the pieces they can of their shattered lives.

The numbers don't even scratch at the cost. For each serviceman or woman killed or wounded, think of all the loved ones whose lives, too, will never be the same. The heartache will last as long as they live. - Brett Arends

George W. Bush announces the death of a backyard terrorist

President Bush Reacts to Osama Bin Laden's Death with Will Ferrell from Will Ferrell

QOTD: Every trend taken to its logical conclusion

Quote of the Day:

[Donald] Trump is every trend in Republican politics over the past 35 years taken to its logical conclusion. He is the Republican id, finally entirely unleashed from all restraint and all reality.

The first trend is towards naked imperialism. On Libya, he says: "I would go in and take the oil... I would take the oil and stop this baby stuff." On Iraq, he says: "We stay there, and we take the oil... In the old days, when you have a war and you win, that nation's yours." It is a view that the world is essentially America's property, inconveniently inhabited by foreigners squatting over oil-fields. ...

The second trend is towards dog-whistle prejudice – pitched just high enough for frightened white Republicans to hear it. ... The Republican primary voters heard the message right: the black guy is foreign. He's not one of us. Trump answered these charges by saying: "I've always had a great relationship with the blacks."

The third trend is towards raw worship of wealth as an end in itself – and exempting them from all social responsibility. Trump is wealthy because his father left him a large business, and since then companies with his name on them have crashed into bankruptcy four times. ...

Yet for the Republican Party, the accumulation of money is proof in itself of virtue, however it was acquired. The richest 1 per cent pay for the party's campaigns, and the party in turn serves their interests entirely. ...

How are these tax exemptions for the super-rich paid for? Here's one example. The Republican budget that just passed through the Senate slashed funding to help premature babies to survive. The rich riot while the poor shrivel. Trump offers the ultimate symbol of this: he won't even shake hands with any ordinary Americans out on the stump, because "you catch all sorts of things" from them. Yes: the Republican front-runner is a billionaire who literally won't touch the poor or middle class.

The fourth trend is to insist that any fact inconvenient to your world view simply doesn't exist, or can be overcome by pure willpower. Soon, the US will have to extend its debt ceiling – the amount of money the government is allowed to borrow – or it will default on its debt. Virtually every economist in the world says this would cause another global economic crash. Trump snaps back: "What do economists know? Most of them aren't very smart." Confront the Republicans with any long-term social or economic problem, and they have one response: it would go away if only we insisted on our assumptions more aggressively. ...

Trump probably won't become the Republican nominee, but not because most Republicans reject his premisses. No: it will be because he states these arguments too crudely for mass public consumption. He takes the whispered dogmas of the Reagan, Bush and Tea Party years and shrieks them through a megaphone. The nominee will share similar ideas, but express them more subtly. In case you think these ideas are marginal to the party, remember - it has united behind the budget plan of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. It's simple: it halves taxes on the richest 1 percent and ends all taxes on corporate income, dividends, and inheritance. It pays for it by slashing spending on food stamps, healthcare for the poor and the elderly, and basic services. It aims to return the US to the spending levels of the 1920s – and while Ryan frames it as a response to the deficit, it would actually increase it according to the independent Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. ...

The Republican Party today isn't even dominated by market fundamentalism. This is a crude Nietzscheanism, dedicated to exalting the rich as an overclass and dismissing the rest. So who should be the Republican nominee? I hear the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were considering running – but they are facing primary challenges from the Tea Party for being way too mild-mannered. - Johann Hari

Roll a D6

No, I'm not this kind of game-player. I always thought it would be fun, but I've never really had the chance. Basically, I stick with computer games.

But I understand the enthusiasm here and the culture. This is about using your imagination - not passively, as with a book or movie, but actively. You don't watch a story unfold, you create the story yourself, at least in part, and with your fellow gamers.

Being human, gamers run the gamut. But they're always willing to laugh at themselves.Check out The Guild, for example, or The Order of the Stick.

If you want to laugh at them, fine. But I suspect that a lot of that is just jealously - jealous that they're having such a good time. I'm rather envious myself.

Besides, I like the video parody.

Priorities

From ThinkProgress:

In response to the worst state budget crisis since World War II, the Texas House has proposed slashing $27 billion from the budget, including huge cuts to education, nursing homes, and health care for the poor. Yet last Friday, the Texas House Ways and Means Committee approved a tax break for those who want to buy yachts costing $250,000 or more. ...

The bill was originally estimated to cost Texas $1.4 million annually in lost revenue. It will now move on to be considered by the full House, where several top Republicans have expressed confidence it will pass. ...

Texas faces one of the worst budget outlooks in the country, and amazingly, only about a third of it was caused by the economic downturn. The state has had a chronic shortage of revenue after years of slashing property and business taxes and creating numerous tax breaks and exemptions, just like the proposed one for yacht owners. Yet Republicans still insist on not raising taxes, and as a result have had to rely on draconian cuts to balance the budget.

Under the current proposal, $7.8 billion will be cut from Texas public schools, four community colleges will close, 60,000 students will lose college financial aid, as many as 97,000 teachers and school employees will be laid off, 9,300 government jobs will be eliminated, Medicaid will be shortchanged by nearly $14 billion, and health and human services funding will plummet by a quarter.

But luckily, yacht buyers will get their tax break. Doesn't that make you feel good? The rich, after all, have already suffered so much!

And this way, when all that wealth finally trickles down to everyone else - as Republicans continue to promise us - the rich will be able to ride out the flood in their yachts.

Hmm,... I wonder how many decades of tax cuts will be required before paradise finally arrives? Well, we must have faith, right?