The Warfare Is Mental

What If A Creationist Did This?

November 1, 2008

While reading a recent Chronicle feature by staff writer Jill Tucker, I quickly learned that Gary Healy teaches mathematics at John Muir Middle School in San Leandro, California. I also learned the teacher discovered a package of religious flyers in his mailbox one day, with a note asking to distribute them to his students.

Healy was shocked and refused to distribute the flyers, which were ostensibly for a Bible-based support group dealing with issues related to peer pressure. Tucker reported that at day's end the flyers remained on Healy's desk, so, at least for that day, Healy directly broke with official district policy, which maintains that flyer distribution for non-profits occurs on an all-or-none basis. I was really hoping to catch some crank gassing online about how this is a heroic response to an outrageous moral evil that should be addressed in the name of the separation clause, but to date I haven't found any.

On Homology

October 20, 2008

The phenomenon of homology refers to things that are corresponding or similar in position, value, structure and purpose. For example, many mammals share a common limb design that is versatile and lends well to a number of different functions. In Origin, Darwin notes in great detail the similar expressions of pentadactyl limb design as utilized by man for grasping, moles for digging, horses for movement and bats for flying. Further considering monkey and man, coyote and wolf, or fir and pine, the fact that different types and kinds of organisms share similarities in physical structure, biochemistry and embryonic patterns of development is argued as evidence that life must have descended from a common ancestor. Darwin cited the phenomenon of homology as the strongest evidence for his general theory of evolution. In the same vein, Miller and Levine also feel that homologous resemblance amongst organisms is compelling evidence: “The structural and biochemical similarities among living organisms are best explained by Darwin’s conclusion: living organisms evolved through gradual modification of earlier forms – descent from a common ancestor.”

The Biblical Doctrine of Salvation: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, II

October 5, 2008

In Part I we discussed the first pivotal misunderstanding of religion I claim compromises the validity of the main thesis in the rather well-written A Ghost In The Machine (AGITM). The second implicit misunderstanding we ought to discuss relates to misinterpretations of salvation, the peculiarly culturally-resilient notion that,

“If the person has been virtuous, the soul is admitted to Heaven for an eternity of reward; if the person has been wicked or sinful, their soul descends to Hell for an eternity of punishment.”

Although the author did not explicitly assert this to be the Bible’s position, this is not a biblical teaching, and it is unclear from the essay whether the author understands the biblical perspective, although many of the questions asked in the case studies raise legitimate concern. The above is nevertheless an erroneous interpretation of scripture frequently straw-manned by critics of all stripe in the general public and academia alike, not surprisingly with little or no counter from theism. I say “not surprisingly” because as the author of AGITM is apt to notice, many pious do not know the Bible with the same degree of expertise they expect of its critics.

As with yesterday’s discussion, this apparent misunderstanding of salvation potentially undermines AGITM’s overall argument and even further lessens its relevance to theism. Although less relevant to AGITM’s main thesis (the argument against spirit / soul), this point of contention is relevant to many of the sub-arguments and questions of whether salvation would be granted under the unfortunate conditions experienced by those in the fourteen case studies. Many and possibly all of the sub-dilemmas raised fall apart when salvation is delineated in a manner compatible with scripture. For it is only in the misunderstood context of the biblical ‘soul’ and the rewards-and-punishments system that such questions as these arise at all:

“One must ask whether these people’s disabilities will affect their eternal fate. Would a Christian, Jew or Muslim who lost their automatic speech be held accountable by God for failing to say the prayers he has demanded of them, through no fault of their own? What about a deeply religious individual who loses the ability to speak except in profanities?”

…or the following from the discussion of frontotemporal dementia (FTD):

“..will God damn people for their genes?”

The Biblical Distinction Between Soul And Spirit: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, I

October 4, 2008

Ebonmuse has on his site another much-talked-about essay titled A Ghost In The Machine which is a valiant argument against Cartesian duality, or the generally-theist idea that humans have a soul substance that can survive or somehow transcend the death of the physical body. While leaving a comment in the thread of On Expertise I noticed another comment by Heliobates which read,

“…if you want to read what I consider to be THE SLAM DUNK argument against theism, check out our host’s A Ghost In The Machine. Without Cartesian dualism, religion is dead in the water.”

