Angry Atheists

On the news the other day I saw a Christian complaining about Bill Maher and atheists in general.  He was playing the clop when Maher said the Pope was comparable to a polygamist cult leader who encourages child molestation.  This guy said that Maher was a “hateful person who has a lot of anger toward Christianity.”  He then went on to make a larger point:  That it seems to him that atheists are always angry and – wait for it – this must be because they have doubts.

First of all, I think Bill Maher has said some stupid things.  But he’s a comedian.  He was making a joke.  He wasn’t being hateful or angry – at most he was being sarcastic.  And the joke wasn’t even original or shocking.  Are we seriously going to ooh and aah with indignation that a comedian made a joke about Catholic priests touching little kids?  I mean, honestly, the subject has become a cliched gimmick used in movies.  Every reasonable person knows that it’s an off-color joke and not a serious indictment of Catholicism.

About atheists being angry in general . . . I don’t know where that’s coming from.  I don’t see any atheists on TV red-faced and shouting.  I dont’ see any atheists angrily demanding concessions.  Is there a rash of atheist hate crimes going on somewhere?  Where are the angry atheists?  Even the main subject here, Bill Maher, wasn’t angry in the least.  He was mocking (because, again, he’s a comedian).  But there was no hate.

I disagree with the atheists who put up that sign in the Washington State capitol building, but there was no hate involved in that as far as I can see.  Stupidity, maybe, and childishness.  But hate?  Just because someone says something you find offensive doesn’t mean they’re doing it out of anger.  I post criticisms about Christians and creationists all the time, bit I don’t hate them.  I’m not angry with them.

I can’t speak to how many and which atheists might have “doubts” about their position, but I can make one point.  Treating atheism as a belief like Christianity is simply wrong-headed.  An atheist doesn’t have a “crisis of faith” like a Christian might.  We atheists (ideally, at least) do not have a faith-based position.  We simply don’t see a reason to believe in Christianity (or any supernatural myth or story) without evidence.  Most Christians wouldn’t call a rejection of astrology a “belief,” but this is exactly the same as an atheist rejecting Abraham’s God.

If an atheist is having doubts about atheism, it doesn’t mean he’s losing faith in atheism.  That’s impossible.  Barring any actual evidence for God, the only way for an atheist to have doubts about atheism is to have faith.

Far-Left Morality

One thing I find especially ridiculous about the ultra-liberal America-hating crowd is their multi-culti “moral equivalency” idea.  You hear this stuff on TV in one form or another all the time: Everything bad that happens is always because of some foreign policy mistake made by America or Israel.  Deepak Chopra said the problem is as simple as sending doctors overseas rather than bombs, somehow forgetting the fact that America already spends more on foreign aid than any other country on earth.

This is a manifestation of the cowardly position that every culture and belief is equal.  If we (America) would just cut the terrorists some slack and/or work with them, everything would be great and they’d all go back to meditating peacefully like they were before we came along.  We should seek to “understand and accept” the charming notion of patriarchal, theocratic totalitarianism rather than condemn it.  If we want to stop terrorism, we should work on fixing poverty and the unfair wealth disparity in the world.

You see the same attitude now that Israel is striking back against Hamas in Gaza.  Shockingly, the far-left moralizers are quick to condemn Israel.  They always think Israel and the West should be mostly at fault because we’re the big dogs on the block.  These people find fault in any hint of strength because they’re weak, and rather than try to be strong themselves, they’d rather pull everyone else down to their level and make us all equally weak.  Comfort in mediocrity is their best and only hope.  Their idea of morality is that the successful should have obligations and the unsuccessful should have privileges.  That the bad guys are only bad because they’ve been exploited, that killers are only striking out against their oppressors.  In the far-left ethical world, the only people who must take responsibility for their actions are those who have the moral high ground and/or an economic advantage.

Let’s think about this.  We’ve come to a point in the evolution or morality where the only time people boo President Ahmadinejad – a guy who supports terrorism, calls for the destruction of Israel, denies the Holocaust, throws political dissidents in prison, and violates practically every notion of human rights - is when he says there are no gays in Iran.  We’ve come to a point where American celebrities compare our president to Hitler, but they’re just fine with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.  Go figure.

Ann Coulter on The View

I think it’s clear that Ann Coulter not only enjoys her shock-jock gimmick that sells books, but she also finds it amusing that so many people start shrieking uncontrollably whenever she appears on their show to defend it.  What’s funny to me is practically every time Ms. Coulter is interviewed by a liberal, they seem to embody the cliches that she mocks so prodigiously. 

Take someone like Whoopi Goldberg.  Okay, Ann Coulter’s point about actresses such as Halle Berry using their black heritage as a way to fast-track their career is a contentious one.  Regardless of how much Ms. Coulter truly believes in this argument, she knows full well that it’s going to raise hackles.

But how did Ms. Goldberg respond to the point?  All she could manage was that since Ann Coulter didn’t have “experience” in this matter, her argument was “bullshit.”  Apparently since Ms. Coulter is blonde and pale-skinned, she’s incapable of making a valid argument about any issue involving black Americans.  When Coulter reminded her that she wasn’t arguing from personal experience, Ms. Goldberg again failed to deliver any rational response to the argument and retreated to saying that Ms. Coulter “can dish it out but not take it.”

These are simple tactics for shutting down discourse rather than meeting the argument.  Ms. Goldberg might as well have said, “You’re a mean person, Ann, so nothing you say  matters.”  And the “personal experience” counter is about as ridiculous as I’ve ever heard, a shadow of the moronic liberal tactic of attacking Republican politicians for “starting” a war and sending troops to fight in it even though they don’t have kids in the military.

By this rationale, maybe Barack Obama shouldn’t have been allowed to criticize Hillary Clinton because he doesn’t have a vagina – he doesn’t know what it’s like to be a woman in politics.  How about we reverse this tactic on the liberals and say they can’t make valid arguments against the War on Terror until they go fight in it?

Whoopi Goldberg just ended up making Ann Coulter’s point, her ubiquitous claim that liberals aren’t capable of arguing rationally.  And besides, is Ann Coulter really so horrible, compared to liberal shock jocks?  I don’t her Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar blasting all the Hollywood dingbats who say Bush is Hitler and other nasty things that make Ann Coulter appear civil.  Rosie O’Donnell say on that show and called our troops terrorists.

And what about Ms. Goldberg herself?  I remember when John McCain was on The View, and she made that “slavery” comment about the way John McCain supported the Constitution.  That was one of the dumbest, most insulting things I’ve ever heard a rational person say with a straight face.  How about she apologize for implying that a presidential candidate needs to clarify that he’s not pro-slavery?  Honestly, what would Ms. Goldberg think if Elizabeth Hasselbeck had asked Barack Obama, “You’re pro-choice, so does that mean you’re comfortable murdering babies?”  Can you imagine the gasps and self-righteous whining?

Hypocritical Tolerance and Gay Marriage

I often hear conservatives make the point that liberals are only tolerant when it comes to their views.  They’re supposed to hold free speech and expression in the highest regard, but they turn around and shout down conservatives and others with views they don’t like.  The liberals shroud their intolerance by making every opposable view “hate” speech or some other politically correct  nonsense.  This is how liberal Democrats get on TV and argue with a straight face that the Fairness Doctrine is in any way justfiable.

Conservatives complain that liberals try to shut down free speech about abortion, about border issues and illegal immigration, about the religious views of Christians, and lately about gay marriage.  I think conservatives have a point in some instances.  The far-left in America has gotten out of control in shutting down discourse.  They don’t argue issues; they scream or throw food or call Republicans Nazis.  Some of the gay activists in this country are hardly any better; they’re not advancing their cause by disrupting church services or calling everyone in favor of traditional values a bigot.

However, I also think this conservative argument about gay marriage is absurd.  Just the other day, I saw a poor beleaguered conservative on TV saying, “These liberal activists are all for tolerance and free expression, but not when I want to express my views.”

Most of us who support gay marriage aren’t shutting down the free speech of those who oppose it.  You’ve stated your position repeatedly: You think it’s okay to prevent strangers from getting married.  Isn’t that an accurate way of describing it?  Of course, opponents of gay marriage use some sort of justification (usually by saying that it’s “bad” for society).

No one’s silencing that view.  It’s an unfair view, and I’ve never heard a good argument for it.  What gives any of us the audacity to think we can take away someone else’s rights?  Why should anyone stick their nose in it at all?  You can say that it hurts the social cohesiveness brought on by straight marriage, but how?  How does it do that?  A gay married couple moves in next door to you – how is your marriage affected?  How is anyone’s?

This whole thing is so ridiculous.  The only logical conclusion of the conservative “argument” is that legalizing gay marriage will lead to more gay people in the culture.  Guess what?  Gay people exist – and will continue to exist – whether you legalize gay marriage or not.

