You Want Facts or Feelings?

I have a life.

I did not say anything about my feelings being hurt.

I have never made any particular claims about my education.

I have not seen anywhere that Chris Everett has made any big deal about his education, expensive or otherwise.

I don't know you. I have never heard of you before. But you seem paranoid, and as I said before, I do not think blogging is a very healthy thing for you to be doing. You are taking it way too seriously.

Anonymoose:

Thanks for understanding what point was, is, and probably will be for as long as the planet continues.

Daniel,

"severe and sanctomonious judgement"

"Sanctimonious"--Good, I see you've been accessing the online thesaurus. Neither "severe" nor "sanctimonious" fit here and the phrase like the rest of your post is wordy. It is often thus with the writing of poorly educated Protestants, less so Catholics. You are clearly the former.

My posts have nothing to do with Observer, course, you, or Puffed Rice Everett. They have to do with racist speech, which, unanswered, unremarked, harms.

Try to see beyond the personal. You post so often of your "hurt feelings." This isn't about "feelings," yours or anyone else's. Indeed, if it were, I shouldn't be posting. Hence, I recommend you take your own advice to spare your self-riveted and sensitive self, i.e., "Get a life."

I'm not Observer12. I shall not attempt to lead you to the light.

AnonyMoose

Why are you so upset? I assume that over long period's of time, you have been reading people's posts, without comment, but in severe and sanctomonious judgement. And now, all of your bitter resentments are bubbling up, and you're taking out all your ill-will and bad feelings on people, who have never heard from you before, don't even know what you're ranting about.

Why rant over your computer keyboard, regarding people that you do not know and will never know? It is all in your imagination that some of the people here are your friends, and some of them are your enemies.

Maybe this is not the kind of activity that you should be involved in.

Everett:

To Repeat: You are an arrogant, puffed up little man, too self riveted even to notice that Observer and Just a Thought are not the same person until it is pointed out to you.

She, Observer, not he, never mentioned your name on this thread, and was moving on. You had to cross over like Caesar at the Rubicon with your twofold annoyance, into which, neither she nor anyone else had inquired, so pompously as to be risible.

To equate Jews with Christians/Catholics shows that the expensive education you claim to have had excluded even a grammar school history lesson.

She posted the dialogue hoping you would understand her source of frustration with stereotyping. Hopefully, she understands more about bigots now than to attempt to engage them in future.

I shall have nothing more to do with you you. You are welcome to have the last word, or should I say, petulant growl.

One more shot at AnonyMoose

I said that I was not going to wade through old posts to look at one particular thing from way back, and you acted like I was being petty and flippant.

But I have actually tried to dig up some of my old posts from before, that I had wanted to copy and paste to save in my own personal journal of stuff I have written. I have spent 3 and 4 hours at a shot, scrolling up and down, trying to find something very specific, of great interest to me, and have found it to be a mostly a lost cause. So, how can you imagine, that I would spend hours pouring over this stuff, trying to find some nit to pick with you, when I might otherwise be, cooking a meal, or doing laundry, or watching tv, or looking out the window, or just laying on the bed resting?

DITLD,

I appreciate your efforts, but based on my experience it will come to no good. The only reason I ended up as the target of their hatred is becasue I defended Perspective against a mob response in which this group ended up railing against him as a bigot and calling him a PIG. All because of the following passage on Susan's "Obama" thread:

"Obama already knows where the attacks will come from and the basis of those attacks. Since race and any referral to said topic of race is verboten, the GOP swiftboaters will dwell on national defense weakness - really, that's all they've got.

Rather sadly, Obama has already allied himself with Israeli interests in anticipation of this strategy. And just when Israel declares that confrontation with Iran is 'inevitable' in the news today. As an aside, I have to agree with others that Obama's running mate is crucial, and Richardson is probably a first pick."

If you read the thread (and I don't suggest you do), you will find that Perspective made many efforts to engage in reasoned discussion, to no avail. My interpretation, which I still stand by, is that there are posters here who are conditioned to perceive antisemitism in just about anything that even remotely touches on the subjects of Judaism or Isreal, and when they do, they attack. By defending Perspective, I brought the attack upon myself.

As you can see from Susan's post, I also tried to engage these people rationally, but to no avail. But what angered me the most was Observer12's deliberate misrepresentation of me at the beginning of this post:

"For example, I recently learned about "Jewish interests" which evidently all Jews, as a "demographic" hold. When I requested tangible evidence, I was informed of the author's "Jewcred," information on the order of "everyone says" (will spare details, for the moment), etc. When asked if there were Catholic/Protestant, Black, etc., interests as well, the author, a self-identified atheist, physics major at Tufts, couldn't think of any. Moreover, the atheist/physicist with Jewcred was annoyed, felt pressured, put upon when asked for evidence."

If you have waded through all the material you know that it's a pernicious recasting of the point I had originally made regarding Perspectives original post, which was that it is not de facto bigotry to acknowledge demographic differences among people. I even referred him to the branch of statistics that dealt with this sort of thing (ANOVA).

But Observer12 has an agenda, and like Captain Ahab he is willing to pursue it across the On Faith essayists and threads. The irony (which I pointed out at the time) is that he posts statements such as:

"As a Jew, I'm very interested in the why of human-inflicted suffering, since, historically, so much of my people's suffering has come at the hands of Christians/Catholics, who profess a religion of love.

That suffering, incidentally, continues up to this day, not merely from observant Christians (generically speaking), but from those of Christian descent. Recently, I learned that I was a demographic, with 'Jewish interests.'"

As you can see, not only is he comfortable referring to himself demographically (i.e. "as a Jew"), but he is also comfortable making blanket statements about "Christans" and those of "Christian descent". Blind, just plain blind.

I really don't want this knucklehead following me around, spewing his vitriol everywhere I go, so at the beginning of this thread I said so:

"My frustration with you is twofold. First, you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I never identified you as a demographic and I never attributed any interests to you. Nor did I avoid the issue of other demographics with their own, statistically-significant group (NOT individual) interests. In fact, I offered the example of the Fundamentalist Christian demographic interests of anti-abortionism and anti-gay marriage. You are a liar."

Well, as you know, he never (and WILL never) explained himself coherently. Instead, he posted that long winded rambling exchange between two other posters, which I did not read except to note that it talked alot about the Nazi sympathies of the Kennedy clan, and also contained this statement, which I think is the real reason Observer12 posted it:

"Clearly, using Chris E's reasoning "The Jews" do not own the media, since "The Jews" are of one mysterious mind."

It's sad, but kind of funny, to learn second-hand about my own supposed "reasoning".

So you see, they (or he/she, if it's just one poster with several aliases) are nothing but hateful bigots looking for an object of their hatred. They won't, or can't, engage rationally - they just want to hate. You ask Anonymous (who is probably Observer12) to make a point if he has it. Well, he doesn't. He has an agenda.

Hopefully he will not drag this issue into yet another thread. Hopefully he realizes that hollow accusations of bigotry are no trump card. I stand by everything I've said, and would be willing to engage in honest, rational discussion on any point.

Sorry for the longwindedness, but these a-holes really get my goat.

AnonyMoose

I don't understand what you are so upset about, and why you are so obsessed with who said what to whom on some mostly forgotten thread of a few weeks ago.

You are raving about things that nobody but you understands. If you have some point to make, then why don't you make it?

DITLD,

So then you found "critics" "mystifying, whom you didn't read.

"I read the digression below"

The digression was cut and pasted from Obama Unchurced, as a result of Everett's attack on this thread, of Observer.

"I am not going to wade through old posts to try and find some point where some one person's imprecisely worded comment offended someone else, who was waiting to be offended."

BUT

"None of us know each other, at all, not in the least."

So, we don't know each other but you know that someone was waiting to be offended.

AND

"Don't be offended by anything I would say here, at least not more than a minute or two."

I am offended by bigotry. You are continually having your "feelings" hurt on this blog. Do not confuse me with yourelf. I offended by you? Are you Everett? I doubt it. You don't seem to have his "education." (It's that which makes him dangerous.)

"How could you or anyone, even nurse such a trivial wound, even to remember, where such a comment might be found, much less, advise, completely uninvolved strangers to go back and read and re-read them?"

You involved yourself.

"Take more care in the real people that you meet in your daily life."

And now you are advising a stranger.

Are you imitating Everett? YOu sound like a plebian copy with the same arrogant, puffed up tone, cut from a cheaper quality cloth.

Do not communicate with me again.

to Anonoymous

I am uncomprehending of all your points.

I am not going to wade through old posts to try and find some point where some one person's imprecisely worded comment offended someone else, who was waiting to be offended. How could you or anyone, even nurse such a trivial wound, even to remember, where such a comment might be found, much less, advise, completely uninvolved strangers to go back and read and re-read them?

The world moves on; blogs move on; this forum moves on; these threads move on. None of us know each other, at all, not in the least. Don't be offended by anything I would say here, at least not more than a minute or two.

Take more care in the real people that you meet in your daily life.

Observer12:

I read your posts when you took on Deb Chatterjee. You were the smartest of the lot and Deb is no dummie.

Hope to read many more posts from you.

DITLD:

RE: Chris Everett

Suggest you return to Obama Unchurched. Read full exchange. Read Just a Guess and Just a Thought for yourself.

The only "critic" of Everett is me. Others addressed his comments. Just a Thought and Observer12 cannot be the same person. Have seen Observer12's posts for a year. Watched her engage Deb Chatterjee and others. Not the same person as Just a Thought, but Everett reviles Observer12 for that which Just a Thought rightly remarks. In this tragically ironic way, Everett makes Just a Thought's point. Tragic for him.

In your comment, you discourage Everett from exercising whatever ability he may have to self-reflect. Thus far, I've seen none.

Final post

DITLD,

Much appreciated.

Chris Everett

Susan's thread became so full of posts that it got kind of wobbly and difficult to navigate.

So I came to this one to see what was here, and then I read the digression, below, involving you.

As a counterpoint to your critics, whose opinions I find mystifying, I enjoy reading your occaisional posts, which are well-written, intelligent, and good natured.

JYHume

Here is a question worth asking: In the philosophy of science, there is now a branch called the "metaphysics of science." Are you familiar with it? The notion of "laws" is among those constructs with which this branch concerns itself.

Any thoughts?

Mr.(Prof?) Dennett is so on the money with this. As a long term practitioner of meditation, yoga and tai chi, I always assumed that research would show a positive correlation between meditation and health. However, even with a very large number of studies in recent years, that correllation has not been evident. That said, many who meditate also, like myself, practice one of the eastern exercise paths, and tai chi in particular has shown to be extremely benificial to long term health and some good results on correcting acute health problems. Some of the difficulty with proving benifits from meditation come from the fact that many who meditate excersize, eat well and lead healthy lifestyles, so it is hard to identify the role meditation plays.

I would suppose the same is true for faith. If a person acts positively and does things that promote health, instead of giving up, then the overall results will be positive.

For all of you fans of "faith healing", I come from a family of Pentacostals, and have seen relatives "healed" with the "laying on of hands", who were right back where they started once the group hyseria/self hypnosis wore off.

And, I've seen atheist who's long term serious illnesses go into spontaneous remission and return to health.

As Mr. Dennett says, our personal opinions are just that. We see what we want to see and our interpretations are evidence of nothing except our personal feelings.

I meditate because it makes me feel good. Faith and belief systems, may actually impede successful acheivement of altered states of consciousness.

I think the most important thing is to stop conflating dogmatic religiosity with spiritual curiosity. A person may honestly ask, "Is there anything beside the material world?" or as I might ask, "Is the real world which we live in, simply described in terms of the material world?" What about McTaggart's proof of the non-existence of time, which has been supported, in part, by Dummett?
It is not obvious that science can deal with it because science makes no distinction between a movie as a roll of film and a movie as something which we experience. Both satisfy the same laws, but are obviously different. It would seem that Science is right as far as it goes, but its language seems too impoverished to describe all of reality.
So curiosity about the real world, and about some form of spirituality is something which rational human beings (as distinct from religious fanatics) ought to have. Also, I am not sure if Dennett includes Buddhism or Taoism in "So can faith in new age nonsense". Both of them are more than 2,500 years old. Finally, having a debate with D'Souza seems like a cheap way for Dennett to win a victory. Why not debate with the Dalai Lama or Robert Thurman or with Thich Nhat Hanh? These are people with some real religious credentials - D'Souza is merely a conservative political figure with little religious clout.

I thought it might be interesting to review a deep 'spiritual' and even transformative experience outside the bounds of organized religion. In this spirit, I'm pasting a brief excerpt from an article by John Wren-Lewis, former Australian physicist and now-current spokesman for the Consciousness movement.

Curiously, he was in the forefront of the 'God is Dead' movement back in the 1960's. Maybe he's taken with movements! His wife Ann Farraday is in a similar line of work. I think they go far beyond the typical New Age claptrap and speak of real and life-altering experiences in their writings and research.

Anyway, check out the links as well for an expanded view of how his 'perception' has changed based on an event that occurred some 25 years ago.

These things do occur, and for folks that have never had such an experience to malign others as delusional, even by implication, is just wrong-headed in my view. While it is true that similar experiences are most often 'interpreted' post facto in a religious context, the experience itself is more accurately described as 'transpersonal' (and is relatively rare).

I would maintain that these experiences are initially outside the bounds of religion altogether - and perhaps a good preventative antidote to the dangers of a materialistic scientism! Wren-Lewis believes they are available to one and all......

_________________________

John Wren-Lewis is one of the freshest voices in contemporary spirituality probably because, for many years, he viewed mysticism as escapism. Mystical beliefs were no better than religious or scientific beliefs -- to believe was not the same as to know. When, in 1983, Wren-Lewis had a profound mystical experience, he was free to describe it in his own words and not in the terms of any spiritual tradition.

John Wren-Lewis' description of his experience is so vivid and personal that you can feel the Truth that underlies it: . . . it is all still here, both the shining dark void and the experience of myself coming into being out of, yet somehow in response to, that radiant darkness. My whole consciousness of myself and everything else has changed. I feel as if the back of my head has been sawn off so that it is no longer the 60-year-old John who looks out at the world, but the shining dark infinite void that in some extraordinary way is also "I."

And what I perceive with my eyes and other senses is a whole world that seems to be coming fresh-minted into existence moment by moment, each instant evoking the utter delight of "Behold, it is very good." Here yet again I am constantly up against paradox when I try to describe the experience. Thus, in one sense, I feel as if I am infinitely far back in sensing the world, yet at the same time I feel the very opposite, as if my consciousness is no longer inside my head at all, but out there in the things I am experiencing ... .

The circumstances of Wren-Lewis' enlightenment are equally unique. While travelling in Thailand, he was poisoned by a would-be robber. Upon awakening in the hospital, he became conscious of the "dazzling darkness" from which he has lived ever since. Now, he devotes himself to discovering how to pass this experience on to others. With no vested interest in any traditions, he is free to honestly evaluate their efficacy.

He concludes that there is little or no evidence of any spiritual system offering a sure road to awakening. John Wren-Lewis calls upon all spiritual teachers to share their findings in the spirit of scientific inquiry to help uncover the factors that bring about awakening. To this task, he has dedicated the rest of his life.

I highly recommend you read the following articles:
http://www.nonduality.com/dazdark.htm
http://www.globalideasbank.org/befaft/B&A-5.HTML

Many more articles are available at the John Wren-Lewis Archive on the Capacitie website.

Worth reading!!!

Health and Healing in the Land of Israel

A Paleopathological Perspective

by Joe Zias

http://www.joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

What does the Mayan calendar have to do with the bible? It seems we are lost in semantics here; the word religion comes from the Latin root meaning "to connect". So we all have our particular connection based on our experience, our knowledge, our peception and our beliefs.
You do know that the King James Version of the bible was edited and put together by the emperor Constantine and his mother Helena at the great conference in the third century A.D. in Rome. Many things were left out of what could have been a very different bible.
The Mayans were an extremely advanced culture and gave us the concept of 0. Their reading of astronomical events was nothing short of astounding, getting the year as close to possible as our modern atomic clocks, time wise that is.
Astrology was the first form of psychology and for a very long time was the basis of practicing medicine.
The three wise men came to see the Messiah because of a celestial event that was foretold. Does this connect the two for you? The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, but I don't think this "scientific" article has much to do with anything meta-physical

Yonkers, New York
16 June 2008

As a professor of philosophy, Daniel C. Dennett must know, deep down, that in the matter of religion or faith, as a general proposition most people, including those who have a claim to higher intelligence and a high education, chose to be moved by feelings rather than facts.

It seems indeed strange that when they look at a historical event having to do with (religious)faith, employ their cognitive powers, alllow their reason to reach logical conclusions, they invariably choose to ignore what their reason dictates. In a perversd way, feelings overwhelm reason.

Thus it is clear that (religious) faith and reason are incompatible. There is no way to harmonize one with the other. One must exclude the other.

As Franz Werfel long ago posited, "To those who believe, no explanation is necessary. To those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Hmmm, OK Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadists, "healthier Atheists" did not win the new name contest for the Mormon-Muslim myth and hallucinatination-free meld. The "Islamorms" name however did. Enjoy your pork ribs !!!!!

Names for the convergence of Christians and Jews into a meld free of pretty wingie thingies, demons of the demented and myths is still being worked on.

Ditto for the convergence of Buddhists and Hindus into a meld free of cows, castes and fat, unhealthy Buddhas.

Ditto for the Utopia of Religious Melds, freedom from the "fems"!!!!!

CCNL : Hmmm, what shall we call this potential joining? Musmors? Morms? Musmos? M&Ms? Ismors? Moisls? or Islamorms or simply "Healthy Atheists"?

Utopia of Religious Convergence into "Healthy atheists"? That is a contradiction.

How come no mention of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Crossanized Christians of Reality too at least?

No such thing as "healthy atheists". They do get sick like everyone - in mind and body.

Part of utopianism of a Godfree, disease-free, delusion-free world?

Pooh and bah!

Take it easy pussycat.:)

JY Hume:

Thanks again, and, no, I don't think we disagree on a single point. Kuhn, Feyerbend et al, particularly Kuhn were not, in my view, science rejectionists. It's still inconceivable to me how Kuhn could be read in this light. To me, his notion of paradigmatic thinking is brilliant and has contributed to the progress not only of science but to many other fields.

For Gould, as you know, contingency was almost all. With respect to scientific discourse, he was, I think, a demythologizer, one of whose goals was greater scientific rigor.

Much as I prefer science to faith healing, I think we must be on guard against thinking of Science in metaphysical terms. We agree science is interested, vested, etc. Broad economic interests are at play. The treatment of childhood epilepsy is an interesting case in point. For the last sixty years, Johns Hopkins has run a program for children with epilepsy that entails strict adherence to a high fat diet that only this population can tolerate. The program, as I recall, has a success rate well up into the 90s, yet doctors, who are aware well aware of it, almost never refer patients. Rather, they treat these children with powerful drugs that do not always work, leaving children with epilepsy to grow up to be adults with epilepsy.

Empiricism--verification, replication, etc.--I wonder if you have read George Mosse, Nazi Culture & Nazi ideology. The Nazi scientists he anthologizes were not trivial. About twenty years ago, Science published an article about scientific "methods" in Nazi Germany.

Again, in no way do I oppose science, never have, never could or would. Among my extended family are stellar scientists, one with an international reputation.

As well, I fully accept your critique of "epistomological rejectionism." Although I think there are many good things to be said for the "left" in this country, speaking as one of the left, the certainty of truth claims one hears, the dogmatism, the lofty assertions without reference to fact, the cookie cutter politics are as bad as anything one hears from the right. This, I suspect, develops, in part, from a failure to look to a material, as in, economic base, to grasp the complexity of ideology, of which, the left is occasionally in service. That is why Aronowitz, trade unionist, etc., who understands neo-liberalism and how capital moves, is a puzzlement sometimes.

You may find this ironic, Mr. (?) Hume, but I side with Descartes in Science, as in all things: DOUBT.

Although it seems blogging is mostly for arguing, I am finding this exchange enlightening and would like to know more of your thinking.

Farnaz

Hmmm, now that Susan Jacoby's commentary section is about full, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist has moved her "obfusing" to another channel.

We therefore follow suit with the following observation:

If the flaws of Mr. Otterson's "healthy" Mormonism were removed i.e. all references to Moroni and his revelations and if the flaws of warmongering Islam were removed i.e. all references to Gabriel and his revelations, there would hardly be anything left in either religion other then some version of the Commandments. Finally the start of the Utopia of Religious Convergence!!!!

Hmmm, what shall we call this potential joining? Musmors? Morms? Musmos? M&Ms? Ismors? Moisls? or Islamorms or simply "Healthy Atheists"?

Farnaz:

Thanks for that reply; I don’t disagree with a word you said. As you say, there is much value in some of the historical and sociological critiques of science. Scientists are just as susceptible as anyone else to bias, self-interest, sexism, funding issues, and just plain old error. They are human, after all. But as you seem to agree, the answer is not to throw out, or even devalue, science. The answer is to be wary of these problems and to do better science. As Susan Haack frequently says, science, through argumenation between its many practitioners and over the long haul, is very good at finding ever-closer approximations of the world-as-it-really-is.

As you’re likely aware, Kuhn, Feyerbend, and other (unintentional?) initiators of the radical rejection of science later clarified their thoughts to be clear that was not their intent. Nor, would I think, could Gould be called an epistemological relativist. I don’t believe any of them intended to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Healthy criticism is all part of doing good science.

Unfortunately, I think many of us are guilty of talking past each other, myself included. Particularly this is the case when speaking about “truth” and “true knowledge.” Scientific-minded folks tend to reserve use of the word “truth” only for those factual claims that have withstood withering scutiny, those that have demonstrated their efficacy on a rational and empirical basis (though still, of course, contingent); in short, true claims can be shown to be true for everyone (e.g. acceleration due to gravity). Many non-scientists more freely use “truth” to include values, convictions, personal beliefs, and ways of interacting with the world (e.g. homosexuality is insulting to God). Because the same word can have such divergent connotations, perhaps these forums will always be difficult.

Is it true that faith healing works? That depends on what "true" means.

James: True Fact and Honest Feeling:

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali (scroll up and look right) is a natural beauty. By far lovelier and a much greater pleasure to look at than Daniel Dennett (scroll up and look left)."

I thought that Whoopi Goldberg is so beautiful!

True fact and honest feeling - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

True Fact and Honest Feeling:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (scroll up and look right) is a natural beauty. By far lovelier and a much greater pleasure to look at than Daniel Dennett (scroll up and look left).

....and so, how about measuring "feelings" as one would on temperatures for illness on the thermometer, or earthquakes on the Richter scale?

Anger:

(a) not angry

(b) moderately angry

(c) immoderately angry

(d) very angry

(e) extremely angry

...and what is the benchmark, the parameter for anger? Throwing things and punches? Or to kill?

Or, on love:

(a) not feeling love

(b) feeling a little bit of love

(c) do feel the warm glow of love

(d) love is all you need

(e) too much love

....and what is the benchmark for love? Heart pounding, pupils dilating? Or to climb the highest mountain and swim the deepest ocean for the loved one.

Cheers

"J"

JYHume:

Thanks for your reply. I haven't read the book to which the critique of Aronowitz refers and I hope he wouldn't say the same today. He is a "sociologist of science," whose roots go back at least as far as Merton, Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," with which I've never heard a scientist take issue.

Disregarding the garbage that does dwell in the areas and interdisplinary studies you mention, I have seen some very good work on the cultural embeddedness of science, the fact that it is value laden, etc. It's historical nature is evident in the kinds of research that gets funded, the actual structure of scientific reports, what gets published, questions that are not asked, e.g., given the radical differences in male/female biochemistry, etc., do men and women have the same heart attack symptoms?

On a related matter, the late Stephen Jay Gould was a master at noting some of the errors, some egregious, some hilarious, that went on for decades, since no one bothered to check the original citation.

Science in the abstract promises much. But it doesn't operate in the abstract. In the concrete, is interested, heavily vested.

As for Academic discourse it remains in the midst of the sociology of everything--of literature, philosophy, psychology--you name it. To bad for many sociologists, I grant you, who haven't a clue as to what all of the foregoing refer to!!

---------

Bottom line: There is junk in the interdisciplinary areas, in the disciplines, but not only junk. Actual wheat is still grows. As well, in my view, Sceince is one thing, science in everyday practice is often not quite the same.

Regards,
Farnaz

Atheiests, like believers, probably get certain "feelings" over "facts" on politics, the economy, taxes, family matters, over friends, on work like believers do.

Certain "feelings", like anger, can give high blood pressure. Bottled or pent up anger is bad for one's health.

Believers chilled out by praying, meditating, by sleeping in church, by confession?

Facts is important, but facts' impact on feelings is what is detrimental on one's health?

Research must be done on "facts'" impact on "feelings". And to categorise the sort of "feelings" that "facts" brings out.

Repressing feelings brought about by facts in life and living and working is bad for one's health?

...and I say this with "feelings" of an "opinion", not as "fact".

Cheers
"J"

OK, I'll play along and stipulate that "not all truth can be scientifically proven as fact."

Your premise so stipulated:

1. How does one determine that the existence of a god - any god - is truth?

2. How does one determine the "truth" that YOUR particular god exists?

3. How does anyone determine the "truth" that YOUR particular god is the one true god?

Thanks in advance for your truthful answers.

Terra-

And one other thing- Mr Mark, like most atheists, does not realize that not all truth can be scientifically proven as fact. This is where his immaturity as a human being resides.

If all we have in this world is scientific facts- and HE is the decider of what is true or not within that construct, what a pitiful situation we are in. It's good that we as humans collect as much proven information as we can, but we will never know it all, or even close. We don't know what we don't know.

Elitism is Mr Mark's moniker and M.O. He respects NO ONE's opinion if they are a "religionist" Their ilk, like Hutchins,and Dawkins, is one of cloaked hatred behind the mask of elite intellectualism. There is a disguised form of bigotry cloaked in that elite intellectualism.

I don't know where it comes from. Or why the thhe (they) are so militate in their insistence of awful believing in God is. Fortunately, the vast majority of people's realize that a superior being probably created us, and his kind, and the other elitists can yell and scream all they want. The rest of us know, or at least suspect, what the truth is.Again- truth and facts are NOT congruous . They are the ones missing the boat.

Also, Terra, I don't think from a left-right perspective Obama is so bad. The risk with him is that he is inexperienced and naive. Personally, I don't like the choice at all.

Farnaz – Yes indeed, it is Stanley Aronowitz. The relevant reference cited by Gross and Levitt:

Aronowitz, Stanley. Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.

In particular, the authors mention that “Aronowitz devotes an entire chapter, ‘History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,’ to the issue.” This apparently is a subject for which professor Aronowitz, being a sociological theorist, has little or no technical training whatsoever.

The authors do not pick on prof. Aronowitz alone, though his views on the matter seem to be rather over-the-top. The postmodernist/social-constructivist critique of science is still quite common within the humanities; not so much in actual science departments, but in academic areas such as “sociology of science,” “cultural studies,” “women’s studies,” and even “science education.” I commonly read that science is merely a “social construction,” that it is just one “way of knowing,” and that it is founded on “cultural colonialism” and “gender hegemony.”

What I find to be most unfortunate (being a liberal myself) is that in attempting to legitimize a political and sociological ideology, too many on the left have, for the last 50 years or so, found it necessary to trash the sciences. Science, of all things; the only means we have for evaluating truth claims about the natural world, which has anything even close to a proven track record.

Hi, Michael – let’s say you’re right about our consciousness expanding exponentially on December 12, 2012. What does that have to do with the veracity of the ancient old testament and new testament stories that so many people base their religious beliefs on?

Dr. Dennett - Right on – let’s look at this as a fabulous research opportunity. Does this health benefit apply to believing church-goers only? What about people who attend church regularly but don’t believe in God? (I know a few.) Or people who fervently believe in a benevolent, protective God but don’t go to church much? What about specific denominations? Is there greater health benefit to being an observant Presbyterian than, let’s say, an observant orthodox Jew? If so, what does this imply, if anything, about the validity or value of particular beliefs? Let’s say we do studies on people regularly involved in other activities (e.g., golf, bridge, volunteering at a soup kitchen), and find their health and longevity similar to that of church-goers. Wouldn’t if be interesting to then test and develop list of traits shared by all these groups? Then we could isolate, understand and promote healthful behaviors for all people. What a great benefit to humanity this would be. How much better than just saying “regular church attendance improves your health” (zzzzz), implying that belief in the supernatural should be encouraged, irrespective of the complete lack of evidence for it.

Those who find meaning in their lives no doubt are on the whole 'healthier' than those who don't.
It is reasonable to think that people who are religious by and large are given a certain 'meaning in their lives' by their religious faith.
That Faith in most cases assures them about certain parameters of life both in this world, and a world- to - come.
Non- religious people who may simply feel that we came into the world through Chance, and will disappear forever once we die - might have more questions, doubts, difficulties.
This might not be true for intellectual stars and other special cases who have a work and a mission which gives their life urgent meaning.
But on the whole it makes sense to think that those who do believe, and do find meaning through religious practice are 'healthier ' than those whose minds are 'sickened over with the pale cast of thought'.

Well said, from one Daniel to another!

Facts don't stop being facts because we disbelieve them. The Native Americans who wore "ghost shirts" truly believed that these garments would stop bullets. They didn't, needless to say.

Feelings, on the other hand, are mutable, solipsistic, anecdotal, given to being swayed by biases.

Daniel C. Dennett : "You want facts or feelings?"

This a survey, no? Asking us a question you are gathering data on people’s convictions, data that can later be compared to the facts, whatever they turn out to be?

Let me see? Ahhh.....
Facts we can ignore.
Feelings we can't ignore.

Any research done on that? Any surveys, any brain research on why we can ignore facts but not feelings?

Feelings,
Nothing more than feelings
trying to forget my feelings
Feelings of (whatever-pain, anger, hurt, hate etc)

Feeeeeeeeeeelings
all my life I'll feeeeeel it

The author’s stand on this issue comes through loud and clear, he understands. His comment about “new age nonsense” shows his ignorance. We are in fact moving from the age of Pisces into the Age of Aquarius, this is an empirical fact. Check with your local astronomer.
Empiricism is precisely why science today wanders in the maze of investigation and classification of the temporal and illusionary parts of nature. Einstein said, “ The most beautiful and the most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical, it is the sower of all true science. Those of us who can no longer stand rapt in awe and wonder are as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us actually exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty that our dull faculties can comprehend, this knowledge, this feeling, is at the heart of all true religiousness”.
The difference between knowledge and belief is perception and some people, especially those that believe anything that can’t be observed, measured, and quantified, does not exist, are left behind in the awakening that is now occurring. The Mayan calendar was created four thousand years ago and it ends on December 12th, 2012. They believed that as we approach this date our consciousness will expand exponentially, witness the last half of the twentieth century.
Astronomers will tell you that in fact we are headed for a very rare event at that time. The earth and our sun will align with the center of our galaxy, which they believe to be a black hole. Somehow this will manifest in a great transforming of both the earth and our consciousness.
Everyday millions of people are waking up to the fact that coldness, heartlessness, and commercialism are simply impractical and only that which gives the opportunity for the expression of love and ideality are the truly worthwhile pursuits.
Greed is our enemy, what if one of our Titans of industry was to rise to rule the earth itself, what else would he be but a petty despot seated on a cosmic grain of dust?

Bob S.- "More pithily: Trust, but verify."

The Prophet - "Trust in God, but tie up your camel."

Man, as a species, has already demonstrated pathological tendancies. The biggest leap of faith we all make is that the machines filled with missiles which sit on the bottom of the ocean will continue to function year after year without a mistake.

Actually, strike that; the biggest leap of faith that we make is we hope that someone like rev. Hagee never attains high office, for surely someone with his beliefs would feel it was manifest destiny that given the power to destroy the world was a sign from God.

In that case, faith would shorten everyone's lives.

JY Hume:

I wonder if you could tell me what in Aronowitz, Gross and Levitt refer to. That is, can you give me the Aronowitz source.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming the reference is to Stanley Aronowitz; if so, the blather for which Gross and Levitt rightly take him to task is interesting. Aronowitz is no fool, a materialist, above all, but blunders occasionally, of course.

More pithily:

Trust, but verify.

The world is as the world is. Be ye Muslim or Jew, heathen or Hindu, you'd better get in the habit of stopping for red lights, lest your butt get run over. Faith is a powerful thing, but it operates within the world, or it's nothing but brain farts.

Please note the phrase 'at the edges'. The studies such as they are, if you wish to rely on science for the current discussion, are almost all observational and indicate that like it or not religious people tend to live slightly longer than non religious people. No one can do more at this point than raise conjectures as to why that is so. My comments are for the most part related entirely to the question posed.

The faith crisis is seen high in number in present times than ever before.for last three hundred years "faith"itself posed problems in the development of science and art in different ways and methods. for instance "Geliolio"was asked to state perverse to the scientific conclusions drawn by him by none other than the church.thus; church began yielding less influence upon the people who advocated free concepts in every field of human activity. this included the free sex concept the consequences of which are present before us.Nevertheless; a tremendous progress took place in scientific and other branches of human knowledge which changed the culture and outlook of man;s attitude to life.then question is pertinent"was faith a hindrance in all such developments previously or human knowledge explosion was not so vast as is presently now?"or; is it so the present progressive man wants the faith little much molded to his own taste; considering his present habits etc.or; due to such habits the present man stands in conflict with faith?respected director "cognitive studies" may answer. thanks

we can Win the War on Terror by convincing the Arabs and persians that ALLAH does NOT exist

Therefore, their conservative religiousity is nothing more than pathological narcissism

SAKALAVA47:sakalava47:
God telling his people to stop using tobacco due to the "designs of evil men"... because they didn't know tobacco caused cancer and other diseases or was addictive.

Tobacco is a sacred plant used by American Natives for atleast six thousand years. It's great medicine. It's certainly carcinogenic when abused, but few things aren't.

Are the sacred medicinal qualities of tobacco an element of faith, or slow, social science at work? Things brought into healing context had to have some kind of effect - even if it was placebo or faith-enacted alone - to continue to be used.

Maybe if you said some prayers with your smoking, didn't puff down a pack a day, and stuck to pure tobacco (not that nasty processed nonsense), it might not be so bad for you. Have a little faith, eh?

Speak the unvarnished truth

The God of Abraham is the biggest fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the human race

except for the Son of God of Abraham

So, burn me at the stake

GaryD says: “The point sir is that as heisenberg noted nothing is certain. That does not change the fact that most everything is close enough for our purposes.”

Your last line (with hints of pragmatism) suggests to me that our positions are not totally irreconcileable. But regarding your other point, I don’t think that I am missing it. The red flag for me is the attempt to apply Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to subjects where it is entirely irrelevant. The equations of quantum physics simply are not relevant to the question of faith, faith healing, and health.

Disclaimer: I am not a quantum physicist, nor do I wish to discuss its particulars in any detail. However, you seem to be taking choice phrases from physics (such as “uncertainty”) out of context and implying that everything we know about the world is just “faith,” as if all claims are equal. But that just ain’t so.

Pardon my wordiness, but professors Gross and Levitt, in their book Higher Superstition, addressed just this sort of postmodernist attack on the sciences coming from the Academic Left:

“Now, the uncertainty principle is undoubtedly one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and one of the most philosophically provocative developments in the history of science. Under Aronowitz’s (one of the attackers) description, however, it seems rather to refer to a kind of epistemological and spiritual malaise, plaguing the minds and souls of contemporary physicists. The argument, roughly but accurately paraphrased (and all too familiar from New Age tracts, among other things), is that since physics has discovered the uncertainty principle, it can no longer provide reliable informtion about the physical world, has lost its claim to objectivity, and is now embedded in the unstable hermeneutics of subject-object relations. This, alas, demonstrates depressingly well the connotative power of words when they are allowed to drift apart from their contextual meaning. If Heisenberg and company had chosen a less evocative term, an awful lot of nonsense of this sort might never have seen the light of day. Philosophical and pseudophilosophical posturing has dreadfully befuddled discussion of the issue addressed to nonspecialists.
Once obscurantism has been stripped away, we recongnize that the uncertainty priciple is a tenet of physics, a predictive law about the behavior of concrete phenomena that can be tested and confirmed like other physical principles. It is not some brooding metaphysical dictum about the Knower versus the Known, but rather a straightforward statement, mathematically quite simple, concerning the way in which the statistical outcomes of repeated observations of various phenomena must be interrelated. And, indeed, it has been triumphantly confirmed. It has been verified as fully and irrefutably as is possible for an empirical proposition. In other words, when viewed as a law of physics, the uncertainty principle is a very certain item indeed. It is an objective truth about the world.” - (Higher Superstition, p. 51-52)

Unfortunately this sort of loose wording is heard quite often, but (to my knowledge) quantum physics does not conclude that what we know about the world is all based on faith. Maybe I’m misinterpretting your words (which is possible), but it sure seems pretty clear when you wrote, “What we believe we know is almost always at some level taken on faith and faith alone.”

JYHume missed my point entirely and I am not really surprised.

At the edges science begins to unravel and Math approaches but does not quite ever arrive. All our constructions are based upon Human logic. But where are we when logic fails? 90 odd percent of our universe appears to be missing according of course to our best models we are left with postulating dark matter and dark energy or even stranger gravity varying according to something other than the distance between objects.

The point sir is that as heisenberg noted nothing is certain. That does not change the fact that most everything is close enough for our purposes.

In the 1840's Joseph Smith claimed to receive a revelation from God telling his people to stop using tobacco due to the "designs of evil men" who will try to deceive people about it. It turned out to be right, and now Mormons have longer lives and are more healthy than the general population. That doesn't PROVE anything, but it is an interesting fact. Of course, the Mormons of the time had to accept it on faith to begin with because they didn't know tobacco caused cancer and other diseases or was addictive. Again, this doesn't prove Mormonism true, but I ask you; is it faith or facts? Or both?
And another thing; are feelings not facts?

Dear Terra -

Pace RNH's opinion that, "what you have to remember about Mr Mark is tha only HIS observations count, only his experience about life is realisitce, and that HE is the one that decides what is true and not true," what you actually need to know about Mr mark is this:

I respect your opinion. As long as you present your opinion as pure opinion, you have no quarrel with me.

HOWEVER -

the moment you move your opinion into the realm of asserting that your opinion is FACT, then I will demand that you provide IMPARTIAL EVIDENCE to support what you have asserted is a "fact."

If you are of a similar mindset to the RNHs of the world, then I suggest you first consult a dictionary and read the definitions of the words, "impartial," "evidence" and "fact," before offering what any sane person would consider impartial and factual evidence. If you're anything like RNH, you may have to look up the definition for "real" while you're at it.

I look forward to further conversations, that is, AFTER you tell me which Democrats you've voted for in the past decade.

It seems that several people in this discussion are missing the real question: how can we distinguish between useful, reliable claims to knowledge about the world and those that merely make us feel good. As Dennett says, empirical claims about the world must be tested against empirical evidence, otherwise we’re just making stuff up.

Terra makes an argument from relativism, arguing against “elitism” and “perceived superiority.” Apparently anything crazy thing that anyone wants to claim must be given equal value. That’s B.S.

GaryD makes a similar point by suggesting that all claims to knowledge can ultimately be distilled to matters of faith, even mathematics. Again, relativism. And again, wrong (math, by the way, is a system of deductive logic and is therefore true by definition, not faith).

Science is so powerful, regarding empirical claims to knowledge, because it is the only method we have which actually works. It is not perfect, but at least it looks for error and weakness in a claim; it requires evidence.

As Carl Sagan said so well, “when clutching our crystals and religiously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in steep decline, unable to distinguish between what is true and what feels good, we slide, almost without noticing, into superstition and darkness.”

No, I can’t prove what the motive was, but I can be deadly certain that if even a reverential portrait of Muhammad had been offered, it would have been rejected
-------------------------------
So am I and that is precisely what troubles me about liberals, hipocrisy, liberal though I surely am. If you are going to show this kind of artwork, and this isn't the first controversial Catholic painting exhibited to the public, in the name of freedom of expression, then Islam is fair subject matter. Judaism sure as hell has been.

The isn't the first offensive painting with a Cathilic theme that has gotten a reaction, and, personally, although I'm an atheist, I am sensitive to the views of others and would happily forgo this "genre." If not, then let us proclaim ourselves as the hypocritical cowards that we are. I mean--hey, if you're going to riot or bomb us, well, then, in the interest of pluralism, tolerance, multiculturalism, we shall certainly not parody you.

The pathetic thing about this is the number of Muslims who could not care less about parodies of Islam, but oh well.

Ick, however you look at it.

This created barely a ripple-

Catholic Church Group Protests Cooper Union Art Show

Another clash of the art world and the religious reich is going down in the East Village. The AP reports that a "Roman Catholic watchdog group is protesting a student art exhibition that includes vulgar depictions of religious symbols including a crucifix and rosary." Just how does one depict a rosary as vulgar? There are ways:

The target of the protest is a series of paintings by Felipe Baeza. One of them depicts a man with his pants down and a crucifix in his rectum. A Latin caption says, "The day I became a Catholic." Another painting shows rosaries with male genitalia and a third, a man with a halo and erection.

The controversial pieces will be on display at The Cooper Union art school through June 10th; the school met the attack with one simple statement: "Hundreds of student works are shown annually without censorship -- a tradition at the school since its founding by Peter Cooper 150 years ago." The president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights gave his own, more long-winded statement about the show, which said in part:

Surely there is a difference between art, traditionally understood as conveying beauty, and junk. I have the sneaking suspicion that these paintings made the cut precisely because they were an assault on Catholic sensibilities. No, I can’t prove what the motive was, but I can be deadly certain that if even a reverential portrait of Muhammad had been offered, it would have been rejected. I hasten to add that if a reverential portrait of Jesus had been submitted, it too would have been rejected, but for entirely different reasons.”

A.C.Grayling

There is an increasingly noisy and bad-tempered quarrel between religious people and non-religious people in contemporary society.

It has flared up in the past few years, and has quickly taken a bitter turn. Why is this so?

AC Grayling argues that religion has lost respectability
As one of those participating in it - and, confessedly, contributing to its acerbity - my answer might seem partisan. But both sides of the current dispute agree that it raises important questions about the place of religious belief in modern society.

Until very recently, people tended not to fall out with one another if they discovered that they held different views about religion.

There were three main reasons for this.

Most believers did not brandish their faith publicly, society had become increasingly secular in most major respects, and memories of the past's murderous religious factionalisms had bequeathed a reluctance to revive the problem. The latter's lingering consequences in Northern Ireland anyway served as a distasteful warning.

But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain.

Followers of Islam were the first to push forward: protests against Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in 1989 were an early indication of what has since become an insistent Islamic presence in the public square.

Not willing to be left behind, other faiths have followed suit. In 2004 Sikhs closed a play in Birmingham, Hindus complained about Christmas stamps Christianising an Indian theme and, in 2005, evangelical Christians protested against Jerry Springer: The Opera.

But it has not all been about protests.

In Britain public funding has gone to Church of England and Roman Catholic schools for a long time; now Muslims, Sikhs and Jews receive public money for their own faith-based schools. BBC radio has steadily increased the airtime available to religions other than the established one.

Requests for extra protections in law, and alternatively for exemptions from the law, to cater for religious sensitivities soon followed these developments: criminalising offensive remarks about religion, and allowing faith-based organisations to be exempt from legislation outlawing discriminatory practices, are the main examples.

The Labour Government has been as concessive and inclusive as it can be to all the religious groups in Britain.

This is well intentioned but misguided, as the example of faith-based schooling shows. If children are ghettoised by religion from an early age, the result, as seen in Northern Ireland, is disastrous.

In the past decade exactly such segregation has been given a publicly funded boost in the rest of the UK, at a time when religion-inspired tensions and divisions in society are increasing. The remedy for the latter should be to ensure that schooling is as mixed and secular as possible; instead, tax money has gone to deepen the problem because the Government thinks that by giving sectarianism its head it will appease it.

Yet history teaches that appeasement never satisfies appetites, it only feeds them.

In the face of the growing volume and assertiveness of different religious bodies asking for preferential treatment, secular opinion has hardened. The non-religious response has come largely from individuals who have a platform or the talent to speak; and they speak for themselves, not for an organisation.

In the US, the religious Right numbers about 35 million. Recent polls show that about 30 million Americans define themselves as having no religious commitment.

But whereas the religious Right is a formidable body whose constituent churches and movements have salaried administrators, vast funds, television and radio outlets, and paid Washington lobbyists, America's non-religious folk are simply unconnected individuals.

It is no surprise that the religious Right has political clout and can make a loud noise in the American public square, whereas the non-religious voice is muted.

There are two main reasons for the hardening of responses by non-religious folk.

One is that any increase in the influence of religious bodies in society threatens the de facto secular arrangement that allows all views and none to coexist. History has shown that in societies where one religious outlook becomes dominant, an uneasy situation ensues for other outlooks; at the extreme, religious control of society can degenerate into Taliban-like rule.

Look at the period in which liberty of conscience was at last secured in Christian Europe - the 16th and 17th centuries. It was an exceptionally bloody epoch: millions died as a result of a single church's reluctance to give up its control over what people can be allowed to think and believe.

The famous Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 accepted religious differences as the only way of preventing religion from being an endless source of war. Religious peace did not come straight away, but eventually it arrived, and most of Europe for most of the years since 1700 has been free of religiously motivated strife.

But this is under threat in the new climate of religious assertiveness.

Faith organisations are currently making common cause to achieve their mutual ends, but, once they have achieved them, what is to stop them remembering that their faiths are mutually exclusive and indeed mutually blaspheming, and that the history of their relationship is one of bloodshed?

The second reason why secular attitudes are hardening relates to the reflective non-religious person's attitude to religion itself.

Religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies.

This remark outrages the sensibilities of those who have deep religious convictions and attachments, and they regard it as insulting. But the truth is that everyone takes this attitude about all but one (or a very few) of the gods that have ever been claimed to exist.

No reasonably orthodox Christian believes in Aphrodite or the rest of the Olympian deities, or in Ganesh the Elephant God or the rest of the Hindu pantheon, or in the Japanese emperor, and so endlessly on - and officially (as a matter of Christian orthodoxy) he or she must say that anyone who sincerely believes in such deities is deluded and blasphemously in pursuit of "false gods".

The atheist adds just one more deity to the list of those not believed in; namely, the one remaining on the Christian's or Jew's or Muslim's list.

Religious belief is humankind's earliest science. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are young religions in historical terms, and came into existence after kings and emperors had more magnificently taken the place of tribal chiefs. The new religions therefore modelled their respective deities on kings with absolute powers.

But for tens of thousands of years beforehand people were fundamentally animistic, explaining the natural world by imputing agency to things - spirits or gods in the wind, in the thunder, in the rivers and sea.

As knowledge replaced these naiveties, so deities became more invisible, receding to mountain tops and then to the sky or the earth's depths. One can easily see how it was in the interests of priesthoods, most of which were hereditary, to keep these myths alive.

With such a view of religion - as ancient superstition, as a primitive form of explanation of the world sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a disproportionate say in running society.

This is the more so given that the active constituency of all believers in Britain is about eight per cent of the population. A majority might have vague beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even they do not want their lives dictated to by so small and narrow a self-selected minority.

The disproportion is a staring one. Regular C of E churchgoers make up three per cent of the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House of Lords. Now that religion is bustling on to centre-stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is no longer tolerable.

And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith.

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.

Where politeness once restrained non-religious folk from expressing their true feelings about religion, both politeness and restraint have been banished by the confrontational face that faith now turns to the modern world.

This, then, is why there is an acerbic quarrel going on between religion and non-religion today, and it does not look as if it will end soon.

A C Grayling will be speaking for the motion, We'd be better off without religion, at the Intelligence2 debate on Tuesday 27 March; see www.intelligencesquared.com

Against All Gods by AC Grayling (Oberon Books) is available for £8.99 plus 99p p&p. To order, call Telegraph Books on 0870 428 4112

Life is full of variables and you can't eliminate all of them. Especially the one's such as faith that are inherently unmeasurable.

What we believe we know is almost always at some level taken on faith and faith alone. Does 2+2 = 4? or does two plus two equal four because we believe it to be so? Such seems is the question at the heart of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If the mere fact of our observations changes things then how can we be certain that what we are seeing is how they really behave or how we wish them to behave.

Tim wrote:
This appears to be a response to a question, but it's not clear to me what the question was. I clicked the link on WaPo's front page, which went directly here with no context. There should be something here on this page that clarifies what question this is a response to. There is not even an obvious link to the question
-----------------------------------------

This response refuses to even acknowledge your response.

In fact, this response just displays on your screen.

Religious faith withstands Karl Popper.

I wonder how he felt about that.

I don't mean for this to sound condescending toward religion... but it will anyway. Faith is a difficult thing to reconcile once you are conditioned to apply the calculus of logic on reason.

Knowledge acquired by faith substitutes for actual experience, and hence needs no basis in objective reality to be true. I have a hard time with that.

I have a particularly hard time with the fact that organized religion often promises rewards after death, but asks for a level of servility while alive. In every instance where the end of the world has been predicted, it has turned out wrong. If that knowledge was gained through revelation and it didn't come to pass, then that person was a false prophet. In some cases, dates were meticulously calculated using some system of calculus, and an answer we put forth which absolute certainty the event would happen.

Seek, and you shall find, and that applies to everything. It is amazing how many UFO's UFO hunters see.

Bigfoot.
Terrorists.
Suspicious people.
Ghosts.

I read a book about true ghost stories called True Ghost Stories.

Disbelief is the same too. I made $1 dollar off a coworker when I bet him I could slap our boss in the face and our boss would just smile. He didn't believe me. When I walked up to our boss and told him about a fish I caught, he naturally asked how big it was. I held my hands out to demonstrate, and moved them rapidly apart lightly slapping him in the face with one of them. He got the joke and laughed, and I won $1 dollar.

The moral of that is not so much to have faith when when confronted with the absurd, but to think of ways that make the absurdity mundane.

Anyway, I've always enjoyed Mr. Dennett's work and I will never forget the eyes looking at the body thought experiment. It was brilliant.

Terra-

What you have to remember about Mr Mark is tha only HIS observations count, only his experience about life is realisitce, and that HE is the one that decides what is true and not true. Elitism- (The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Essentially , he is a elitist snob that disdains religion and "religionists". Spiritual experiences of those that believe in things outside the material world are discounted and swatted away.

This appears to be a response to a question, but it's not clear to me what the question was. I clicked the link on WaPo's front page, which went directly here with no context. There should be something here on this page that clarifies what question this is a response to. There is not even an obvious link to the question.

I find this kind of article curiously naive. Another, 'just face the facts' article. I have yet to see an article like this address the reality that underlying 'facts' and 'logic' - especially on the 'big questions' - one quickly runs out of verifiable facts and at some point must rely on interpretation, unverifiable assumptions, even speculation. These are largely shaped by our worldview - the way we 'map' the reality around us. In the West this is largely an empirical, materialistic worldview which naturally, and lately aggressively, likes to drum an inconvenient and messy God out of the picture. However, as we learn more about the universe, God as a legitimate hypothesis keeps popping up - e.g. the anthropic principle.

Pagan I've never met a Christian that said that. Most take the notion that we are to be good stewards of this earth that God has given us to care for quite seriously.

I agree we live in a throw away society. By and large that is because much of modern technology is cheaper to replace than it is to repair. A good bit of that is that this day and age by the time something breaks down it is usually obsolescent anyway. Did you know we could do more to clean the air by simply giving every person driving a car more than ten years old a new car than by increasing the cafe standards?

"The flippant sexism used to batter Hillary Clinton during her campaign did NOT please a few of us."

This does not mean Obama *did* it.

In fact, those who did it, previously gave us Bush."

Surely you know better and just WANT to believe the republicans are somehow responsible.

Anyone who has been following Hillary's campaign know the attacks came from Obama's far left radicals. And yes- it has been cruel and thoughtless sexism at its worse:

Misogyny: Voices from the Obama Camp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF0b7ZrlsfM

There is a fixation on "global warming" and people keep hammering the "talking points" (some are true, some aren't) and like Al Gore have yet to change their lifestyles.

I post under "Terra" because I live close to terra. I grow and barter for almost all my family's food. We use no pesticides- I even have geckos living in my kitchen cabinets to take care of the occasional bug. The moon is waxing and I have been busy sowing seeds for my fall garden and collecting seeds from my now nearly spent spring garden.

When I say-

"Face it- the earth is experiencing earthquakes, wars, outbreaks of disease, pestilences, and plagues, global pollution, natural disasters and uncertain weather patterns."

I'm saying our earth is facing much graver circumstances than mere global warming. If Gore had only chosen to make his money and gain his nobel prize by revealing that our air, soil, and water are contaminated with dangerous chemicals that will take generations to break down and that our overuse of antibiotics has given rise to the superbugs now living among us.

Let's face i, Kaczoo. I've heard you long enough.

The only thing consistent about what you say is that you woul rather millions of others be hurt than face with your soul the possibiliy *you are wrong.*

You're terrified.

You're trying to apease a wrathful God.

No matter who it hurts,

Even your sacred self.

ou're the selfish one.

You'll see the future scorch and dry up and burn and scrae and suffer, as long as you can feel 'righeous.'

If any God taught you that, that God is no friend of humanity.

I have no answer to your question, Paganplace.

If Global Warming were a myth, would it be smart to oppose it now that all of corporate America is lining up to profit from its cure?

Wha *I* think, Kacoo, is that Fundie Chrisitans mean what they've said to me in the past: "Don't ip our waste in the reccling bin, cause God left us just enough resources untiol Apocalypse.'

I was like, 'You realize I'm gonna defy you on this every chance I get,'
They were like, You'll go to Hell.. (for not wasting)

I said, 'Long as we understand each other... Christian.'

Maybe, Kaczoo, you think the entire world was laid out and constructed for four billion years to challenge your 'faith' in waste.

Maybe...

It's more real than that.

Even for 'God.'

And maybe, you're scared.

You'll believe a queer girl will arbitrarily be tortured forever, but you're *terrified* to consider that what you do might have effects on innocents.

Maybe you believe it helps the world to hurt me while you do what we know poisons the future.

As long as someone can be 'worse.'

Is that what you want, Kaczoo?

If it would help anyone, I might even let you.

But it will not.

What would you like to do now?

Re: "religious allegiance"

A person who has a rational purpose and is successfully employed in carrying it out is full of bliss. Rational purpose has a necessary spiritual element: the things we believe absolutely that can never have support from our living experience. Thus religion is essential to bliss. The problem is when we are entirely blissful in the grip of ignorance. Some enter this state quite innocently, and may be awakened by new facts. Others choose blissful ignorance in the face of overwhelming facts. This happens to be a fact of the human condition.

"The flippant sexism used to batter Hillary Clinton during her campaign did NOT please a few of us."

This does not mean Obama *did* it.

In fact, those who did it, previously gave us Bush.

" Kacoo:

Of course there are scientific methods, but the outcome is so politically charged that no study can be accepted as authoritative.

Like the studies on Evolutionism. "

Found anything that says waste and pollution are *smart* in any way, yet, Canyon? Err, Ka?

Even if Global warming were the most malicious hoax ever, which it is not... Do try to tell us the economic virtues of doing what head-in-the-sand deniers have advocated, and implemented... say.. Oh, I dunno, for the last eight or sixteen years?

How bout thirty?

"Does the idiocy never end with you guys?"

When I read Mr. Mark's supercilious comment- I just had to respond. I had no intention of educating a man who is so thoroughly convinced he has the answer to everything. I posted to inform readers of an alternative view (and there are many).

And for the record- The "content" of (my) last post was (NOT) a STATEMENT OF OPINION about Jimmy Carter as Mr. Mark somehow misconstrued. It is a direct QUOTE from the lips of Jimmy Carter- just go to the link I provided to verify. Mr. Mark completely missed the implications of a former American President aligning himself with a known enemy.

But sadly- Mr. Mark's so self-consumed he hasn't even noticed my last posts are not addressed to him.

And I'm asked-

"Is there a cruel and mindless radical left I was uninformed about?"

The flippant sexism used to batter Hillary Clinton during her campaign did NOT please a few of us. And Obama's longtime far left America-hating friends (his pastor, his business partners, his avid supporters- from marxists to Hamas) are making more than a few liberals recoil.

http://www.clintons4mccain.com/

"The Just Say No Deal is made up of over 20 grassroots organizations and over 1 million subscribers thus far with one unifying mission:

Operation Nobama

Literally millions of frustrated, disenfranchised and gritty activists, to include Democrats, Independents as well as naughty Republicans have already come together for one common thing…

”We Will Not Vote For Obama Period.”

Of course there are scientific methods, but the outcome is so politically charged that no study can be accepted as authoritative.

Like the studies on Evolutionism.

Like the studies on Global Warming causes.

It's all just inspirational literature.

Ah, ...I see. That's not our familiar Terra Gazelle, ...that's someone else. Terra Gazelle, unless she's joined the jet-set of late,is likely off for a gathering she's been wanting to meet the rest of us On Faith Pagans to attend for some time now.

But, for the record, new Terra, yes, adding more heat to the atmosphere does in fact drive more violent weather everywhere, as modeled... It also drives more *cold* air out of the poles than we are used to, because heat is the mechanism that does these things.

Can't tell if you do or do not understand this from your posts.

But if global warming were only the difference between a 69 and a 71 degree day, we really wouldn't have much to worry about.

Problem is, that's not what that is.

Dear Terra -

I don't know if you're worth responding to. So far, I'm the only one responding to any points being made by you. You just continue to throw out new questions expecting me to answer.

You started in on this thread with a post about snow in Seattle in June. That was your first response to something I wrote...which you ended by saying, "who's the idiot?"

I responded with an explanation of how global warming can actually cause the weather to get colder in some places. You didn't bother engaging the point. I'll assume I won that argument.

You next threw out a post about polar bears not being endangered.

I responded in depth with facts and figures to challenge your post. Again, there's no back-n-forth from you. You just drop the issue. I'll assume I won that one, too.

Rather than engage the discussions you've already launched and I've responded to, you have the chutzpah to write, "Mr. Mark forgot to address the content of my last post."

Well, the "content" of your last post was a STATEMENT OF OPINION about Jimmy Carter. You asked no questions, You offered only your opinion. I don't have the time nor inclination to comment on every opinion offered here, and neither does anyone else.

I'm certainly not going to feel that I owe you a response to any "content" you choose to post. Ask me a direct question (like, "what do you think about Jimmy Carter's legacy?"), and I would most likely respond. I'd ask the same courtesy from you when I ask you a direct question...as in, who are the Dems you've voted for in the past 10 years?

I'm not going to play your game, Terra. I've seen it on this blog from your ilk (and, make no bones about it, you fall into the category of an "ilk") way too often. It's a ploy out of the standard RW/religionist handbook - keep your opponents bottled up with endless questions while avoiding answering any of theirs.

I'll be happy to engage with you after you provide the list of Dems you've voted for in the past decade. Otherwise, it's crickets for you from my end.

*tapping mike*

Is that actually you, Terra?

"He has missed the trend of liberal voters to pull back from the cruel and mindless radical left."

Is there a cruel and mindless radical left I was uninformed about, Lady? I sometimes see some radical leftists getting all snide about why the Worker's Vanguard ain't selling, but even they ain't mindless, and it'd be sublime charity to say they had anything to do with American politics...

Observer:

You've spent a lot of time and effort cutting, pasting, and trying to explain truth to a bigot, a genuine bona fide bigot. I've read all your re-posts, skipped from thread to thread, read his posts.

Let me give you some advice. I don't know how old you are, but my guess is that I'm older by far. I also have the advantage of having been raised as a Christian. I'm a biologist with a Princeton Ph.D., and I've seen the Everetts of this world.

He's an arrogant, defensive, puffed up little man, a bigot whom no one can edify. Your Everett-type bigots are fundamentalists. They wouldn't know the meaning of the word "empirical" if they were reborn as dictionaries.

If I were you, I'd have nothing further to do with him. As for myself, he does not exist. He's a figment of his own warped, hateful, and spiteful imagination.

Mr. Mark forgot to address the content of my last post. He thinks he is clairvoyant and would rather know who I vote for. He has missed the trend of liberal voters to pull back from the cruel and mindless radical left.

My last post-

"And for his reference to Jimmy Carter-

He's still (pea)nuts for Iran:

"What happens if, in three years time, Iran has a nuclear weapon," Mr Carter asked. "I'm not sure that is going to happen, but if it does, what do we do? They are rational people like all of us in this room. Do they want to commit suicide? I would guess not. So what we have to do is talk with them now and say to them we want to be their friends. The United States must let Iran know that we want to give them fuel and everything they need for a non-military nuclear programme. Twenty-five years ago we cut off trading with Iran. We've got to resume trading to show Iran we are friends."

Jimmy Carter

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/jimmy-carter-calls-for-us-to-make-friends-with-iran-after-27-years-834302.html

And last week we heard from Iran's president:

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and betrayal, is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene. Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

Ahmadinejad

Chris E:

Your (re)post: Clearly, using Chris E's reasoning "The Jews" do not own the media, since "The Jews" are of one mysterious mind.

Lovely, just lovely. Once again, the irony of your posts is priceless.

I'm not going to engage you again. You have proven yourself to be vile and reprehensible. Goodbye.
---------------
No, I haven't proven myself to be anything. You do not read yourself. You cannot, I see, or you choose not to, I would like to believe.

I can only say what I've already said. If you want to declare yourself the winner, you are free to do so.

Clearly, you need to see someone who questions your stereotyping as "vile, irresponsible, a bigot, an ass," etc.

But you see, Chris, this is where stereotyping leads people. They have nothing but stereotypes, so when the typed question them, they resort to name calling.

You can do better than this, I certainly hope, can be better than this.

Observer

Chris E:

I don't know how much clearer I can be. Either you are nitpicking, or you don't comprehend, in which case, I'll have to do my best to recast what I'm saying.

Assuming you don't understand, let me begin by saying that by "demographic" I was not being literal. I was and am speaking of stereotyping.

Did you read what Just a Guess and Just a Thought wrote to eadh other?

Do you understand what Just a Thought is saying? Do you understand what Just a Guess grasps?

If you want to win, then go ahead and declare yourself the winner. Of what, I don't know, but if that is what you wish to do, by all means do it.

If you want more than that, then read the exchange between Just a Guess and Just a Thought.

If you need me to clarify anything, give a holler.

Good luck to you, whatever you decide!

Observer

Observer12,

Your (re)post: Clearly, using Chris E's reasoning "The Jews" do not own the media, since "The Jews" are of one mysterious mind.

Lovely, just lovely. Once again, the irony of your posts is priceless.

I'm not going to engage you again. You have proven yourself to be vile and reprehensible. Goodbye.

Observer12,

I'll confine my response to your post on THIS thread, since you are the one who dragged your misrepresentations into it. You said:

"For example, I recently learned about 'Jewish interests' which evidently all Jews, as a 'demographic' hold."

The misrepresentation here is that "demographic" means that ALL members have identical attributes. This is not the case. Demographics are relevant only to the extent that they reveal statistically-significant variation. Refer to "Analysis of Variance" in any introductory statistics textbook.

You said: "When I requested tangible evidence, I was informed of the author's 'Jewcred,' information on the order of 'everyone says' (will spare details, for the moment), etc."

Actually, no. My comment was in response to Curious, as your own reposting shows.

"When asked if there were Catholic/Protestant, Black, etc., interests as well, the author, a self-identified atheist, physics major at Tufts, couldn't think of any. Moreover, the atheist/physicist with Jewcred was annoyed, felt pressured, put upon when asked for evidence."

Wrong again. I offered the Fundamentalist Christian demographic interest stated above. I didn't feel pressured, annoyed or put upon. In fact, the exercise interested me. Keep in mind the origins of this whole discussion - Perspective's statement that Obama was "not immune to the power of Jewish interests in American politics." So really, talk of interests in this context only makes sense when one can identify a set of demographically sacrosanct issues around which political clout is rallied, as I said at the time. Support for Isreal is what Perspective was talking about. All I was doing at first was defending Perspective against the feeding frenzy of antisemitism accusations that descended on him.

Which brings me to my final point - what are YOU doing? Why are you misrepresenting me as somehow seeing you as a demographic instead of an individual? As somehow singling out Jews? The only explanation that comes to my mind is that you have a pathological emotional need to see antisemitism around every corner and under every bush, and I'm simply your latest target.

Chris E:

I've cut and pasted as much as I could from the exchange between Just a Guess and Just a Thought that continued the discussion on Obama Unchurched.

As you can see, there is nothing for you to be frightened of. There is a little more that got cut off because I exceeded the word limit. Just a Thought tells Just a Guess that he gives her hope, etc.

Just a Guess is still blogging on that thread with a person whose name is coded and to whom Just a Guess takes exception.

Observer12

JUST A GUESS: He's being taken to task for his 'Jewish interest' comment and links to broader political considerations. Exactly how does this represent stereotyping people of Jewish ancestry?

Here's the thing - I have Jewish interests, including AIPAC, The Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish voting bloc and the Democratic Party, the wiliness of Joe Lieberman, Israel's role in the Near East, and much else found in the media on a regular basis....and I'm not Jewish.
If you are not affiliated with or have interest in any kind of political or religious organization, have no interest in the future of the Middle East, seldom leave the house, pay no attention to media of any kind, and are concentrating primarily on your own immediate survival, then you probably do not have Jewish interests and should not be identified or classified as such - regardless your ethnic makeup. Just my own point of view, of course.
Irish interests, anyone?

Just a Guess:

You asked, "Irish interests, anyone?"
Sure.
1. The Kennedy clan and how Ted Kennedy got away with murder.
2. How Irish American Catholics managed to ban abortion in Ireland and prevent the Irish from getting info. on abortion from England.
3. More Catholic interests: The sleazoid Supreme Court Catholics and Protestants, who are trying to limit the rights of women to choose, and who have taken reactionary positions on just about everything.
4. The Senate and House Republican Catholics who have driven this country into the ground.
5. The Vatican, which has its grubby hands in everything.
6. American Catholics who want to take women's rights to choose away.
7. Warhawk John McCain, anyone?
You'd have to live underground, get supplies through a pipeline, have no access to any news from the earth's surface not to have Irish Catholic or Irish Protestant interests, or just plain Christian Whatevers

JUST A THOUGHT - agreed on every point, although I'm not sure that #1 has any real merit. Kennedy drove off a bridge drunk and his passenger and apparent paramour Mary Joe Kopeckny died in the ensuing plunge into the (Charles?) river - just from memory, but I could have Wikied I suppose.
Is there a prevailing counter-theory that he actually murdered her intentionally to cover up the affair? I don't equate Ted K. with OJ, for example.

I'm not a Catholic sympathizer by the way, although to be completely honest I was raised in that faith. That came to an end nearly 50 years ago, although I seem to be the only liberal among half a dozen Irish (Republican) cousins of similar age and background (education excepted - maybe I was luckier in that regard). Family reunions can be a real pain. Of course all of my parents generation are dead and gone.
Anyway, had this happened today I really think Kennedy would have been charged and convicted of involuntary manslaughter because of the DWI angle - not to mention a monumental financial settlement to the family - no doubt his influence spared him considerable legal pain in those days, although I imagine he suffered on a personal level. Still, influence peddling is an ugly thing in any setting and the more so because that seems to be the engine that drives our government.
However, if you're of a liberal bent (and I gather you are) he has been the most enduring liberal in the Senate, and few would argue with that. Do you think he and his family are suffering now, by the way?

We can only hope that someone of his dedication to liberal causes gets his job, imperfect though he may be. Just goes to show that one Irishman is one Irishman in a crowd of Irish, doesn't it? Did I help make your point? Irish interests indeed!
And they're just one kind of Catholic, or one kind of Irishman if you happen to live in Northern Ireland - and even worse, the vast majority of those with Irish ancestry in the Sunny South are Protestants.
Protestants seem far worse because there are so many more - and numbers always rule, don't they?
The composition of the Supreme Court should give anyone pause - I know it does me

JUST A GUESS:
Admittedly, Ted Kennedy is a problem for anyone of the liberal persuasion. Am I grateful for his consistently liberal stance, his ability to see through sham? You bet.

The fact remains that the Kopechne death was, at best, manslaughter, that the wandering around for twelve hours (?) doesn't cut it. That the presiding judge retired the day after issuing his judgment gives one pause. At the time the media claimed the country wanted to let the matter go, given the murders of John and Robert, murders that will haunt this Jew until the day of her death.

I was terribly ambivalent about the handling of the Kopechne death and am today. In the end, though, I have to say that Kennedy's having gone on to do important work cannot figure in the equation. How many others who were convicted of manslaughter, served out their sentences, might have gone on to make great contributions? This, we will never know, since it didn't and should not have weighed in on the decision to pursue justice.

Joe Kennedy, I should point out was involved in Nazi arms dealing, was a Nazi sympathizer. Not a secret. Blood money. A Catholic interest of mine.
Whether Christian or Catholic makes very little difference to us Jews as far as antisemitism is concerned. As far as positing "Jewish" intent is concerned. I'm very aware of Northern Ireland. I remember, as a child, when the British went in again. Jews such as I and we are many (no doubt you know that unlike the Christians/Catholics, we overwhelmingly vote Democrat) have always wondered why the Irish Catholics who should be our allies hate us so much. And they do, my friend. Of course, not all of them, but many do.
They have bought into the MYTH OF THE POWERFUL JEW. Easier than to buy into the truth about who their real oppressors are, since their real oppressors cannot be fought.

When the argument about Jewish interests came up, that ancient despicable canard, it is too bad you didn't mention the Catholic/Protestant interests you say concern you. It would have been heartwarming for us J folks to hear it.
It is true as everyone says, to the Christians/Catholics, et al, we are Jews wether we practice Judaism or not. That's how it is. And those who feel it's absolutely appropriate for them to say what they wish about us, without ramifications? Well, then, they must be Christians/Catholics too whether atheist or not, musn't they be? After all these are the terms of their arguments.

It's worth giving some thought to you know. My hatred for the persecution of the the Irish at the hands of people who had no business being there ever is quite strong. Many J people, including atheists like me, and observants, as it were, felt and feel the same way. But their feelings about us Js kept most of us silent.
And Israel? How thoroughly have you researched it? And AIPAC? PLeez. A legend in its own mind and that of the media. The Vatican has a PAC. The American Rifleman's Association, the OIL LOBBY (Christian, Catholic, Muslim), the Pharmaceuticals industries, big grain, big cotton, big farmers with big subsidies, all of them have PACs.

Now ask youself this, why would the media appear so biased against Israel? Could it possibly have anything to do with media ownership interests? Clearly, using Chris E's reasoning "The Jews" do not own the media, since "The Jews" are of one mysterious mind.

Think about media sites, telecommunications, markets in the Middle East. Think about who owns the media AND the products they advertise, stock portfolios, etc. Combine these two facts with two-thousand year old Jew hatred and voila! The media. So distrusted on so many matters, but, oddly, not on this.

Ah, my poor father, the brilliant man that he was, my father who drove somebody else's cab, started to teach my brother and me, when children, about a mysterious bad thing called IDEOLOGY.

Did you help make my point. Do you see my point? I hope so. Can you imagine what it's like to go day after day hearing this? Can you understand why some folks lose it when they hear it for 156,000th time in a seven-month period?
But what is encouraging to me is that some of the folks who lose it are not Jews. That is something for which I'm grateful, very grateful, even though it happens rarely.

Peace my friend, and may you be safe from the IDEOLOGY monster

Just a Thought - your observations from the inside looking out are truly something that outsiders looking in generally miss altogether (the looking in not being the same as seeing by any means). Why anyone believes they can speak with authority on other peoples of different ethnic and/or racial make-up is just based on the ungrounded assumption that since we can, and do so repeatedly - there must some basis for what we say and what we may believe. Humans constantly mimic one another without giving it another thought. This is perhaps force of habit at it's unsavory worst.

This recapitulation of overused generalizations regarding 'the Other' is not a well examined point of view, and it has unfortunate consequences - no wonder folks take offense at these fictitious identities that are thrust on them, and as you say, with considerable prejudice attached. I'm aware of the Joe Kennedy history, the Pope Pious XII history, and more recently, that examplar of far-right Catholic piety and bigotry, Mel Gibson -who would have thought the guy was such a maniac? I fear you are correct that his well concealed and only accidentally revealed anti-semitism is not so uncommon. Celebrities, sports figures, the rich and powerful in general get away with murder (as you say) until they are caught out.

Is the media primarily a white, anglo-saxon Protestant (GOP) enterprise? Judging from the content, how can there be any doubt. Bushco has gotten a pass for 8 years, and McCain is getting the same, thus far. Real thought-provoking, unbiased, plain-truth journalism is dead in the water.

Why a good many Catholics/Christians both here and throughout the West persist with this barely concealed anti-semitic mindset is not clear to me, except that people ref refuse to change their thinking in the face of overwhelming evidence that refutes that thinking. Those afflicted with the 'white Christian identity mystique' are as common as flies. We see it here in this tiny microcosm with great frequency.

I appreciate your insights and will take them to heart.

best regards to you -

Chris E:

I'm not entirely sure of either your focus or point. You begin by announcing the "twofold" sources of your "frustration with me" as if I had inquired into them. You then proceed with a series of statements that I cannot entirely follow, ending with name-calling, a standard logical fallacy in any introduction to the topic.

The discussion to which you refer took place primarily between Curious and you. I post as much of it as I can below, as a reminder. You are free to return to it and post what you'd like. I did not enter into the discussion until the end, and actually, was more interested in health care, as you know. When I did enter into it, you responded and beat hasty retreat.

I mentioned it in passing on Susan's current thread, you responded with a quick one-liner, as did I, and that was that. Curious made a comment later. BTW, if I recall he said he is a former Catholic.

You offered no empirical evidence for your statements. They boiled down to "everyone says." See below. I stand by what I said on this thread regarding empircal questions and empirical evidence.

You said you'd like others' opinions. Then, please do go back to Obama Unchurched and read the exchange between Just a Guess and Just a Thought. I can't imagine anything there that would give you unifold, let alone twofold frustration. But then, clearly, we are different.

If you have any interest in who I am, beyond what you have already typed me as, you can go to Susan Jacoby's current thread. Scientists like to verify, from what I've heard.

Good luck to you, Chris E.!

Curious:
What are "Jewish interests"? What power do they have? Are there then black interests? Christian interests? (e.g., invading Iraq--to make such an absurd claim would be the same as equating "Jewish interests," if there is such a thing, with Israeli interests)

Chris E:
"Jews" ARE a demographic in this country, i.e. there is a group of people who self identify as "Jews". As a demographic, they have statistically-significant interests, and in my experience, broad support of Israel is foremost among them. As for black or Christian interests, I'm not sure what the correlation would be. Certainly between Christian Fundamentalists and anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. As for black interests, I can't really say whether there's a set of demographically sacrosanct issues around which political clout is rallied

Curious:
As a demographic, they have statistically-significant interests, and in my experience, broad support of Israel is foremost among them"

Statistics and documentation on the "statistically-significant interests," and kindly define same.

Also, you say, "in your experience broad support is foremost among them." What would that be, i.e., "your experience"? There are a millions of Jews in this country. How far-ranging is your experience?

And why would Jews, but not Christians, blacks, gays, Muslims, etc., not have equivalent interests?

Curious(er),

I see you shiver in antici..............pation at the prospect of teasing out my antisemitism!
I equivocated about interests precisely because I DON'T have hard statistics - my analysis is largely anectdotal from life experience. I grew up in a ~50% Jewish town. Most of my friends are Jewish. My wife is Jewish. I was married by a Rabbi (it was tough to find one willing to put the love between my wife and I ahead of tribal apostasy). My brother-in-law is a Rabbi. I went to Brandeis for a couple of years before transferring to Tufts when I switched from pre-med to physics. (BTW, I founded "Goy Anonymous" while at Brandeis) I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. I've got Jew cred.
But beyond that, just read the papers and observe the politicians. Are they all mistaken?

[Observer12]Chris E.,

I am Jewish. Can you tell me what my "interests" are?
This could be better than Tarot and astrology!
Observer12
PS. Got plenty of ChristoCred, so I can and will return the favor!

Observer12,
1) Please refer to my use of the terms "statistically-significant", "correlation" and "demographic".
2) I'll venture to guess that math ISN'T one of your interests.
3) Anything's better than Tarot and astrology.
4) Alas, we all have too much "ChristoCred". I'm even NAMED after it!
5) Goodbye.

Observer12,

My frustration with you is twofold. First, you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I never identified you as a demographic and I never attributed any interests to. Nor did I avoid the issue of other demographics with their own, statistically-significant group (NOT individual) interests. In fact, I offered the example of the Fundamentalist Christian demographic interests of anti-abortionism and anti-gay marriage. You are a liar.

Second, you seem so very clearly to be a hypocrite when it comes to bigotry. You are straining with all your might to read antisemitism into everything you can, and at the same time you appear to perceive everyone in terms of whether they are Catholic, Protestant, etc. You are a bigot.

I'd be interested in hearing other posters' opinions (read Susan Jacoby's "Obama the Unchurched" thread, but I'm afraid that to me you come across as a liar, a bigot and an ass. THOSE are your interests, and it's a demographic of one.

Dear Terra -

Sorry to take you to the cleaners on only your second post.

So, you're an independent? Funny, but from your now-three posts, you sound an awful lot like a Rush Limbaugh republican. I'd be interested to know how many Democrats you've voted for in the past decade. I'm prepared to revise my opinion of your independent status, so, have at it.

Brambleton -

Again, the knuckle-dragging musings of Limbaugh seem to infect your mind. Don't take the WaPo article's word for it on global warnng, read the reports said article references. Interesting how you construct an entire non-existent left-wing-conspiracy scenario in your mind so you can dismiss the truth contained in the article. I see this all the time with both republicans and religionists who put their faith in fables rather than facts.

Enjoy your delusion.

Gotta go.

Mr. Mark writes:

since Jimmy Carter tried to do something about the looming oil crisis he saw in the late 70s.
----

This is a joke, I take it. This would be Jimmy Carter, President, US., with Zbinew Brezinski, Secretary of State. Jimmy Carter of the Iran Hostage Crisis Carter, the Homeini Carter, the Carter of Oilgate I, the Carter responsible for the whole Middle East crisis we've been in ever since.

It would be that Carter, I'm guessing.

How one would scientifically proceed in answering this question is very difficult to formulate. Probably it can be answered only by a total, imaginative, inductive without proof attempt. For example under negative aspects of faith one might include dangerous attempts at asceticism; hostility toward the intellect which prevents breakthroughs in medicine; mob behavior, etc. Positive aspects of faith might include all those times people held on because of faith, etc.

As for lack of faith, positives might include the entire scientific enterprise which has led to so many improvements in people's lives...But the negative aspects of a lack of faith might include a drowning of oneself in indulgences of modern life and in general a tremendous feeling of stress at having to be responsible for the human race in a world without God.

I really do not think this question can be answered by science. I believe it can be answered more by simply having the foresight to see that we seem to be heading toward more and more science and faithlessness, therefore it would be prudent to increase our capacity toward medicine and be observant in general of dangers which come of not having faith--particularly, and once again, the tremendous stress which comes of being totally aware that the human race has to make itself by its own hands or be nothing, that we all exist at bottom to ensure that the future does come into being. The latter might seem obvious and innocuous to most people, especially the most enlightened atheists, but I doubt people really have entertained what it means. I believe it means a politics and morality more strenuous than most if not all that we have seen. At the least a starship of excellence and duty and obviously curtailed freedom such as we see in Star Trek....

Mr Mark asks, "why doesn't [Dr Dennett] post here more often?"

I wish he did too, but he's probably very busy with other things.

The viral marketing of the absolute trash, Quest for Right, continues unabated. If you think ID is unscientific you should see this rubbish. Neutrons don't exist hey. Tell that to the makers of the neutron bomb. Like ID it puts up a bunch of lies and says that that is what establish science says then proceeds to pick apart their invented absurdity to promote their ridiculous conclusions. They even lie about teh ID. They have obviously seen the ID people's work and thought they could extract a few million from gullible christians too.

"As usual" says Mr. Mark

Someone tell him this is my third post and I am a lifelong independent voter.

And for his reference to Jimmy Carter-

He's still (pea)nuts for Iran:

"What happens if, in three years time, Iran has a nuclear weapon," Mr Carter asked. "I'm not sure that is going to happen, but if it does, what do we do? They are rational people like all of us in this room. Do they want to commit suicide? I would guess not. So what we have to do is talk with them now and say to them we want to be their friends. The United States must let Iran know that we want to give them fuel and everything they need for a non-military nuclear programme. Twenty-five years ago we cut off trading with Iran. We've got to resume trading to show Iran we are friends."

Jimmy Carter

And last week we heard from Iran's president:

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and betrayal, is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene. Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

Ahmadinejad

Good grief.

Mr. Mark,

Thank you for the article you posted. LOL. Let's see. The article appeared in the Washington Post (read blatantly liberal), is based on the musings of a professor (read overt liberal) from the University of California (read ultra, ultra proud to be liberal). Good grief. Why don't you throw in an essay from Michael Moore? (Perhaps because we've already proven what a phony he is).

And if Al Gore is so convinced about global warming, why does he live in a home that uses "twice as much electricity in a single month than the average U.S. household uses in an entire year." Think I'm making this up? Kalee Kreider, Gore's spokeswoman, doesn't dispute those numbers but states, "You can't just look at a man's monthly utility bills to understand his life."

That's the guy you want to hang your hat on? Sad, really.

Dear Terra -

As usual, the details behind your statement about polar bears tell a different story.

There are only 25,000 polar bears left in the world. 16,000 are in Canada.

Yes, there are 13 populations of polar bears in Canada. 2 populations of polar bears in western Canada have seen a population decline of 22% over the past decade. 10 populations seem to be stable. From what I could find, ONE population in the eastern arctic area of Canada has seen its population grow from 850 to 2100. It took 20 YEARS for that population to increase to that size.

There is no way that you can say, "they are not going extinct or even appear to be affected by the unstable weather," because the reason they are stabilizing and even, in one case, growing, is due to major conservation efforts by those Kleenex-toting animal rights people who have been busy protecting harp seals. Their efforts to stop the massacre of seals by Norwegians and others has led to a shortened seal hunting season and an increase in the seal population from 2 million to 5 million. The shorter hunting season also means fewer polar bears killed by sealers.

These conservation efforts have - to some extent - provided an offset to climate changes that the consensus of scientists agrees is impacting the polar bear populations.

In addition, you are ignoring the predictive ability of science to look at trends and to devise accurate models that give us an idea of what the future holds for endangered species like the polar bear. These models paint a dismal outlook.

Of course, if you're a self-centered Republican, you'll whistle past the graveyard on this one, just like you all have been doing since Jimmy Carter tried to do something about the looming oil crisis he saw in the late 70s.

Anyone who can possible consider any life form on earth that's down to a population of 25,000 to be in no danger of going extinct has no idea of how fragile such a small population is. In 1981, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group agreed that the world population was between upwards of 40,000 polar bears, though it must be said that today's science has much more accurate ways of measuring bear populations than were available 25 years ago. It's entirely possible that the 40,000 number was grossly inflated, and that bear populations could have been in the 30,000 range.

But even if the polar bears numbered only 30,000 in 1981, their present population of 25,000 would represent a 17% decrease in their world-wide population. If they numbered 40,000, then we're talking a 60% decrease in population...and that since 1981.

Science today is in a much better position to stabilize the polar bear population and to help it, possibly, grow. Society at large is also more-attuned to these issues. Today's conservationists and the non-republican general population know that it is a combination of actions that will form a comprehensive strategy for the future.

If the sole casualty of global warming were the loss of polar bears, most of us would shrug our shoulders. After all, species go extinct every day. But their plight is our plight. Their problems are but a small indicator of a much larger problem.

In fact, you, Terra, have something in common with polar bears - your way of thinking is sort of the poster child for those, "part of the problem, not the solution" ads.

Thanks for providing the target.

Mr. Dennett writes:

You have asked an empirical question, and there are established methods for answering such questions.
----------------------
Absolutely correct. I could not agree more. One of the many problems with seeking empirical answers to empirical questions is that such questions are often not cast as such, as in the present case. OnFaith isn't interested in empirical questions.

Neither are most of the religious adherents or atheists who post here. AT best, they are selective as to what constitutes an empircal question so that those who deem themselves "scientists" or admirers of
"science" will often dispense with or object to being called on to provide empirical evidence for their empirical claims.

For example, I recently learned about "Jewish interests" which evidently all Jews, as a "demographic" hold. When I requested tangible evidence, I was informed of the author's "Jewcred," information on the order of "everyone says" (will spare details, for the moment), etc. When asked if there were Catholic/Protestant, Black, etc., interests as well, the author, a self-identified atheist, physics major at Tufts, couldn't think of any. Moreover, the atheist/physicist with Jewcred was annoyed, felt pressured, put upon when asked for evidence.

Atheists, scientists, science admirers, heal thyselves.

As for me, I would like to propose a toast to empiricism! Have always loved it. "Believe" in it.

Observer

"you've heard that polar bears are now dying like crazy because the ice is disappearing and they are literally swimming themselves to death."

Mr. Mark:

Why not educate yourself?

Of the 13 polar bear populations in Canada, 11 are stable or growing. They are not going extinct or even appear to be affected by the unstable weather.

There is no natural system as complex and chaotic as earth's atmosphere. The "idea that we have achieved widespread consensus is a political conclusion widely accepted by superficial media review looking for a sensational threat to report and propagandize. Such a "consensus" does not represent truly scientific acceptance."

Let's look at the evidence- the Polar Bears are doing fine. So put away your kleenex and watch the cute bears with their cubs in Churchill-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxoQewkoeqk

Then get your kleenex out again and

"Face it- the earth is experiencing earthquakes, wars, outbreaks of disease, pestilences, and plagues, global pollution, natural disasters and uncertain weather patterns."

Terra writes:

"Hey Mr. Mark:

June in Washington State-

and it's been snowing in parts of Eastern Washington and freezing rain in Seattle. Does this mean global warming is preceded by a few years of really frigid weather or just signs that climate has truly gone haywire and is totally unpredictable?"

If you weren't talking through your hat, you would know that these climate changes are EXACTLY what global warming is predicting.

Here's all you need to remember: as the Earth's temperature rises, sea ice melts. Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard that polar bears are now dying like crazy because the ice is disappearing and they are literally swimming themselves to death.

As the ice melts, it turns into cold water. This water feeds into things like the warm Gulf Stream. The cold water pushes the Gulf Stream further south. That means that northern land areas that depend on the Gulf Stream for their weather are losing the warming influence the Gulf Stream. The result? Global warming causes some parts of the world to grow colder.

In addition, the loss of the ice cap exposes more land. Land absorbs heat while the ice reflects it. Result of ice loss? Warmer land and warmer water. Warner water expands...which means that sea levels rise...which means more Katrinas are on the way.

Why not educate yourself. At present, you look as ill informed as Brambleton. A good place to start is Al Gore's book and movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."

WAPO, Please do not Delete This again {From Moderator's Mr. OTTERSON's Blog) or Ye Will Have a Bad Bad Month & Summer. Or

Ye will get all kinds of 'Denial Of Services", like ye doeth “I”, so Be 1st -Amendment Conscious not Jealous, be Dollar Smart not Nickle Stupid!!

Thank-O-SHAME!

---

B R E A K i N G , N E W S!

MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 5 minutes ago

LITTLE SIOUX, Iowa - A tornado struck a Boy Scout camp in western Iowa on Wednesday, leaving four
Scouts dead and dozens of people injured, a Scouts spokeswoman said.

As a "SCOUT" me self: "i" & "WE" "ECLAT-i_ON"'S, Salute O.U.R. Brethrens & Sister Scouts Whom
Perished While Under Duty & or Training!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May XTRA-PHOTON'S Shine Next To ALL OUR BOYS & GALS, Iraq & Afghanistan & Elsewhere Too!
WE "SALUTE" Eternally & Immortally Ye YO ALL!!!
Praise The Hol{i}No-Man!

1st Posted around Wed.JUNE.11.08; 11:23PM

Is it not foolish to close one's eyes to the reality that much of the Christian faith is simply impossible to accept as fact? And is it not a fundamental error to base one's life on theological concepts formulated centuries ago by relatively primitive men who believed that the world was flat, that Heaven was "up there" somewhere, and that the universe had been created and was controlled by a jingoistic and intemperate diety who would punish you forever if you did not behave exactly as instructed?
Listed below is a repetition of some of the questions raised in the pages of "A Farewell To God". Put them to yourself.
Is it not more likely thst had you been born in Cairo you would be a Muslim and, as a billion people do, would believe that 'there is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet?
If you had been born in Calcutta would you not in all probability be a Hindu, and as a billion people do, accept the Vedas and the Upanishads as sacred scriptures and hope sometime to dwell in Nirvana?
Is it not probable that, had you been born in Jerusalem, you would be a Jew and, as some 15 million people do, believe that that Yahweh is God and that the Torah is God's word?
Is it not likely that had you been born in Peking, you would be one of the millions who accept the teachings of the Buddha or Confucious or Lao Tse and strive to follow their teachings and examples?
Is it not likely that you, the reader are a Christian (or Muslim etc) because your parents were before you?

From "A Farewell to God" by Charles Templeton, as reprinted in "The Portable Atheist". page 285. Pub.DaCapo press.

"Undeniable Global Warming- Does the idiocy never end with you guys?"

Hey Mr. Mark:

June in Washington State-

and it's been snowing in parts of Eastern Washington and freezing rain in Seattle. Does this mean global warming is preceded by a few years of really frigid weather or just signs that climate has truly gone haywire and is totally unpredictable?

Face it- the earth is experiencing earthquakes, wars, outbreaks of disease, pestilences, and plagues, global pollution, natural disasters and uncertain weather patterns.

Who's the idiot?

Dear Brambleton -

It never ceases to amaze me how the religionists like yourself can so flippantly dismiss the mountains of scientific evidence on a huge range of issues that have been studied ad infinitum, while treating anecdotal and second- and third-hand "evidence" as somehow being rock-solid proof of that which your religious biases would have you believe.

Aren't you afraid that wearing such blinders to reality will eventually rise up and bite you in the butt?

Let me ask you this: do you push the power button on your computer each day, or do you just pray for it to turn itself on?

Sheesh, indeed!

Brambleton writes:

"Sir, aren't you doing the exact same thing that you're preaching against? Did I miss the breaking news that scientists have now conclusively determined that global warming exists (in the sense that it is man made and reaching fatal proportions)? Or are we supposed to listen only to those scientists commissioned by Al Gore?"

Does the idiocy never end with you guys?

Would you care to name the scientists that Al Gore has "commissioned?" Do you not know that the MAJORITY CONSENSUS of scientists who work on global warming issues is that it IS a reality? Where in the hell do you get the idea that there's a debate on the issue?

From the Washington Post back in 2004:

Undeniable Global Warming

By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.

To be sure, a handful of scientists have raised questions about the details of climate models, about the accuracy of methods for evaluating past global temperatures and about the wisdom of even attempting to predict the future. But this is quibbling about the details. The basic picture is clear, and some changes are already occurring. A new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -- a consortium of eight countries, including Russia and the United States -- now confirms that major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and non-human communities, as predicted by climate models. This information was conveyed to the U.S. Senate last month not by a radical environmentalist, as was recently alleged on the Web, but by Robert Corell, a senior fellow of the American Meteorological Society and former assistant director for geosciences at the National Science Foundation.

So why does it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement? Because a few noisy skeptics -- most of whom are not even scientists -- have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as "religious belief." To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a "belief" to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.

The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents.

The writer is an associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California.

Brambleton,

On the cancer issue, I can come up with "explanations" too. Whether the meet any objective STANDARD for explanation is another matter. Maybe it was the farbermeister cellularium process, you know, the one in the subliminal endogatheric system.

As for your friend who desparately tried having children. My understanding (anecdotal) is that it's not uncommon for couples to conceive once they stop trying, and relax instead. For some people there seems to be a level of stress that inhibits conception. If faith was their means of relieving stress, great.

"You Want Facts or Feelings?"

That's easy- I want both.

I like a BIG slice of LIFE. Facts feed our intellect and feelings feed our soul. I want both. I won't have it any other way.

After reading Mr. Dennett's column for a second time, I found one of his comments especially interesting.

Mr. Dennett notes, "Encouraging any other approach is actually undermining proper respect for scientific methods and facts, right alongside ... the global warming skeptics..."

Sir, aren't you doing the exact same thing that you're preaching against? Did I miss the breaking news that scientists have now conclusively determined that global warming exists (in the sense that it is man made and reaching fatal proportions)? Or are we supposed to listen only to those scientists commissioned by Al Gore?

Sheesh.

Dr Dennett's column raises a serious question that all OnFaith readers should be asking:

why doesn't he post here more often?

Chris,

A friend of my wife's has had the opportunity to spend two more years with her mom after her mom's cancer mysteriously disappeared. To this day, her mom's doctor has no explanation. None. But I have one.

A friend of mine tried deparately to have children for two years. She charted her cycles and timed everything perfectly. Nothing. She then went on to drugs and injections. Nothing. She then moved to IUI. Nothing. Her husband then suggested they take the last step and try IVF. After discussing the issue with my pastor, they took his advice and gave the whole thing to God. No more drugs. No more charts and graphs. No more injections. Two months after giving their struggles to God, they were blessed with a baby girl. They now have three children altogher. Not a single child was conceived through drugs or injections, or the timing of ovulation cycles. Faith.

Wonderfully rational stuff, Dr.D.

I envy the students who sit in your classes. I have to be satisfied with reading your books and occasional articles.
You are right up there with Dawkins and Harris. Long may you continue to make sense.

Brilliant and succinct essay, Dr. Dennett.

Yes, faith can affect health. I know a girl whose knee is permanently locked at ninety degrees due to her parents being Christian Scientists. Faith.

I know a family that treats their son's Crohn's disease with miracle water as a first line of defense. He inevitably ends up hospitalized and near death. Faith.

I know a mother who is in a constant state of grief, dispair, anger and betrayal because the woman her son loves and married isn't of the same religion. Faith.

Her son suffers from similar stress because his parents have rejected and abandoned him. Faith.

Of course, these are just personal anecdotes that don't necessarily characterize the situation fully. For that, we would need a historian to educate us on the degree to which faith has crippled human health throughout the ages, as a subset of its general hobbling of human progress. For example, being burned alive is bad for one's health. Being banished is too. Blowing yourself up is uncurable, and contageous too. Holy wars also cause burns, lacerations and, historically, profound levels of desease.

Dr. Dennett rightly asks for evidence. I hope I have provided at least a little. The result: Faith can PROFOUNDLY affect your health - for the worse.

albert eienstein beleived in the perfect harmony and order of both science and God and spirituality and truth in absolute form whether it be mathematics physics or the devine... i never met the man but they tell me he was fairly bright maybe

albert eienstein beleived in the perfect harmony and order of both science and God and spirituality and truth in absolute form whether it be mathematics physics or the devine... i never met the man but they tell me he was fairly bright maybe

I can't believe I mistyped "professor".

mojave1:
Your comment doesn't make sense.
He just says it would be interesting to see who is correct about the answer to the question. He is not making any other point in the last paragraph.

Regards,
Realist

Lucid as always.
Thanks Prefessor Dennett!

I am curious. How does Mr. Dennett's last paragraph square with his first? Perhaps he can site the careful research that persuades him?

PAGANPLACE says:
all these oh-so-competent architects of Western society

Your wit always entertains... You really should see the video series called "The Western Tradition", a history lecture (in 52 1/2hr episodes) by late Historian Eugen Webber that details the development of Western society as we know it. It's insightful and entertaining.

I guess for me, it's a hard balance: my heathen beliefs from my Native American and Western-European Pagan beliefs (Spirits, Runes, magic, totems... all that) and my acceptance of scientific rationalism. How can the stars be my ancestors AND far-distant balls of nuclear fire, measurable for molecular makeup as well as askable for advice? Well... just is. You can rationalize and science-ize everything you want to me. You've got my support: the more I know about how the world works, the better. It doesn't take away where I came from or who I am. I also -naively, I admit - support the inherent positive aspects of scientific possability.

A good anecdote:
A Zen master came upon two students arguing about some topic of great importance. The older student explained his side to the master, and after a moment the master said, "You are right." The younger student protested and gave his side, after which the master paused and said, "you are right." A third student standing nearby but not involved came up to the master and said, "Master, you heard two opposing sides and said they were both right. That cannot be!" The master replied, "You are also right." ...and walked away.

RCG

"Much madness is divinest sense to a discerning eye."

Or, 'Nonsense is as nonsense does. :)'

It may be that I entertain a great deal of what appears to be nonsense to all these oh-so-competent architects of Western society, but, I'll make a deal with you, how bout:

When *you* who call yourselves mighty make the world all nice and rational, you can come make fun of *me* all you like. Save when it's on someone else's time.

Deal?

THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z's, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.

To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.

Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, "is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com

PAGANPLACE:
Of course all that New Age stuff is "nonsense". It's the same order of nonsense as making a religion out of people being nailed to trees, or facing certain cities or directions a requisite number of times a day in prayer. It's all nonsense, when compared to empiricism of scientific theory.

However, it's the nonsense we're called to follow. The herritage of our ancestors, the urging voices of our parents or community, or the 'good news' we believed told by two little old ladies knocking on our front door one sunny morning.

As far as the 'humanity' of people clinging to life to find out if the Sox ever win that one last game, I can't think of a better way for that sports fan to go - especially if their favored team wins. Unlike you, I've never been there at a moment of passing (for a human, anyway), so I can't speak with your experience. I don't think he was trying to take anything from the significance of people's lives, only speak - as a scientist would - of people's actions having measurable consiquences.

I do have to agree with you on one thing: Heaven on Earth is a good cup of coffee. :}

I mean, that's gotta be the rudest thing I ever heard, in a way. As an old punk rocker always making fun of how much stock people put in team sports... You know how many people meet their ends and that's the only way they can relate to some idea of a future, whether they're in it or not?

No time to critique society when someone's dying, but, really.

Gods. Some humanity.

People have lived and died for less. Lived well or badly, for that matter.

What you want?

"Of course faith can affect your health, as various studies have shown. So can faith in new age nonsense. So can faith in the Yankees or the Red Sox. People cling to life to learn the outcome of the World Series, after all. This has been measured statistically."

So... It's still 'nonsense?'

That's an interesting thing to say.

Gods know I've clung to life despite really wanting to go cause there's no Dunkin Donuts on the other side, (whatever it takes, I guess, I do like my coffee)

I wonder where's the problem, there. Apart from maybe you didn't want fifteen more years of me ranting at random corners of the world. :)

Sometimes it's a *small* joy that makes life worth living when none seems big enough.

Gods know I've held the hands of enough sports fans deciding whether or not to live or die.

Don't take that from em. Maybe there ought to be more, but hey. What you want?

Holy Chrome! Mr. Dennett, you've said a brilliant mouthful.

This is the best thing I've read in these columns to date. Bravo!

I would love to sit in on your classes.

Outstanding comment by Daniel C. Dennett. I could not possibly say it any better.