Dave Friedman's Soul of Wit

In Which I Am Divorced From Faith

The New York Times seems to imply that the Pope believes Muslims correct in rioting and killing in the name of defamation of their religion:

While the pope did not mention Islam specifically, his comments echoed previous statements about how Muslims cannot comprehend how the West has divorced itself from faith. His comment on the “mockery of the sacred” seemed too to refer to the controversy earlier this year in which many Muslims took offense to cartoons in a Danish newspaper depicting the Prophet Mohammad, which were defended in the West as an exercise in free speech.

On the one hand I doubt even the Pope could be so venal and stupid as to endorse wanton violence in the name of protecting one's religion (though I could be wrong on this count, and would not be surprised), and, on the other, there is no room to excuse the behavior of any religious person who reacts to satire and commentary with violence.

The only thing I ask of the religious is that they consider the depths to which religion has sunk man.

How About Jailing the Bastards?

The Catholic Church wonders what to do about its pedophilic priests.

That it wonders at all suggests that it doesn't get it.

Kill religion. Elevate man.

This is rich:

Some [priests] have been convicted in a canonical trial but determined to be too elderly or infirm to endure being defrocked and are instead sentenced to a life of prayer and penance. Others have had the accusations against them referred to an archdiocesan advisory board consisting mostly of laypeople, including psychologists and lawyers. The board, which can interview the priest but does not have to, issues a recommendation to the cardinal on whether the priest should continue to minister.

A "life of prayer and penance" for raping young boys?

If I go out on the street tomorrow and rape a woman can I escape with a "life of prayer and penance"? Please? I promise to pray extra-fervently!

Kill religion. Elevate man.

Concision

Mantra, again.

Islamofascism

Writes one Roger Scruton in the Wall St. Journal:

Christians and Jews are heirs to a long tradition of secular government, which began under the Roman Empire and was renewed at the Enlightenment: Human societies should be governed by human laws, and these laws must take precedence over religious edicts. The primary duty of citizens is to obey the state; what they do with their souls is a matter between themselves and God, and all religions must bow down to the sovereign authority if they are to exist within its jurisdiction.

That duty to God or belief is subordinate to duty to nation should not surprise anyone; that it irks Muslims who fell maligned when references to "Islamofascism" are uttered by politicians or the media suggests that Islam is no "religion of peace" as its "mainstream" adherents like to claim.

Kill religion. Elevate man.

The only thing I ask of the religious is that they consider the depths to which religious belief has sunk man.

Mantra

First, consider the mantra: The only thing I ask of the religious is that they consider the depths to which religion has sunk man.

Then, consider this:

Ervil LeBaron died in the Utah state prison in 1981. Before his death, he reportedly wrote a "bible" which included a commandment to kill disobedient church members.

It was also rumored that he left behind a "hit list" and that some of his 54 children were carrying out his commands.

Jacqueline LeBaron is one of six LeBaron family members charged with the June 1988 murders of three men who chose to leave the sect and the 8-year-old daughter of one victim. Each was shot in the head with a shotgun.

In 1995, three of the accused killers were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another was convicted of ordering the deaths and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. The youngest, who was 16 at the time of the murders, pleaded guilty to killing the child and served five years in prison.

Note also the moral lesson: if you kill a kid in the name of religion you will be out of jail in half a decade.

Kill religion. Elevate man.

Mantra, Again

First, consider the mantra: The only thing I ask of the religious is that they consider the depths to which religion has sunk man.

Then, consider all the confusion over the Islamic/Christian murderer in Seattle:

The (take your pick) mentally ill individual/evil Muslim terrorist who shot six at the Seattle Jewish Federation, killing one, recently converted to Christianity, according to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer report.

Naveed Haq, now widely portrayed as a Muslim American so angry at Israel that he shot up a Jewish charity in Seattle, had recently converted to Christianity. His conversion is perhaps the most startling contradiction in a puzzling life.

Clearly, this proves that Christians hate America and that there is an organized effort to kill Jews among Christians and that Haq was part of it. Sure, sure–most Christians don’t murder Jews. But many do. There’s a long history of Jew-hating Christians going way back, from the earliest days of the church right up to Mel Gibson. And now this.

Outsidethebeltway's snarky interpretation of this murderer's religioisty seems to be in response to Michelle "perpetually suspended between meltdown and release" Malkin's insinuation that Islam is inherently murderous (a contention with which it is hard to disagree).

Nonetheless, all these people and all their interpretations of man and religion miss the simple point: religious has wrought destruction upon man. When will we jettison it in favor of reason?

Pushing My Buttons

Pushing buttons is considered work by Orthodox Jews and therefore a group of such Jews living in a co-op in the Bronx want one of their building's elevators to automatically stop on every floor during the Sabbath.

That this is asinine is apparently beside the point because, hey, it's religion, and how dare we question or criticize religious belief?

Never has there been a greater folly perpetrated upon Man than religion: the caloric expenditure of pushing an elevator button is so inconsequential as to hardly merit the description "play," let alone "work." When it comes to all matters religious, Man jettisons reason and logic in favor of vacuous faith.

A shame.

A Motley Crew: Derek Jeter, Martin Scorsese, Harvey Keitel, the Bible, Catholicism, St. Franics of Assisi, Inscrutable Analogies, and Theology

If you're like me, you get confused by all the various denominations of Christianity out there, their pet issues, and the prescribed manner in which they heed the line of God.

Wonder no longer:

The Bible The Bible was written by God as a merchandising tie-in to His blockbuster film "The Ten Commandments." Each book of the Bible is named after a person who features prominently in it, for example, the Book of Numbers, which is named after Herschel Numbers, who invented numerals. The Bible was so successful that God wrote a sequel, "Bible II: On to Rome," now generally called "The New Testament." Protestants believe the Bible is literal and exactly true in every detail except the description of the Eucharist, while Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible.

The Bible as marketing tie-in to the Ten Commandments. Ha! Clearly a heathen came up with that one.

Via Dispatches, natch, via The Agora.

Oh, and the Derek Jeter of Catholicism is St. Francis of Assisi, which I don't quite understand. Off to re-watch Mean Streets and see if Scorsese/Keitel can help me understand* the Saint Assisi as shortstop angle.

*Though Mean Streets is more well-known as being one of the first movies in which De Niro did De Niro, it is more properly known for a famous scene in which Keitel prays before an idol of St. Francis of Assisi. Readers more knowledgeable about Catholic imagery than I can feel free to read into that famous scene allegorical meaning; I just find the way it is filmed quite interesting.

God Exists!

God exists because bananas are shaped like dildos and therefore fit easily into the mouth.

Seriously.

Yet More Evidence That I Don't Understand Man's Propensity Toward Faith

Reports the Economist:

THEOLOGIANS used to ponder how many angels might fit onto the head of a pin. Now experts in the Vatican are to consider something more practical, though perhaps just as difficult for non-Catholics to understand. The head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Health and Pastoral Care confirmed in an interview with an Italian newspaper, La Repubblica, that the council had been asked by Pope Benedict XVI to study whether those infected with HIV (and other grave infectious diseases) should use condoms. Although the Catholic church opposes contraception, some liberal cardinals now argue that the fight against sexually transmitted illness—notably AIDS—is so pressing that the use of condoms, in some circumstances, should not be condemned. It might be justified, for example, if the intention were not to prevent conception but to stop the spread of a virus from husband to wife.

That there is even a debate about the propriety of condoms proves only that religion foists upon man an inability to think critically and empirically. How many more people need to die of AIDS before Aquinas' angels on the head of a pin is jettisoned in favor of logic and empiricism?

In Which I Expatiate on the Depths to Which Religion Has Sunk Man...

A Pakistani Air Force squadron leader finds himself embroiled in controversy because the Air Force, properly, insists that he not have a beard, and he, improperly, says his beard is required by his religion.

The solution here is simple: don't be an air force pilot--or any kind of pilot--if your religious beliefs require that you have a beard. For the same reason that bearded people can't SCUBA dive--beards don't allow you to complete a seal on your face--pilots should not have beards.

Such requirements have nothing to do with secularism, as is alleged by this idiot's Islamist sympathizers.

Religion has, indeed, eroded man's critical faculties; it is a cancer on empiricism.

Via Althouse.

Scientology is Not a Religion

Note to law professors everywhere who feel a need to prattle on about South Park and religion: Scientology is not a reiligion but rather a cult. To refer to it as a religion is to profane religious belief.

And you never thought I would defend the religious, did you?!

Contraception, Death, and the Philippines

The Philippines, a geologically and economically disadvantaged country, is very populous, poor, and Catholic. Its population is expected to double over the next 20 years.

In consideration of the recent landslides that killed at least a thousand villagers, one must wonder at the combination of poverty and Catholic-inspired fecundity:

There has been little mention of how a fast-growing population puts pressure on the environment and so adds to the risks [that the Philippines face]. At the present rate of growth, the population of the Philippines will double by 2034. Successive governments, deferring to the church in what remains a staunchly Catholic country, have done little to promote contraception.

Mantra: All that I ask of the religious is that they consider the depths to which religion has sunk man.

Mantra

Astute readers will observe that I have put a new quote--of my own invention--atop this blog:

The only thing I ask of the religious is that they consider the depths to which religion has sunk man.

Religion, Race, and Disbelief

Ann Althouse has a set of interesting posts up about religion, freedom of expression, and racism. I will get to those posts in a minute. But, first, let's turn our attention elsewhere.

Apparently, a number of people have called racist those who condemn a religion. Yours truly, in fact, was tarred and feathered as a racist when I made the following comment on Dr. Helen's blog:

Speaking of political correctness, can we all disabuse ourselves of the idea that Islam has any inherent worth?

Its adherents certainly have not shown it to have anything worthy about it. Unless by "worthy religion" one means a religion in which rape, murder, beheadings, and suicide bombings are its theology.

To which someone responded:

My, my. It is (not) nice to see that racism is alive and well in the world.

You can criticize individuals or small groups with narrowly defined beliefs all you want, but to tar and feather the second largest religion and all its adherents like this because of the actions of a comparitive minority is a rather blantant example of ignorance and projection. To do so is, after all, the definition of prejudice.

This prompted someone to respond, accurately:

I don't agree with Dave's view, having had close Muslim friends for over a quarter of a century,but his comment has nothing whatever to do with racism. It is about the adherents of a religion. A religion can be criticized just as any other idea can be.

To go back to Althouse, she writes:

But mocking a religion is very different from mocking a race. A religion is a set of ideas. The belief in religion may be deep and sensitive, and it may be arrived at through a path that is not reason and is therefore not amenable to ordinary argument and debate, but it is nevertheless a matter of ideas. You cannot immunize ideas from criticism and still have free speech. In fact, it is most important to be able to criticize the ideas people take most seriously and cling to most intransigently.

This is, of course, a critical distinction to make, and it is one that very few religious people seem willing to accept. Freedom of religion is directly dependent upon freedom of expression. The violence that religion foments in Europe is a direct function of those countries' failure to engage critically with religion. Those religious people here in the United States who cry "anti-Christian discrimination!" when "God is dead" is uttered would do well to remember that because we can say "God is dead" we can also say "Glory be to God."

Althouse has another interesting post, here, in which she responds to one Edward Rothstein, who argues that the religious engage in a futile attempt to understand the world:

If reason cannot work, is iconoclasm necessary? You could leave people to their lunacy, decide it's not lunacy, or persist with reason even where it is futile. Read how Rothstein tries to answer these questions and to connect them to the current cartoon craziness.

I commented:

Well, I'll admit up front that I'm no friend of religion.

But it seems foolish for those uninterested in religious belief to cast aserpsions on those who are religious.

Much as I admire Richard Dawkins, he involves himself in the same kinds of arguments. His documentary, The God Who Wasn't There is interesting to a non-religious person such as myself, but he is, to use an ironic phrase, preaching to the converted when he runs rhetorical circles around pious creationists. His attitude, like those described in this post, is rather arrogant and contemptuous.

That accomplishes nothing except to sow antipathy toward science among the religious.

Now, one may reasonably see a contradiction in my argument here: on the one hand, I comment at Althouse's blog that condemning religion is foolish, but on the other hand, I comment on Dr. Helen's blog that Islam has demonstrated no inherent worth. The inconsistency can be reconciled quite simply: Dawkins' stated aim is to explain why the religious are wrong in their understanding of the world and its corporeal phenomena. I am only expressing my opinion. I am exercising my right to free speech upon which your exercise of religious belief depends.

Preaching to the converted does nothing. Antagonizing those who you want to convince of the error of their epistemological ways fosters nothing but disagreement. I don't really think my opinions about religion will convince anyone other than those who agree with me.

Religion Strikes Again

There are those, such as the "Islam is a religion of peace" contingent who aver that we should not criticize religious belief because religion is something that ought not be criticized.

That this doesn't make any sense--religious expression is dependent upon free speech--is irrelevant to the ignorant and apologetic.

In any event, in Texas we have an example of the depths to which religion can sink man, and, yes, it is an opportunity to engage critically with religion and consider the deleterious effects that it can bring upon a family. In this case, the deleterious effect is murder, via bloodletting:

Shultz said Schlosser did not receive adequate medical care in part because she and her husband could not afford it. Instead, they sought guidance from Doyle Davidson, a self-described prophet who leads the Water of Life Church in Plano.

Schultz told jurors that Schlosser was upset with Davidson's arrest in the fall of 2004 on public intoxication charges arising from an incident in which Davidson tried to choke "evil spirits" out of a married woman with whom he was smitten.

The defense attorney said the preacher and Schlosser's husband — who routinely consulted with Davidson on how to handle his wife — were an inadequate safety net.

"Normally, Dena is a sweet woman," he said. "She cares. She has compassion."

They tell us that Christ, too, had "compassion." That some of those who purport to follow Christ are so devoid of compassion as to chop off the arms of their baby is to call into question the very assumptions under which the religious operate.

Story via Alarming News.

RELATED: Mel Gibson has put money into one of his father's church projects. Mel Gibson's father is a Holocaust denier. Mel Gibson and his father are both very religious.

Via Dispatches From the Culture Wars.

Jews who patronize Gibson's movies implicitly support a Holocaust denier.

Blog which aspires to satirize Gibson, but which succeeds only in being juvenile and obvious, here.

Evangelicals and Environmentalists Sitting in a Tree...

I'm not sure what category this blog post should go under, but I've put it under "Religion" because it seems to me this story is an example of the muddied thinking that comes out of some corners of the religious community.

Some evangelicals have found common cause with the global warming environmentalists, averring, Paul Ehrlich-style, that millions will die in the coming century due to global warming. Of particular concern for these evangelicals is the poor and disenfranchised.

Never mind that the best way for the poor to become rich is to embrace free markets and industrialization; a nation's wealth is highly correlated to the amount of pollution-causing chemicals spewed from its factories.

Skeptical Environmentalist.

The Islam Question

Does anyone really believe that mixing religion and politics is a good thing?

Religion foments war and violence. What about that does man not understand?

Polygamy on HBO

HBO is to air a drama about a polygamous Mormon family.

Here's hoping that it is an accurate reflection of the depths to which religion can sink man.

Kanye West Does Jesus

I find this asinine.

Others likely find it offensive.

Religion and Modernity

Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolutions has some incisive comments about the intersection of religion and modernity:

In my view all religions of reasonable age and numbers contain traditions and teachings compatible with modernity and all religions of reasonable age and numbers contain traditions and teachings incompatible with modernity. Call it the completeness theorem.

It's how religions adapt and evolve to modernity that is important. Religions are constantly changing, emphasizing certain features, downplaying others, creating new interpretations. Given enough time, I believe that any religion will evolve towards compatability with modernity because it's the memes that combine modernity and religion which will survive and prosper.

The problem is that Christianity has had hundreds of years to adapt itself to modernity while Islam has had modernity thrust upon it.

Fish don't walk overnight and neither do religions.

His reference to fish evolving into amphibious creatures (the evolutionary precursor to land-based mammals, birds, and reptiles) is especially poignant, alluding as it does to evolutionary theory and not religiously-inspired abiogenesis.

(Of course, abiogenesis did occur in the distant past. But man was not created out of nothing; he evolved, just as monkeys and dogs evolved. And abiogenesis can still occur in laboratories. But abiogenesis is not spontaneous.)

Ignorance

Red Guy in a Blue State has a post up about gay marriage.

Some of the comments demonstrate the shocking ignorance attendant with religious views of sexuality and marriage.

Red Guy, for the record, is sensible enough to support gay marriage.

When will man learn what religion has wrought upon society?

UPDATE: One of the more cogent commenters on the aforementioned blog post identifies himself as a gay Catholic. Being neither gay nor religious, I don't pretend to understand how one can be both gay and religious, but this commenter's thoughts on the subject, here, are interesting to read.

The Religion of Peace Kills 345 in a Stampede

Religion strikes again, this time in the form of crushing to death 345 Muslims caught in a stampede.

See, they were throwing stones at one of the stone pillars in Mecca, through which action, it is alleged, one casts Satan from one's body.

Oh, and don't forget: crush one's fellow Muslim, too.

When will man learn that religion is dangerous?

On the Religion Question

The problem with religion, as I see it, vis-a-vis Pat Robertson's ignorant remarks, is, as I emailed to a fellor blogger more religious than I:

Well, it's quite obvious that there are a lot of religious people who are sensible in their remarks.

But there is a large contingent of religious people who demonstrate nothing but venality and stupidity. Their understanding of religion is one of oppression, in which they consign all who do not agree with them to eternal perdition. I see no moral distinction between radical adherents of any religion, and murderers, racists, or apologists for political agitation via terrorism.

The problem with religion is not that people are religious /per se/ but that many people use their religiosity as an excuse to foment violence, oppression, and terror.

Some will try to argue that I should not condemn the whole of religion on the basis of one idiot's comments, and, that would be true but for the fact that Robertson is not the only idiot to have used religion as a cudgel with which to cast aspersions on others.

Adherents of all major religions have used their religion as an excuse to murder, and incite violence.

Islam & Hinduism: The division of the Indian subcontinent into Pakistan and India proper.

Judaism: The murder of Yitzhak Rabin.

Christianity: The murder of abortion providers. The exploitation and subordination of women in polygamous Mormon marriages. (More on Mormon fundamentalism here.) The Westboro Baptist Church.

These are a few examples that come to mind, immediately, from the past 50 years. If we were to look at the whole of man's ugly embrace of religion, we would see this pattern manifest itself many thousands of times.

There are some who would argue that political ideologies, such as communism and fascism, are themselves religious in nature; if we accept that (very) broad understanding of "religion" then it follows that religion, as a human construct, has been responsible for the murder of tens of millions of people.

Religion And Intellect

The capacity to have faith would, at first glance, appear to be an implicit acknowledgement that the holder of the faith has no intellect. "Intellect" has come to mean, in many contexts, an ability to use empirical observation to reach conclusions about the nature of the world. That is not faith.

Thus, it's easy to conclude, as Downtown Lad provocatively argues, that religious people are stupider than non-religious people. Though this is a tempting argument to make, and, were it accurate, it would make my life easier, it is nonetheless nonsense: many intellectual people are also religious, and many religious people are intellectual.

I think it's safe to say "some religious people are not intellectual" and "some intellectual people are notreligious." But it's also safe to say "some religious people are intellectual" and "some intellectual people are religious." Making universal declarations about religious people's intellect or intellectual people's religiosity seems, in the absence of any evidence in support of such a universal statement, rather simplistic and presumptuous.

Further, making such erroneous claims does nothing to advance the argument that religion is a poor way with which to understand the world. It is only by susbtantively critiquing religion and its deleterious effects on the world and its people that we can come to understand the religious and secular world. Making unfounded allegations about religious people's intellect is not a way in which to advance debate about the dangers religion poses to the world.

Intelligent Desgin

Intelligent Design has taken root in higher education:

Overshadowed by attacks on evolution in high-school science curricula, intelligent design is gaining a precarious and hotly contested foothold in American higher education. Intelligent-design courses have cropped up at the state universities of Minnesota, Georgia and New Mexico, as well as Iowa State, and at private institutions such as Wake Forest and Carnegie Mellon. Most of the courses, like Mr. Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit. Many colleges have also hosted lectures by advocates of the doctrine.

The spread of these courses reflects the growing influence of evangelical Christianity in academia, as in other aspects of American culture. Last week, the Kansas state board of education adopted new science guidelines that question evolution.

Intelligent design does not demand a literal reading of the Bible. Unlike traditional creationists, most adherents agree with the prevailing scientific view that the earth is billions of years old. And they allow that the designer is not necessarily the Christian God.

Still, professors with evangelical beliefs, including some eminent scientists, have initiated most of the courses and lectures, often with start-up funding from the John Templeton Foundation. Established by famous stockpicker Sir John Templeton, the foundation promotes exploring the boundary of theology and science. It fostered the movement's growth with grants of $10,000 and up for guest speakers, library materials, research and conferences.

Intelligent design's beachhead on campus has provoked a backlash. Universities have discouraged teaching of intelligent design in science classes and canceled lectures on the topic. Last month, University of Idaho President Tim White flatly declared that teaching of "views that differ from evolution" in science courses is "inappropriate."

Citing what they describe as overwhelming evidence for evolution, mainstream scientists say no one has the right to teach wrong science, or religion in the guise of science. "My interest is in making sure that intelligent design and creationism do not make the kind of inroads at the university level that they're making at the K-12 level," says Leslie McFadden, chair of earth and planetary sciences at the University of New Mexico, who led a successful fight there to re-classify a course on intelligent design from science to humanities. "You can't teach whatever you damn well please. If you're a geologist, and you decide that the earth's core is made of green cheese, you can't teach that."

This is troubling, to say the least. The problem here is not that intelligent design is being discussed at all--one can easily imagine a classroom environment in which such discussions are appropriate, say, the philosophy of science, or a philosophy class about epistemology, or even a religion class--but that is not what is happening here. Intelligent design is being discussed in the context of "science" class by a "scientist" to his "science" students. The problem is, none of this is "science" as that term is properly understood.

Presumably, there is something to the idea that college students are adults, and, as adults, they are expected to deal with situations in which they are told things by others which are incorrect. Further, part of being an adult is figuring out what is incorrect, and ignoring it. But the problem is more complex than that. The idea of a cell, or another part of an organism being "irreducibly complex" is a tempting one for intelligent design apologists because it implies a concreteness and finality that perplexing theological questions don't: the thing is too complex to have evolved from nothing, the argument goes, therefore, there must be some alternate explanation. Intelligent design must have had a hand in designing such a complex thing.

But that's not science, and to contend that it is, is to bastardize the word "science" much in the way that "love" or "hate" have been cheapened by overuse.

Other biologists have discussed evolution in the context of it being a theory, in order to avoid confrontation:

Warren Dolphin, who also teaches introductory biology at Iowa State, says he's begun describing evolution to his class as a hypothesis rather than as a fact to avoid confrontations with creationist students. "I don't want to get into a nonproductive debate," he says. "What I'm saying is so contrary to what they're hearing in their small town, their school, their church that I won't convert them in 40 lectures by a pointy-headed professor. The most I can do is get them to question their beliefs."

The most valuable thing a college education can do for one is to supply one with the skills to question one's beliefs. Indeed, one could make the same argument about religious faith: the only religious faith worth having is the one that forces you to question that faith. Else you are not a thinking person, but an automaton. Those without the capacity to think critically about what they hold as beliefs are the most pathetic, and dangerous, type of person. Man's capacity for inerrant faith is frightening, whether that faith be a political ideology such as Nazism or a religiously-based one such creationism (euphemistically, intelligent design.)

As is usually the case, Richard Dawkins is helpful when contemplating the tendency of man to believe in "irreducible complexity":

Creationism has enduring appeal, and the reason is not far to seek. It is not, at least for most of the people I encounter, because of a commitment to the literal truth of Genesis or some other tribal origin story. Rather, it is that people discover for themselves the beauty and complexity of the living world and conclude that it “obviously” must have been designed. Those creationists who recognise that Darwinian evolution provides at least some sort of alternative to their scriptural theory often resort to a slightly more sophisticated objection. They deny the possibility of evolutionary intermediates. “X must have been designed by a Creator,” people say, “because half an X would not work at all. All the parts of X must have been put together simultaneously; they could not have evolved gradually.”

Thus the creationist's favourite question “What is the use of half an eye?” Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye, which is already better than 48 per cent, and the difference is significant. A more ponderous show of weight seems to lie behind the inevitable supplementary: “Speaking as a physicist, I cannot believe that there has been enough time for an organ as complicated as the eye to have evolved from nothing. Do you really think there has been enough time?” Both questions stem from the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Audiences nevertheless appreciate an answer, and I have usually fallen back on the sheer magnitude of geological time.

It now appears that the shattering enormity of geological time is a steam hammer to crack a peanut. A recent study by a pair of Swedish scientists, Dan Nilson and Susanne Pelger, suggests that a ludicrously small fraction of that time would have been plenty. When one says “the” eye, by the way, one implicitly means the vertebrate eye, but serviceable image-forming eyes have evolved between 40 and 60 times, independently from scratch, in many different invertebrate groups. Among these 40-plus independent evolutions, at least nine distinct design principles have been discovered, including pinhole eyes, two kinds of camera-lens eyes, curved-reflector (“satellite dish”) eyes, and several kinds of compound eyes. Nilsson and Pelger have concentrated on camera eyes with lenses, such as are well developed in vertebrates and octopuses.

The "War" On Christmas

Cathy Young reports on conservative commentators' efforts to popularize the idea that there is a war on Christmas:

Now, I agree that there have been some silly, pettily intolerant "politically correct" attempts to get even secular Christmas images (Santas, reindeer, decorated/illuminated trees) out of public places. I'm a Jewish agnostic, and I think it's absurd that some public schools have banned even instrumental versions of Christmas carols. I can understand why people are ticked off about it. But this "war on Christmas" stuff is pretty ridiculous too. Even Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review sounded a tad skeptical when she interviewed Gibson.

For one thing, it's depressing, and annoying, to see conservative Christians borrow the worst page from the playbook of the politically correct left, sign up for the victimology sweepstakes, and join the ranks of the perpetually aggrieved. (It's particularly unseemly coming from the majority, in a country where a non-believer has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected to high political office, for example.) I'm not saying anti-Christian slurs ought to be tolerated, but to get offended over a store clerk's "Happy Holidays" greeting or a "Season's Greetings" sign is as petty as getting offended by the phrase "the brotherhood of man." And no, I'm not saying that a non-Christian ought to be offended by "Merry Christmas" -- it's silly to make an issue of it either way -- but what on earth is wrong with retailers wanting to be a little more inclusive? It's nonsense to say that "happy holidays" somehow "excludes" those who celebrate Christmas (unless, as Julian Sanchez quipped in Reason last year, Christmas is "neither happy nor a holiday"). If a major retailer stopped selling Christmas cards or religiously themed holiday decorations, or if a customer got thrown out of a store for wishing a clerk or a fellow customer "merry Christmas," that would be exclusion. And if that ever happened, I'd be the first to jump on the O'Reilly-Gibson bandwagon.

I generally agree with Young's comments. The rubric of oppression requires that the oppressed either be the minority or otherwise (as in the case of black South Africans under apartheid) live in a legal system that explicitly limits their opportunities. Christians in America fit into neither group; to argue that there is a "war" against Christmas is absurd.

"What is the point of creating principled Catholic lawyers if they are not going to "engage the world" but "retreat from it"?"

So asks Eugene Volokh.

Ann Althouse is creeped out by the prospect.

The issue? Ave Maria School of Law, a law school which purports to teach its lawyers to hew to the edicts of Catholicism, wants to remove itself from the modern world and set up shop in rural Florida. Volokh excerpts this quote, which is a good summation of the assumptions underlying the law school's thoughts, as well as Volokh's criticism:

"We'll own all commercial real estate," Mr. Monaghan declared, describing his vision. "That means we will be able to control what goes on there. You won't be able to buy a Playboy or Hustler magazine in Ave Maria Town. We're going to control the cable television that comes in the area. There is not going to be any pornographic television in Ave Maria Town. If you go to the drug store and you want to buy the pill or the condoms or contraception, you won't be able to get that in Ave Maria Town."

The article goes on to note that Mr. Monaghan is one of the founders of Domino's Pizza and a major benefactor of the law school.

In any event, this non-lawyer is inclined to agree with Volokh and Althouse, and not just because of my general antipathy toward religion. I don't understand how a lawyer can practice his craft without engaging in the outside world; theirs seems an anti-intellectual approach. Odd for a profession which lives and dies on the intellect of its practitioners. There seems to be a strain of thought among some religious people that by setting up communitites which reject modern secularism, the adherents of that religion will lead more pure lives than everyone else. In some respects, this is probably true. If, as Mr. Monaghan evidently believes, you think that the opportunity to buy Hustler or Penthouse is equivalent to godlessness, then, yes, avoiding such temptations is probably a good thing.

But isn't a fundamental part of faith temptation? As I recall it, the whole idea of faith, as contemplated in the New Testament, is Jesus wanted to get laid. (I know I'm putting this a bit coarsely here, but bear with me.) The whole point of Scorsese's move The Last Temptation of Christ is that Christ yields to his temptations. The message seems to be "even Christ's faith is not total."

Obviously, this message caused some controversy, as devout Catholics (and other Christian denominations) irrelevantly objected to Scorsese's depiction of a historical (fictional?) figure. Nonetheless, in Scorsese's movie, we find a good demonstration of "faith": faith requires not only adherence to principles, but temptation. If we are to eliminate temptation from the equation, then one no longer has "faith": one has sheltered one's self from the temptations of naked women.

Pat Robertson: Embrace Creationism or Reject God

Pat Robertson's version of a binary decision: embrace intelligent design or reject God. To choose one is to repudiate the other. If you reject God you embrace evolution; if you embrace intelligent design, you embrace God.

Never have I seen a more simplistic ontology than that. Robertson is a true fool.

That his words are heeded by many is to the eternal shame of America.

Mormon Theology

Mormon theology: your kid can be "turned gay" by being in the same room as gay kids.

Via Kip Esquire.

Remind me why we are to take religion seriously? At every turn, moronic practitioners of this set of myths engages in bigotry, as in this case, or ignorance of physics or medicine or biology, as in these cases, or otherwise wishes to perpetuate ignorance, as in the case of Kansas' "school" board creationists.

Rarely are we treated to good news about religion, as with the Vatican's recent announcement that its adherents should abide by the principles of science. But even here, logical consistency cannot be expected, as the Catholic Church still judges gays to be sinners, despite no scientific evidence that there is anything inherently wrong with homosexuality.

Now, given the rigor with which I have just criticized organized religion and the myths and ignorance that it perpetuates, some would say I am "anti-religion." Though not religious myself, I nevertheless understand its utility in human affairs: in addition to serving as a justification for wanton murder, it also serves as a spiritual salve for those for whom money or material possession are not sufficiently enlightening. No matter--religion has some good purposes, and many very, very bad ones.

UPDATE: Via Althouse, I find this in the New York Times by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University:

The apparent complexity of our universe has compelled some evangelists, and some school boards, to argue that the natural laws we have unraveled over the past four centuries cannot be enough on their own to explain the diversity of the phenomena we observe around us, including the remarkable diversity of life on earth.

For very different reasons, but still without a shred of empirical evidence, a generation of theoretical physicists has speculated that the four dimensions of our experience may themselves be just a grand illusion - the tip of a cosmic iceberg.

String theory, yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable, has nevertheless become a fixture in the public lexicon, and the elaborate and surprising mathematical framework that has resulted from over three decades of theoretical study has been enough for some to argue that even a thus-far empirically impotent idea must describe reality.

Further, it has now been proposed that the extra dimensions of string theory may not even be microscopically small, which has been the long accepted mathematical trick used by advocates to explain why we may not yet detect them.

Instead, they could be large enough to house entire other universes with potentially different laws of physics, and perhaps even objects that, like the eight-dimensional beings in a Buckaroo Banzai story, might leak into our own dimensions.

I wouldn't bet on their existence, but the fact that such potentially infinite spaces could exist and still be effectively hidden in our world is nevertheless remarkable.

Whatever one thinks about all of these ruminations about hidden realities, there is an important difference - at least I hope there is - between the scientists who currently speculate about extra dimensions and those whose beliefs cause them to insist that life can only be understood by going beyond the confines of the natural world.

Scientists know that without experimental vindication their proposals are likely to wither. Moreover, a single definitive "null experiment," like the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 that dispensed with the long-sought-after ether, could sweep away the whole idea.

Religion is Deleterious to your Financial Health

I was about to blog on the idiotic and irresponsible Arkansas couple that has create 16 dependencies (i.e., those snot-nosed expenditures known sentimentally as "children"), but I see Kip Esquire beat me to the punch, as it were, and echoes my sentiments exactly.

Having 16 children is nothing if not irresponsible. Plain and simple. Religious faith or creed provide no excuse or justification.

Religious conservatives believe we ought to cast moral aspersions on those who we think act immorally. Well, consider this blog post my moral aspersion on religous families who bear an irresponsible number of children.

UPDATE: See the comments below.

Religious belief and practice is, in large part, an implicit repudiation of critical inquiry. Religious belief and practice, however, are not immune from critical inquiry. Arguments that contend one should not criticize another's religious belief or practice fall flat because, well, we operate in a marketplace of ideas, to use MacKinnon's phrase, and adherence to religion by one does not prohibit others to look askance.

There is a world of difference between intolerance and critical inquiry. It is neither intolerant nor prejudicial to criticize a couple for having 16 children; rather it is an application of skeptical, critical thinking. If having 16 children were not a huge financial burden to take on, then it would follow that many more people would have such large families. In the absence of similarly large families it follows that one should question the financial burden this family has chosen to take on. That they have chosen to take it on in the name of religious belief is irrelevant.

UPDATE 2: For intolerance on this subject, head over to Huffington Post and check out the comments ("someone spay this bitch," et al). Then come back here and tell me I'm being intolerant.

Also, see Jim Bob's web site, courtesy, again, of Kip Esquire.

The fervor with which the religious adhere to their beliefs is exceeded only by the fervor with which Stalin purged his party of his enemies. One day, when I am in a more sardonic mood, I will compose an analysis of my religion, namely, capitalism and wealth creation.

"a kind of odor only Christians have"

So, apparently, Christians are smellier than non-Christians?

Well, not really: Dispatches From the Culture Wars relates the story of a public school teacher who put together a lesson in which she alleged that only Christians could know what Jesus smelled like. Christians, you see, carry with them the odor of Christ.

If that's true, and you're a Christian, I suggest that you take a shower, post haste. As Dispatches explains:

So let's see...you can eat of his flesh, drink of his blood, and now you can smell him too. I got news for you, folks. Jesus lived in first century palestine, riding around on donkeys and not showering very often. I guarantee he didn't smell like your freakin' candle.

"My church needs a leader who takes visceral satisfaction in delivering justice to bullies"

So reads an op-ed in the Dallas News by one Rod Dreher (link via Stuart Buck; the newspaper requires an onerous registration process which I did not follow, as Buck excerpts the relevant part on his blog).

The interesting part of the excerpted opinion piece is:

Still, my church needs a leader who takes visceral satisfaction in delivering justice to bullies. If John Paul had pitilessly shot down the careers of molester-shuffling American bishops early on, the church would be a better place today.