Voting against gay marriage is not the same as defending family values, or voicing conservative political principles, or being morally opposed to abortion (all of which are utterly reasonable and even admirable).  It’s not the same because gay people getting married doesn’t change anything for you.  It doesn’t take anything from you.  It doesn’t even affect you.  Your church won’t be forced to marry gay couples.  You won’t have to marry a gay person.  Your kids won’t be called bigots if they date only straight people.  All you’ll be asked to do is mind your own business, which all of us should be doing anyway.

Hold to your position all you want, continue to voice your views, tell us all how traditional marriage is being harmed.  But when you begin to vote to prevent people from getting married, you’re crossing a line.  You’re not simply voicing your view or defending your values – you’re meddling in the private lives of your fellow Americans.

No Tears for Israel

I’m having trouble understanding something: Why don’t people make any sense?  Israel has been bombing Hamas in Gaza for several days, and already there are worldwide protests and marches, decrying the Israeli air strikes and demanding them to stop.  Incredibly, they say that Israel’s response is “not proportionate” because for more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis.

First of all, I want to know where the protesters and demonstrators are when Hamas or Hezbollah is bombing Israel.  Don’t they think that an unprovoked bombing campaign designed to kill innocent civilians is an issue worthy of protest?  Are Israeli civilians not deserving of a little empathy?  How about they protest and boycott Iran for supplying terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons?  I just can’t get this.  Are these people seriously drawing a moral equivalency between Israel, who’s trying to defend itself and stop murderous attacks on its people, and Islamic terrorism?

It’s like these people see Israel as some kind of bully picking on the weaker kid.  Guess what?  These weaker kids intentionally murder innocent people to make a point.  They’re genocidal.  They use civilians as shields, hide behind old ladies’ skirts, and put their rockets in family homes.  Let’s forget about the anti-Semites out there for a moment, because surely not all of the antipathy toward Israel is due to dislike of Jews.  Are these people really so anxious to cheer for the underdog that they’re willing to forget the fact that the underdogs are terrorist murderers?

And proportionate response?  You’ve got to be kidding.  So this is the “logic” these people subscribe to?  These are the rules of engagement they find acceptable?  Hamas kills five Israelies, so the Israelis are allowed to kill five in return?  After 9/11, should America have destroyed a couple of high-rises in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and called it even?  After Pearl Harbor, bombed a Japanese port and quit there?  When a gang-member guns down a cop, should the police be obligated to go out and kill or arrest just one of the gang members in return?

Let’s get real here.  I heard Bill O’Reilly put it best once.  To paraphrase, he said that if every Muslim in the Middle East put their weapons down, there’d be peace in the Middle East.   But if every Israeli put their weapons down, there’d be a lot of dead Jews and no more Israel.  Argue with that.

The Israelis don’t want to wipe out any ethnic group or religion, they don’t want to see the world run by a Jewish theocracy, and they don’t murder pregnant Palestinian women as a political tool.  They want to exist.  People who draw a moral equivalency here are lacking critical thinking skills.

Evolution Irrationality, Part Two

In part one of this post, I did two things.  First, I gave some very specific examples of transitional fossils.  Second, I challenged the creationists who continuously claim that all so-called transitions are dead ends or separate species to put their money where their mouths are and specify what exactly would qualify as a transitional (if not a four-limbed walking creature with gills like Acanthostega, for example).

In response, Bud left a comment with some quotes – one by no less an authority than Ernst Mayr - that seem to profess problems locating certain transitional fossils.  This is one of the clearest illustrations I’ve seen of creationists cherry-picking quotes that seem to fit their belief, and ignoring all others that contradict it.  Anecdotes do not make science, Bud, and neither do they comprise a rational argument.  Ernst Mayr, as you pointed out, is one of the biggest defenders of Darwinism alive on the planet.  Why don’t you quote any of the bazillion different things he’s said in support of evolution and the fossil record?  Or do you only take him seriously when he says something you like?

What’s interesting is that you also admit that Mayr points out “a few alleged transitions where millions should exist.”  Oh really?  Why should millions exist, Bud?  Because it fits with your view?  As a matter of fact, plenty of fossil transitions should not exist.  The fossil record not only has gaps, but it’s biased.  Some animals fossilize better than others.  Animals don’t simply fall on the ground and become fossils.  Fossilization is a rare event.  These are simple facts of geology and paleontology, and by ignoring them, you’re taking the argument away from reality to fit your preconceived notions.

What’s also interesting is that you completely ignored the examples I gave, and my challenge.  The fossil record has many missing transitional forms – that’s no surprise to anyone, least of all evolutionary scientists.  But that doesn’t change the fact that there are still a great many beautifully clear examples to be found.  What’s your counter for all of them?

Your comment was also indicative of yet another common creationist tactic:  Interpreting debate about evolution in the scientific community as a weakness in the general theory.  This is like tossing out all of modern cosmology because a scientist says we don’t understand black holes or dark matter.  Maybe there should be a creationist movement against the germ theory of disease, because we can’t fully understand the vectors of certain viruses.  Or how about we doubt the theory of gravitation, because we haven’t observed the graviton?

When are creationists going to learn?  But, you can’t honestly believe that a quote like, “The question of the origins of dinosaurs is one that has puzzled paleontologists for many years,” is some sort of evidence that the fossil record is irrelevant, can you?  The equivalent would be an atheist like me finding some random quotes from Christian apologists questioning the meaning of biblical verse and proclaiming, “Aha!  This guy here can’t even explain the Trinity, and this guy can’t know for sure what Jesus really meant in this particular verse!  Therefore, Christianity is obviously a big sham!”

Get real.

Bill Maher and Mike Huckabee

I saw Bill Maher speaking to the host of Huckabee about atheism, and Maher was presenting his usual “religion is a mental disorder” point.  I can’t read Maher’s mind, but I think he’s simply saying that crap to be “provocative” and get under people’s skin.  If not, if he’s actually trying to make a serious point, then it’s a spurious one.  I think having faith in God is intellectually wrong, given current evidence, but holding a wrong or illogical belief (and in the case of religion, it’s often chosen or at least voluntary) is not indicative of mental illness.

Either way, Maher doesn’t help his case by saying that; he hurts it.  He also hurts it by bickering with Huckabee over about whether Mother Theresa lost her faith or was secretly miserable, or whatever.  Maher also trotted out the argument that religion has caused most of the wars in the world.  Regardless of the viability of that claim, by itself it’s not a good reason to stop believing in God.  In fact it’s not a reason at all.

Maher came closer to an honest point when he said that we simply don’t know what happens when we die, so why believe in something that appears to be a made-up myth about the afterlife?  Huckabee returned with one of the most common “arguments” made by faithful people:  We can’t explain the good deeds and incredibly selfless things that some of us do without a greater good.

I’ve always thought that argument failed on two levels.  First, unexplained does not mean inexplicable.  Just because Mike Huckabee, his friends, or a nation full of Christians say that they personally can’t understand the moral acts of some human beings, it doesn’t automatically mean there’s an all-powerful, all-moral creator.  This is a question about human nature, and it’s a good one.  But there’s absolutely no logical or evidentiary reason whatsoever to make a leap to the divine.

Secondly, I think this argument is insulting.  Huckabee mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mother Theresa, as if they were inspired to do great things by their faith.  Maybe so, but this seems to point out that they wouldn’t – or couldn’t – have done it otherwise.  Why take their accomplishments away from them?  Why imagine some magician in heaven waving a magic wand to help them out?  This is what degrades human beings, not any notion that we don’t have souls, or that we evolved from pond scum.  This is how we are devalued – by religious moralizers telling us that we aren’t capable of greatness unless their God grants us the ability.

Why Ann Coulter Thinks Evolution is False, Part Seven

“Even the evolutionists themselves can’t agree on the facts.”

In her book Godless, Ms. Coulter makes the puerile error of misinterpreting punctuated equilibrium.  For anyone unfamiliar with the finer points of evolutionary debate within the scientific community, punctuated equilibrium (PE) is a theory proposed by Niles Eldredge and the late Stephen Jay Gould.  It posits that the evolutionary history of life is not as gradual as standard Darwinism implies; Gould and Eldredge point out that species often branch “suddenly” into new species, as well as go through long periods of stasis.

You have to take the word “suddenly” in context.  What Ms. Coulter and her intellectual peers do is interpret this to mean saltation; that is, the abrupt appearance of a radically different organism, perhaps in a single generation.  They make jokes about a cow giving birth to a beaver or similar nonsense.  In Godless, Ms. Coulter said that the rapid species hopping supposedly predicted by PE is the equivalent of a “nontheological miracle.”

Soon after proposing PE, Gould and Eldredge were disconcerted by the number of creationists and media figures who took the theory out of context.  Not only does this mean Darwinism is on shaky ground, the creationists proclaimed, it also supports the idea of creation events.  (It’s humorous that they try to use the arguments posed by Gould, who was one of the leading opponents of Intelligent Design, to support their claim!  Why not take that Gould position and run with it, if they put so much stock in the man’s arguments?)

