Baggini asks atheists to be humble and form a “coalition of the reasonable”

March 25, 2012 • 6:05 am

Julian Baggini appears to veer back and forth in his posts on religion and atheists like a drunken driver careening from one side of the road to another.  At some times he says that atheists are right; at others he decries us for dogmatism and shrillness.  His latest post at the Guardian is in the latter vein, as you can tell from its title, “Give me a reasonable believer over an uncompromising atheist any day.” He’s asking all of us to adopt a few virtues as we “search for common ground” in the debate between faith and atheism. Of course, it’s not at all clear what sort of common ground there can be here: it’s a clash between two completely different worldviews: one based on evidence and reason, the other on dogma, superstition, and revelation. What sort of “compromise” is possible?

 In the search for common ground in the religion debate, I suggest the virtues of sincerity, charity and modesty can do this work.

By sincerity, I don’t mean simply that people genuinely believe what they say. Rather, they are making a genuine effort to discover the truth and are able to question honestly the beliefs they were brought up with or have adopted in adult life. As some put it, they are fellow seekers.

In this vein, I’d suggest that atheists are far more “sincere” than believers, for many of them used to be religious, and rejected faith because of the lack of evidence. Many of the rest of us feel likewise. And really, how many believers, save the extremely liberal ones, are racked with doubt, constantly engaged in seeking the truth about God?

By charity, I mean the effort to try to understand the views and arguments of those we disagree with in the most sympathetic form we can, being critical of their strongest versions, not their weakest ones or straw man caricatures.

I plead “not guilty” here, as I’ve read many sophisticated theologians and have found that it’s all, at bottom, a bunch of piffle.  Besides, shouldn’t we often attack the form of faith held by believers themselves, not just the weak apophatic tea dispensed by theologians?

By modesty I simply mean some real sense that we are all limited in our understanding and that no matter how sure we are, we could be mistaken. Even when others go very wrong indeed, we can recognise that there for either the grace of God or the luck of chance go I. This kind of modesty is not incompatible with having strongly held beliefs and certainly doesn’t require agnosticism.

Yep, all scientists (well, most of them) admit that we could be wrong about God, but if you look at the evidence, I’d bet on the no-God side.  In my taxi on the way to the airport, I talked to my cab driver, who was a Muslim and wanted to expatiate on God. He told me that the Qur’an gave scientific evidence for the origin of life (“it came from dirty water—like pig water”). I asked him if he didn’t think that he’d be a Baptist had he been born in Mississippi, or a Catholic if born in Spain. He admitted as much, but went on to defend Islam as the true faith. (It is the accident-of-birth form of belief that I consider one of the most telling arguments against the truth of a given faith.)

The point is that yes, we should recognize that many people are brainwashed into their faiths as victims of circumstance. Maybe I would have been a Muslim had I been born in Lahore.  But that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t argue against Islam—or any religion—with all the fervor I can muster.  What kind of modesty should I have? If a religious person has arguments for the existence of God, let him bring them on. Since I haven’t seen any good ones, I guess I’ll remain “immodest.”

But what is the “coalition of the reasonable” for which Baggini is asking? So far as I can determine, it’s his ill-fated attempt to get the faithful and nonbelievers to agree on a set of principles for “reasonable faith”.  Baggini set out four of them here:

1. To be religious is primarily to assent to a set of values, and/or practise a way of life, and/or belong to a community that shares these values and/or practices. Any creeds or factual assertions associated with these things, especially ones that make claims about the nature and origin of the natural universe, are at most secondary and often irrelevant.

2. Religious belief does not, and should not, require the belief that any supernatural events have occurred here on Earth, including miracles that bend or break natural laws, the resurrection of the dead, or visits by gods or angelic messengers.

3. Religions are not crypto- or proto-sciences. They should make no claims about the physical nature, origin or structure of the natural universe. That which science can study and explain empirically should be left to science, and if a religion makes a claim that is incompatible with our best science, the scientific claim, not the religious one, should prevail.

4. Religious texts are the creation of the human intellect and imagination. None need be taken as expressing the thoughts of a divine or supernatural mind that exists independently of humanity.

For obvious reasons, particularly points 2 and 4, Baggini failed to convince the faithful (see his post on the failure here).  I have no opinion on the first three points, for as an atheist I can’t see dictating what religion should or should not involve. But it’s palpably true that most religions do involve the supernatural, a theistic God, and claims about the real world. You’re not going to get many Catholics, Baptists, or Muslims to accept these four points.

I do, however, agree on point 4.  But you’ll not get the faithful to agree on that.  Given the nature of faith, Baggini’s “coalition of the reasonable” is doomed to failure, and he knows it.  He’s reduced, in the end, to lambasting atheists for not being “reasonable” enough, even though the faithful rejected his tenets even more vehemently than did the atheists.

Baggini’s is a losing battle, and demonstrates that there is no rapprochement between the scientific and religious views of the world.   But we knew that all along.

His final exhortation:

 . . . I really do think that the most important divide in the religion debate is not between believers or non-believers, but between those who show the virtues of reasonableness and those who do not.

That’s why I’ve often had more fruitful dialogues with some Catholics and evangelicals than I have with some fellow atheists. Our allies should be all those who don’t just proclaim the virtues of reasonableness, but live by them, whether atheist or agnostic – or any stripe of religion.

The question I have to ask is this: “Allies in what?” Baggini never answers that.

Peregrinations

March 25, 2012 • 3:14 am

I’m about to embark on a week’s peregrinations.

On Monday, March 26, I’m giving a science talk at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee (it’s on my fly research), and I’ll give a similar talk at Emory University in Atlanta on Friday, March 30. Of more potential interest to readers is a general talk on the evidence for evolution and why people don’t accept it, which I’ll deliver at Emory’s Harland Cinema on March 28 at 4 p.m. That one will deal a bit with religion, and I hope there’s a vigorous Q&A afterwards.

Finally, Richard Dawkins and Sean Faircloth will be speaking in metropolitan Atlanta on Tuesday evening, March 27 (information here, though the event is already sold out), and I’ll be introducing Richard, whose talk (“Darwin’s Five Bridges”) will be about evolution.

As usual, I’ve asked Greg Mayer and Matthew Cobb to fill in, and I’ll try to post as often as possible.  But expect somewhat quiescence.

I learned my first fancy word from eating Popsicles.

A gift from the wacko rabbi

March 25, 2012 • 2:54 am

Rabbi Alan Lurie, with whom I’ve crossed swords, has sent me an email containing only the following photo.  The header was “interesting article FYI”.  I don’t post private emails from anyone without permission, but this surely merits an exception.

It demonstrates an observation that, I believe, was made by Christopher Hitchens: “I always think it’s a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem”

And silly rabbi: I am a monkey! And so are you.

Jimmy Carter, wriggling like an eel, cherry-picks the Bible

March 24, 2012 • 9:32 am

In some ways I have more intellectual respect for Biblical fundamentalists—or at least those who don’t construe the Bible as having a different meaning from what it says—than for liberal believers who just read their own morality into the Bible, claiming that that’s what God really meant.  One of the latter is Jimmy Carter, Democratic ex-President who has always been a “man of faith” (he’s taught Sunday school for years). But until I read a new interview with him on HuffPo, I didn’t realize how malleable he sees scripture.

The excuse for the interview is Carter’s new book, NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter.  “NIV” is the “New International Version” of the Bible, which you can read here.   At any rate, Carter manages to wiggle out of every misogynistic, xenophobic, anti-gay, and pro-slavery passage in the Good Book. Here are a few of the questions and his answers:

What do you say to those who point to certain scriptures that women should not teach men or speak in church? (1 Corinthians 1:14)

I separated from the Southern Baptists when they adopted the discriminatory attitude towards women, because I believe what Paul taught in Galatians that there is no distinction in God’s eyes between men and women, slaves and masters, Jews and non-Jews -– everybody is created equally in the eyes of God.

There are some things that were said back in those days –- Paul also said that women should not be adorned, fix up their hair, put on cosmetics, and that every woman who goes in a place of worship should have her head covered. Paul also said that men should not cut their beards and advocated against people getting married, except if they couldn’t control their sexual urges. Those kinds of things applied to the customs of those days. Every worshipper has to decide if and when they want those particular passages to apply to them and their lives.

Well, good for him for sticking up for women.  But Lord, how can he excuse the Bible’s clear misogyny as merely “the customs of those days”?  He mentions cosmetic things, but neglects the clear commands of Yahweh:

“If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death…” Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

“Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord.” Colossians 3:18

“Are they not finding and dividing the spoils: a girl or two for each man, colorful garments as plunder for Sisera, colorful garments embroidered, highly embroidered garments for my neck–all this as plunder?” Judges 5:30

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Ephesians 5:22

(There are many more here.)  Maybe some of these were the “customs of the day,” but perhaps that was because they were seen as God’s commands—the obvious reading in many cases.  Since Carter says “God inspired the Bible,” did he not inspire those parts? Does Jimmy, like Rabbi Lurie, have a pipeline to the divine?

A lot of people point to the Bible for reasons why gay people should not be in the church, or accepted in any way.

Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things -– he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.

Yes, Jesus didn’t condemn gays, but God did.  Here are a few statements:

“‘If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13.

“Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9

Carter pulls the same shenanigans with slavery:

What about passages saying slaves obey your masters? (Colossians 3:22) Do you think there is ever a time to say, ok, we know that we don’t agree with that passage, let’s get rid of it?

Well, the principles of that are still applicable. It wasn’t a matter that the Bible endorses slavery, it was that throughout history, now and in the future there are going to be some who are in a subservient position like when I was commanding officer of a ship when I was in the submarine corps. It is meant to preserve the basic principles that don’t cause resentment or hatred or betrayal or false attitudes. But it also says that a master should respect your servant. So, it works both ways.

This is really weaselly. Not only does he avoid using the word “slave,” but Carter says what’s really going on here is simply a Biblican admonition for people to respect their superiors.  Really, Jimmy, a slave in the ancient Middle East was equivalent to a sailor on a submarine?  And the Bible certainly endorses slavery, e.g.:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  Exodus 21:20-21

Here’s one showing the clever way that a slaveowner can keep a slave permanently—one who would normally be freed—by holding his wife and children hostage:

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.’  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  Exodus 21:2-6

Sex slavery!:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  Exodus 21:7-11

Finally, Carter gives his principles for interpreting the Bible, which are, of course, to adopt those principles that he finds a priori reasonable while rejecting the others.

Should we approach the Bible literally, or metaphorically?

When we go to the Bible we should keep in mind that the basic principles of the Bible are taught by God, but written down by human beings deprived of modern day knowledge. So there is some fallibility in the writings of the Bible. But the basic principles are applicable to my life and I don’t find any conflict among them.

He doesn’t find any conflict because he simply ignores those principles that he doesn’t like. I wonder what he’d say to those fellow Christians who disagree with his readings—that they’re simply wrong?

New York Times intimidated into suspending anti-Islam ad

March 24, 2012 • 5:19 am

As I mentioned recently, the New York Times published an awesome ad sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), urging Catholics to leave the Church. Now, however, the same paper has refused to print a very similar ad about Islam.  Here’s a video; sadly, it’s from Fox News, who won’t show either ad because they’re considered “offensive.”

Here’s the ad, from the Daily Caller (note the similarities to the FFRF ad):


As HuffPo reports:

But the Times didn’t shut the door to running the ad altogether.

“We have not made a decision not to publish the ad you refer to,” a letter to Geller said, according to Fox News. “We made a decision to postpone publishing it in light of recent events in Afghanistan, including the Koran burning and the alleged killings of Afghani civilians by a member of the U.S. military.”

Geller told the Daily Caller she doubts the Times will ever run the ad because, in her words, “when is it ever a good time to blaspheme under the Sharia?”

The answer is “never.”  Muslims have hit on the optimal strategy to promulgate their faith: riot and kill every time it’s criticized.