To this I responded,

“IMO the error… is in assuming all religion dependent upon the Cartesian paradigm. Yes, I can and will offer a detailed counter-explanation, but it is far beyond the scope of the thread..”

So here we are. I said I would offer a detailed counter-explanation, and now I’ve got to stick to my word.

Ideas Conceived In Reaction To A Complete And Total Moron

September 24, 2008

The alternate title for this piece is, "Why I’m Quitting My Bicycle Commute."

So this morning I was on a ride, and for the most part it was a really enjoyable sunny-day ride until I met a complete and total moron. A classic, corporate, postmodern ignoramus hunched liked a doofus at the wheel of his pristine VW Jetta, complete with bluetooth technology to boot.

I’m on 17th eastbound a block or so before either Valencia or Mission; I got so pissed afterwards I actually can’t remember. Anyhow, I’m in the bike lane approaching the intersection with a good dozen cars backed up waiting for someone to make a left turn. Of course, this guy can’t wait, and goes to do the I’m an impatient little bitch so I’ll drive around the car in front of me move. Now I wouldn’t have a problem with this type of move and would even employ it myself, say, on some three or four-lane road like 101, Fell or Van Ness, but not a 1.2-lane road with a difficult-to-distinguish bike lane like 17th.

A Public Challenge To Atheists: Is It Wrong For Me To Crush A Flea?

September 19, 2008

I frequently pick fleas off our cats and crush them beneath my fingertips, and I invite any and all atheists to explain whether they think this behavior is wrong or not.

For the sake of the discussion, let's presume this causes suffering to the flea. Is it wrong for me to crush a flea? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance for comments and thanks especially if you link to this post from your own blog or website.

On Falsifiability: What Exactly Is Pseudoscience Anyways?

September 18, 2008

It's pretty simple to assume what pseudoscience means, right? "Pseudo" means fake, and "science" means, well…science. I didn't need to consult a dictionary for that. I decided to obtain a working definition of the word pseudoscience because upon going to use it, I realized I had only my personal interpretation of the word to draw upon, which I wanted to assure was correct and not skewed.

I will say that in the argument over pseudoscience, all roads lead to falsifiability. In general, any statement can fall into three categories:

1. A statement which is falsifiable, but has not yet been falsified;
2. A statement which is falsifiable, and has been shown to be false;
3. A statement which is not falsifiable.

Put simply, unfalsifiable statements or falsifiable statements that have been proven false are not scientific statements. For this reason, I currently don't think that creationism or intelligent design qualify as scientific ideas. There might be an isolated component in any form of either idea that is falsifiable, however. For example, the various forms of the moon-dust argument.

The Theist’s Guide To Converting Atheists: My Response To Ebonmuse

September 17, 2008

The atheist blogger Ebonmuse has for nearly a decade now hosted an essay on his website titled The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. I was originally pointed to the essay from a link on another atheist blog asking believers to consider potential facts or situations that would sway them from belief.

What follows is my initial set of responses to this essay.

On The Old Testament, Slavery And Gospel Music

September 3, 2008

The Bible is an object, and like any object, it can be used for many purposes.

After the Flood in Genesis 9, Noah planted a vineyard, got drunk and fell asleep naked. Apparently, Noah became angry with Ham, one of Noah’s sons, for telling his brothers about their father’s nakedness and having him covered. It doesn’t seem like that big an offense to me, but in the next verse we find Noah pronouncing a curse on Canaan:

"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers." (v9:25)

An Atheist Paralell To God Of The Gaps Thinking

August 21, 2008

Lately I've noticed an atheist parallel to God of the Gaps thinking. I was in the blogosphere the other day when I stumbled on a piece called CSI Deuteronomy where the author takes the fifth book of the Bible to task. The reason was an awkward phenomenon the ancient Israelites were supposed to undertake for unsolved murders occurring outside of city boundaries.

The passage from the Revised Standard Version reads:

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →