Jing-reed's Musings from Thailand

The God Wars

The God wars

"To hardline atheists, it is now unreasonable and “dramatically peculiar” to argue that religion is not altogether evil. How did such intolerance become acceptable to rational minds?

Two atheists - John Gray and Alain de Botton - and two agnostics - Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I - meet for dinner at a Greek restaurant in Bayswater, London. The talk is genial, friendly and then, suddenly, intense when neo-atheism comes up. Three of us, including both atheists, have suffered abuse at the hands of this cult. Only Taleb seems to have escaped unscathed and this, we conclude, must be because he can do maths and people are afraid of maths.

De Botton is the most recent and, consequently, the most shocked victim. He has just produced a book, Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion, mildly suggesting that atheists like himself have much to learn from religion and that, in fact, religion is too important to be left to believers. He has also proposed an atheists' temple, a place where non-believers can partake of the consolations of silence and meditation.

This has been enough to bring the full force of a neo-atheist fatwa crashing down on his head. The temple idea in particular made them reach for their best books of curses. . . . .

...Happily, the backlash against neo-atheism has begun, inspired by the cult's own intolerance. In the Christmas issue of this magazine, Dawkins interviewed Hitchens. Halfway through, Dawkins asked: "Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?" At dinner at the restaurant in Bayswater we all laughed at this, but our laughter was uneasy. The history of attempts to destroy religion is littered with the corpses of believers and unbelievers alike. There are many roads to truth, but cultish intolerance is not one of them."


Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion [Alain de Botton]

"What if religions are neither all true nor all nonsense? The long-running and often boring debate between fundamentalist believers and non-believers is finally moved forward by Alain de Botton’s inspiring new book, which boldly argues that the supernatural claims of religion are entirely false—but that it still has some very important things to teach the secular world.
 
Religion for Atheists suggests that rather than mocking religion, agnostics and atheists should instead steal from it—because the world’s religions are packed with good ideas on how we might live and arrange our societies. Blending deep respect with total impiety, de Botton (a non-believer himself) proposes that we look to religion for insights into how to, among other concerns, build a sense of community, make our relationships last, overcome feelings of envy and inadequacy, inspire travel and reconnect with the natural world." [Amazon]

.

Welcome to "Possibilians"

What is possibilianism?

"Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the idiosyncratic claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground. .....

    "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

An adherent of possibilianism is called a possibilian. The possibilian perspective is distinguished from agnosticism in that it consists of an active exploration of novel possibilities and an emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others.  Possibilianism reflects the scientific temperament of creativity, testing, and tolerance for multiple ideas. ...."


As frequent visitors to his site well know my personal position regarding 'religion vs science' has always been in favor of science.  However I have never felt that I could, with any certainty, comfortably call myself an atheist.  Would I consider labeling myself a 'Posibilian'???


TEDxHouston - Dr. David Eagleman

Dr. Eagleman holds joint appointments in the Departments of Neuroscience and Psychiatry at the Baylor College of Medicine. His areas of scientific expertise include time perception, vision, synesthesia, and the intersection of neuroscience with the legal system. He directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action, and is the Founder and Director of Baylor College of Medicine's Initiative on Neuroscience and Law. Dr. Eagleman has written several neuroscience books, including Wednesday is Indigo Blue: Discovering the Brain of Synesthesia and Dethronement: The Secret Life of the Unconscious Brain.  He has also written an internationally bestselling book of literary fiction, Sum, which was named a Best Book of 2009 by Barnes and Noble, New Scientist, and the Chicago Tribune. Dr. Eagleman has written for the New York Times, Discover Magazine, Slate, and New Scientist, and he appears regularly on National Public Radio to discuss both science and literature.

x

 

The Strange History of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The Strange History of Don't Ask, Don't Tell — HBO documentary on military gay ban to premiere on September 19 at midnight. 

On the day the U.S. military will officially lift its ban on gays and lesbians in the military, HBO will screen the new documentary from filmmakers Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato “The Strange History of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  The film will have a sneak preview Monday September 19 at midnight and will air again Tuesday, September 20 at 8PM.

The film follows the history of the bill, from the lead-up to Bill Clinton’s signing the policy into law to its repeal earlier this year.  The policy has resulted in the discharge of 13,368 active service members.

The film features interviews with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Iraqi war vet and former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer, and more.

 

DADT from a US Service member. Currently nameless and faceless, but will post his 'coming out' video on September 20.

.

 

My military service was successfully completed more than 50 years ago, during the end of the Korean War and the Occupation of Japan - long, long before DADT became official policy.  On the day that I reported for duty at a special intelligence gathering school on the east coast I met my roommate for the next six months.  It was love at first sight, not only were we aware of this, but accepted it completely. 

Gay personnel have always been a part of the military. There are, and always have been, gay soldiers, sailors, marines and airforce personnel. Why has it taken the US military so long to accept this basic fact of human nature?

Two chapters from 'The Repository', about being gay in the military during the 1950s [pdf files]

Download The Repository 05 Gregg    PDF file

Download The Repository 06 Really Butch  PDF file

A Small Grammar Lesson

Ten minutes on the internet is evidence that a vast number of people who claim to speak English don't seem to have a clue about its proper use.  Even the most basic words are confused.

,A site which offers basic spelling mistakes, with a bit of humor, is 'theoatmeal.com'.

 

         

         

              

 

So it really isn't that difficult.  Most grammar school children are able to deal with these simple rules, but many adults prowling the internet seem to be in a state of confusion - or perhaps they are just lazy and don't care if other people know that they're stupid.

"Spiritually Induced Hallucinations"

Epic Creationist Fails of Our Time, 1 and 2.

British YouTuber 'potholer54' once again shows that Creationist Christians will lie, fabricate, and invent ridiculous bullshit in order to to perpetuate their "spiritually induced hallucinations".  After all, lying for Jesus has become an enormous and lucrative business. 

And potholder's videos are wickedly humorous.
.

 

.

Sam Harris: 'Holy Scriptures lose against Modernity'

Sam Harris talks about how our modern understanding of the world has forced religions to change.

We live in the 21st century. 
The stories and tales in the Torah, Bible, Koran, Upanishads, Dhammapada, etc, quiant and charming [and occasionally gruesome] though they may be, cannot be used to dictate how we live today.

Time for people to recognize the fact that no book was ever written by anyone other than a human being. There is no factual proof that a 'god' has ever dictated a book.

..

The Importance and Necessity of Free Speech

Johann Hari: We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

"This is a column condemning cowardice – including my own. It begins with the story of a novel you cannot read. The Jewel of Medina was written by a journalist called Sherry Jones. It recounts the life of Aisha, a girl who was married off at the age of six to a 50-year-old man called Mohamed ibn Abdallah. On her wedding day, Aisha was playing on a see-saw outside her home. Inside, she was being betrothed. The first she knew of it was when she was banned from playing out in the street with the other children. When she was nine, she was taken to live with her husband, now 53. He had sex with her. When she was 14, she was accused of adultery with a man closer to her own age. Not long after, Mohamed decreed that his wives must cover their faces and bodies, even though no other women in Arabia did.

You cannot read this story today – except in the Koran and the Hadith. The man Mohamed ibn Abdallah became known to Muslims as "the Prophet Mohamed", so our ability to explore this story is stunted. The Jewel of Medina was bought by Random House and primed to be a best-seller – before a University of Texas teacher saw proofs and declared it "a national security issue". Random House had visions of a re-run of the Rushdie or the Danish cartoons affairs. Sherry Jones's publisher has pulped the book. It's gone. .

In Europe, we are finally abolishing the lingering blasphemy laws that hinder criticism of Christianity. But they are being succeeded by a new blasphemy law preventing criticism of Islam – enforced not by the state, but by jihadis. I seriously considered not writing this column, but the right to criticise religion is as precious – and hard-won – as the right to criticise government. We have to use it or lose it.

Some people will instantly ask: why bother criticising religion if it causes so much hassle? The answer is: look back at our history. How did Christianity lose its ability to terrorise people with phantasms of sin and Hell? How did it stop spreading shame about natural urges – pre-marital sex, masturbation or homosexuality? Because critics pored over the religion's stories and found gaping holes of logic or morality in them. They asked questions. How could an angel inseminate a virgin? Why does the Old Testament God command his followers to commit genocide? How can a man survive inside a whale?

Reinterpretation and ridicule crow-barred Christianity open. Ask enough tough questions and faith is inevitably pushed farther and farther back into the misty realm of metaphor – where it is less likely to inspire people to kill and die for it. But doubtful Muslims, and the atheists who support them, are being prevented from following this path. They cannot ask: what does it reveal about Mohamed that he married a young girl, or that he massacred a village of Jews who refused to follow him? You don't have to murder many Theo Van Goghs or pulp many Sherry Joneses to intimidate the rest. The greatest censorship is internal: it is in all the books that will never be written and all the films that will never be shot, because we are afraid.

We need to acknowledge the double-standard – and that it will cost Muslims in the end. Insulating a religion from criticism – surrounding it with an electric fence called "respect" – keeps it stunted at its most infantile and fundamentalist stage. The smart, questioning and instinctively moral Muslims – the majority – learn to be silent, or are shunned (at best). What would Christianity be like today if George Eliot, Mark Twain and Bertrand Russell had all been pulped? Take the most revolting rural Alabama church, and metastasise it. . . . . . "


In the following video Mr. Hari speaks not only about Islam, but this intelligent and impassioned plea is extended to include and challage ALL of the world's religious fundamentalists. [Thanks to Unreasonable Faith for the heads up on this video.]

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit attrocities" - Voltaire

.

Sam Harris - A Voice of Reason

Sam Harris is an American author, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and has a B.A. in philosophy from Stanford University. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).

...Harris found himself interested in spiritual and philosophical questions when he was at Stanford and the notion that he might be able to achieve spiritual insights without the help of drugs. After leaving Stanford, he traveled to Asia, where he studied meditation with Hindu and Buddhist teachers. Eleven years later, he returned to Stanford and completed a B.A. degree in philosophy. In 2009 he earned a Ph.D. degree in neuroscience at University of California, Los Angeles, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.

While often defined as an atheist, Harris asserts that the term is not necessary. His position is that "atheism" is not a worldview or a philosophy, but the "destruction of bad ideas." He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised." He compares modern religious beliefs to the myths of the Ancient Greeks, which were once accepted as fact but which are obsolete today.


   Why I Criticize Religion

.

  

  Modern Science vs. Religious Dogma

.

Ask Sam Harris Anything

Sam Harris is an American author, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and has a B.A. in philosophy from Stanford University. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism. 

Sam Harris, is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, and The Moral Landscape. In this video he answers questions submitted by users on Reddit.com.  Sam talks about everything from the benefits of meditation to religion and some of the pitfalls of religious thinking.

.

Scientific American And The Possibilty of a Soul

Physics and the Immortality of the Soul
Guest Blog By Sean M. Carroll

"The topic of "life after death" raises disreputable connotations of past-life regression and haunted houses, but there are a large number of people in the world who believe in some form of persistence of the individual soul after life ends. Clearly this is an important question, one of the most important ones we can possibly think of in terms of relevance to human life. If science has something to say about, we should all be interested in hearing.

Adam Frank thinks that science has nothing to say about it. He advocates being "firmly agnostic" on the question. (His coblogger Alva Noë resolutely disagrees.) I have an enormous respect for Adam; he's a smart guy and a careful thinker. When we disagree it's with the kind of respectful dialogue that should be a model for disagreeing with non-crazy people. But here he couldn't be more wrong.

Adam claims that there "simply is no controlled, experimental[ly] verifiable information" regarding life after death. By these standards, there is no controlled, experimentally verifiable information regarding whether the Moon is made of green cheese. ......."

Mr. Carroll received his PhD in physics from Harvard and is currently a professor at Cal Tec.


So far this article has received more than 130 comments, both pro and con his thesis that there is no evidence within current physics for the possiblity of life after death. 

From Joshco:

".....To say there is no soul surviving death is to make the mistake of identification with the mind/body. To those who have attained enlightenment there is unanimous teaching that what we really are is beyond the mind and body. In fact, this is precisely the obstacle- taking yourself to be the mind and body instead of that which gave rise to it...... Within the immensity of space floats a tiny atom of consciousness and in it the entire universe is contained.

It's the idea of this being a holographic universe~ every part contains the whole and our suffering results of mistaking ourselves to be the temporary manifestation the container (mind/body) instead of actually being the whole.   The key to life after death is to understand that who you really are is the entirety of the cosmos. That each self-conscious mind's goal is to overcome the limited restrictions we believe ourself to be. And that is to say, to overcome the illusion of birth and death and achieve either through will or grace the experience of pure and unassailable being.

This is precisely what survives the birth and death of the mind and body- the beingness of the Universe, what you really are."

From rshoff:

"Perhaps I misinterpreted the blog. Bottom line, I don't see how modern physics can accommodate an immortal soul. If it had, it would have been presented as proof by many many people. I don't think it's a question of equals (a persistent soul or absolute death). A persistent soul does not exist, if it had, it would be scientifically documented."

and from joyss:

"The way things work is how we perceive how they work. During my lifetime, I have always asked "why" and then attempted to find the answer. It was not always forthcoming. Everything that Science has discovered has been based on the human endeavor alone. As I matured into old age I realized that I had never asked "why not?"
And if a spiritual dimension exists, I ask again, "why not."


But my personal favorite comment [vmfennimore]:

"I understand doubt. But extreme confidence of any kind always baffles me. Ultimately I think all humans (everyone yes even the phd author) are somewhat like dogs trying to solve a rubiks cube. Take the info, chew it up, spit it out, yay it's solved. But only in the dogs perspective. To my perspective, it's just a slobbery, chewed up and destroyed rubiks cube.

Oh how I long to have the ignorance of complete faith in God or complete faith in science "