I can haz mirakul? Cat survives 19-story fall

March 23, 2012 • 1:51 pm

I always like to provide some good cat news at the end of the week, and at least four readers sent me this heartwarming story of Ceiling Cat’s intercessory miracle. It’s the story of Sugar, a white cat in Boston who survived a 19-story fall with only minor injuries. You can read about it here, and there’s a video report (click on the video itself or the arrow at bottom left; there’s an ad, too):

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1015362&w=425&h=350&fv=skin%3DMP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf%26adSrc%3Dhttp%253A%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fpfadx%2Flin.wish%2Fnews%2Foffbeat%2Fdetail%253Bdcmt%253Dtext%2Fxml%253Bpos%253D%2525pos%2525%253Btile%253D2%253Bfname%253Dcat-survives-19-story-plunge-from-boston-high-rise-ob12-jgr%253Bloc%253D%2525loc%2525%253Bsz%253D%2525size%2525%253Bord%253D885906065572507100%253Frand%253D%2525rand%2525%26adSizeArray%3D%5B1x1000%2C2x40%2C3x1000%5D%26adidVar%3Dcomp%26flv%3D%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%253FobfType%253DVIDEO_PLAYER_SMIL_FEED%2526componentId%253D23730424%26category%3Dnews%26title%3DCNN-cat-survives-fall-pkg.wmv%26img%3Dhttp%253A%2F%2Fsharing.wishtv.com%2Fsharewlin%2F%2Fphoto%2F2012%2F03%2F22%2FCNN-cat-survives-fall-pkg_20120322173449_0_640_480.JPG%26embeddable%3Dfalse%26story%3D%26playList%3Dtrue%26vidPlayer_Id%3Dvideo_player1%26adFrequency%3D1%26adDelay%3D0%26headline%3DCat%2Bsurvives%2B19-story%2Bplunge%2Bfrom%2BBoston%2Bhigh%2Brise%26toggleVideoCode%3D3]

If you want to know more about cat falls, here’s some stuff from Wikipedia:

Terminal velocity

In addition to the righting reflex cats have a number of other features that will reduce damage from a fall. Their small size, light bone structure, and thick fur decrease their terminal velocity. Furthermore, once righted they may also spread out their body to increase drag and slow the fall to some extent. A falling cat’s terminal velocity is 100 km/h (60mph) whereas that of a falling man in a “free fall position” is 210 km/h (130mph). At terminal velocity they also relax as they fall which protects them to some extent on impact. However, it has been argued that, after having reached terminal velocity, cats would orient their limbs horizontally such that their body hits the ground first.

Injury

Using their righting reflex theory, cats can often land uninjured. This is, however, not always the case, and cats can still break bones or die from falls. In a 1987 study, published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, of 132 cats that were brought into the New York Animal Medical Center after having fallen from buildings, it was found that the injuries per cat increased depending on the height fallen up to seven stories but decreased above seven stories. The study authors speculated that after falling five stories the cats reached terminal velocity and thereafter relaxed and spread their bodies to increase drag. However, an alternative interpretation which came out of internet chat of the study would be that upon an excess of seven stories the cats experience a higher fatality rate which precludes the owner from bringing them in for medical attention. Although scientists in Massachusetts have recently discovered that the cat’s ability to spread its legs out to decrease drag when reaching terminal velocity would explain the decreased injuries sustained above seven stories because they wouldn’t reach terminal velocity before then. Professor David Stevenson said “we simulated the cat’s weight and size and found the terminal velocity to be 60mph which would more than likely result in severe injury or death to the cat when falling from this speed, but once we took into account the cat’s ability to right its self and spread its body out this reduced the terminal velocity to only 53mph. This 7mph difference is massive and would almost certainly ensure the cat’s survival. There however is always the possibility that the cat may not manage to right itself so this is far from a conclusive experiment and we do not condone the throwing of cats from anything”.

Free DVD on human evolution

March 23, 2012 • 11:59 am

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) is making available a free DVD of its holiday lectures on human evolution, “Bones, Stones, and Genes: The Origin of Modern Humans,” featuring talks by three noted scientists. I’ve posted on this before, but the DVD has just become available.  So if you haven’t ordered it, now’s the time (order it here). You have to fill in a form and also register, but that’s not hard). HHMI’s description:

When Darwin proposed that humans evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes, he lacked fossil evidence to support his idea. One hundred and fifty years later, the evidence for human evolution is plentiful and growing, including detailed molecular genetics data, an impressive fossil record, and artifacts of early human culture like stone tools.

In four presentations, leading scientists John Shea of Stony Brook University, Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania, and Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, guide us on a global exploration spanning millions of years to illuminate the rise of modern humans.

The price is right and the talks should be good.  What’s stopping you?