* * *

Why aren't the men who run the Catholic church raging against the cruelty of priests who prey on kids? Why do so many good priests and Catholic laymen remain as docile as eunuchs despite it all? Do we think we're not going to have to answer to God for our moral cowardice?

It is heartening to read such words from someone who I assume is a practicing Catholic. Despite protestations to the contrary by many in the Vatican and occupying other positions of ecclesiastical authority within the Catholic hierarchy, it is plainly evident that, in America at least, scores of its priests have raped, defiled, and molested thousands of young boys; the Catholic Church's "authority" such as it is cannot help but have been damaged by its resolute and abject refusal to acknowledge substantively the venal and insidious behavior of its clergy.

Doubtless, some will read this and claim either (1) since I am plainly not Catholic I have no business criticizing the Catholic Church for its pedophilic predilections, or (2) my crtiicisms therein belie my "anti-Catholic" or "anti-religious" stance. In the spirit of pre-emption, allow me to destroy both of these strawmen arguments.

(1) No religion in the United States is sanctified by the state and all religions must obey the laws of the United States; Utah's admission to the Union was predicated, in part, on the Mormon Church proscribing polygamy (though it is still practiced by some fundamentalist Mormon communities today). Religious authority is therefore subordinate to our laws, such as laws that prohibit men from raping young boys. The Catholic Church has exposed itself to criticism by any and all who value such laws; claims that only Catholics are in a position to criticize their Church fall on their face when the Church acts in violation of the nation's laws. No one, and no organization, can claim immunity from laws against pedophilia; if you or your representatives are pedophiles, you (or your representatives) open youself to scrutiny by all.

(2) If it is "anti-Catholic" or "anti-religious" to criticize the Catholic Church on the basis of its pedophilic priests, then it is also "anti-capitalist", or socialist, to criticize Wall Street for its dishonest investment bankers. Neither claim holds water; one can support the principle of religion (and even the theological precepts upon which the Catholic Church is founded) and still find room to criticize Catholicism's obdurate obstinacy in the face of defiled young boys. Similarly, one can praise free markets, and the millions that accrue to investment bankers from such markets, while still faulting dishonest investment bankers for their actions. Criticizing an institution does not constitute a desire to eliminate that institution.

"The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death."

So reads the words of one Gary North who apparently advocates the idea that if your son tells you to go fuck yourself, he should be executed. Read the whole gory story here.

The article is written by Walter Olson, in Reason Magazine. The intoduction to the essay serves as sufficient introdution to a doctrin known as "Christian Reconstructionism" by which is meant, apparently, death for everyone except those who would kill their own kids for swearing:

For connoisseurs of surrealism on the American right, it's hard to beat an exchange that appeared about a decade ago in the Heritage Foundation magazine Policy Review. It started when two associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article which criticized Christian Reconstructionism, the influential movement led by theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, for advocating positions that even they as committed fundamentalists found "scary." Among Reconstructionism's highlights, the article cited support for laws "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards." The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers' views all wrong: They didn't intend to put drunkards to death.

Link to this disturbing article via Instapundit.

Government's Role in Regulating Religion

So here's a story sure to pose troubling questions to those who react negatively when the government restricts one from acting on one's religious belief (think of radical Catholics murdering abortion providers, Rastafarians sparking a joint, or advocates of creationism who want public schools to lie to students about evolution):

Rodney Holm, a former police officer, is asking the Utah Supreme Court to strike down that state's anti-polygamy law. Holm, who is legally married to one woman, but who lived with and is married within his faith to two other women, served a one year sentence and was required to register as a sex offender for violating Utah's ban on polygamy. Because of his conviction, he also cannot return to his job in law enforcement.

At oral argument, Holm's lawyer emphasized that he is not arguing for state sanctioned polygamy. Under the scheme Holm suggests, residents of Utah could still have only one legal spouse, but they would be free to cohabitate with, and be married with their church to, additional members of the opposite sex. Under current Utah law, the ban on polygamy was triggered when Holm's long cohabitation with his second and third wife fell within the definition of a common law marriage.

Question for those who think government should not restrict religious practices (see examples above): Under what set of circumstances may government legitimately proscribe religious practices or beliefs?

Incidentally, if you are tempted to argue that Rodney Holm and his wives are adults, free to do as they please, I recommend that you read Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, which unapologetically explores the phenomenon of polygamy in certain Mormon communities. While I don't know anything about the circumstances under which Holm entered into polygamous "spiritual" marriages with his wives, it is quite clear that polygamy has been used by some adherents as an excuse to rape and otherwise defile young girls. It is clear to me, in this instance, that government's interest in prohibiting polygamy ought to take precedence over this man's desire to practice his religion as he sees fit.

Critical Thinking

CNN reports that US District Judge Clarence Cooper "ruled that labeling evolution a 'theory' played on the popular definition of the word as a 'hunch' and could confuse students," and, therefore, that Georgia could not place in student textbooks a sticker reading:

This textbooks contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be apporach with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

While it is true that evolution is not "theory" per se, but pretty much established scientific fact, it is also true that anything a student reads should be approached "with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Too few students do that for any subject. Too few people do that.

UPDATE: Dispatches From the Culture Wars responds to the Judge's ruling. American Constitution Society also has thoughts.