But this is simply a case of misunderstanding the theory.  What I don’t know is why otherwise intelligent people like Ms. Coulter are still doing so.

Number one, when Gould and Eldredge speak of rapid speciation events, they mean “rapid” compared to the time frames associated with the geological ages common in paleontology.  The speciation events they describe are tens or hundred of thousands of years long.  What’s more, these speciation events still operate on the basic principle of Darwinism: small insensible changes over that period of time.  Creationists like Ms. Coulter have used their limited imaginations to seize upon this idea as consistent with creationism, but the issue is nothing more than a matter of degree.  Even strict punctuation looks like Darwinian gradualism when you view it on a tighter timeline.

To be sure, punctuated equilibrium is a radical viewpoint.  Perhaps it has more validity than its main opponents (such as Richard Dawkins) think.  Or perhaps not.  This type of debate is what happens in science.  It’s vital, it’s required.  It’s how progress is made.  It’s how mistakes are found.  Science is always open to debate, it’s always a bit “unsettled.”

Debate within the scientific community is normal.  It doesn’t mean the theory of evolution is in trouble.  It doesn’t mean the precepts of natural selection are in doubt, it doesn’t mean fifty percent of scientists think evolution isn’t true, and it certainly doesn’t mean that scientists are “coming around” to creationism.  More evidence supporting evolution exists now certainly doesn’t mean that scientists are “coming around” to creationism.  More evidence supporting evolution exists now than has ever existed.  Wait a decade, and this will be true then, as well.  And you can be certain that there’ll also be creationists grasping for attention, trying to enforce their “science” in courtrooms, and coming up with new ways of stating the same ineffectual arguments in lieu of any evidence – as they’ve been doing for centuries.

Kindness is Not Good Economic Policy, Part Two

I just read quote by Mike Huckabee that was rather interesting.  To paraphrase, he said that the biggest threat to the Republican party is not liberalism, but libertarianism.  And though Huckabee’s a conservative Christian, he’s not the only one talking social libertarianism (decriminalizing drugs, legalizing prostitution, etc.), he’s also bewailing the economic approach of laissez-faire capitalism (or has he put it, those cold-hearted libertarians would strip health care from the elderly and kids).

Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what libertarians want.  I’m sure they’re all out there waiting eagerly for the day they take power and can snatch prescription medication from the elderly.  Huckabee’s statement is the same attitude that is putrefying in Washington right now.  It’s the reasoning the politicians are using to justify the Wall Street bailout, their economic “stimulus” plans, and now this latest bailout of the auto industry.  They all say the same thing: “We don’t really think it’s fair to charge the American taxpayers to help out other American taxpayers, but we just have to do something or else people will lose their jobs, or not get health care, or not have a decent home, etc.”

Granted, Huckabee has been against the Wall Street bailout, but when he comes out with a statement like that, he’s definitely no presenting himself as a free-market capitalist.  The issue is not one of kindness or moral fortitude.  No one’s stating that some people don’t deserve health care because they can’t afford it.  Let’s use the word “deserve” correctly.  Everyone deserves to have health care, a decent home, and a college education for their kids.  But that doesn’t mean that a bloated government bureaucracy can give it to them effectively or efficiently, and it certainly doesn’t mean that government should give it to them by taking money that others have earned.

It’s not nice to allow thousands of people to lose their jobs.  When a libertarian says, “Good, if the business fails, it fails,” they’re not chortling with glee that people are losing their jobs.  If a business fails, more efficient ones will take its place.  Those out-of-work people can get better jobs, or start their own companies, or go back to school, or whatever.  Businesses fail all the time.  People lose all the time.  It’s called life.  It’s called reality.

What if Hooters gets in financial trouble?  Thousands of women with fake boobs and self-respect issues will be out of a job.  Would we see tears for them?  Or suppose the porn industry starts tanking.  We’re talking about a ten-billion-dollar a year industry here.  Tens of thousands of people left jobless.  Where would everyone be on this one?  Should we then give the porn industry a bailout to prevent all those sex workers from losing their jobs?

Darwin’s Transparent Box

I just finished reading Darwin’s Black Box, the Intelligent Design manifesto by Michael Behe.  Along with Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, this is the must-read book for anyone who rejects the evidence for evolution and wants to put on a shroud of pseudo-legitimacy.  (If you’ve also read Ann Coulter’s book Godless, it’s clear where she gets her nonsense.)

Behe’s the biochemist who came up with the term “irreducibly complex” to describe biological systems.  His claim is a slightly updated version of the old creationist canard of personal incredulity:  “This [insert whatever structure you want] is just too complex and/or beautiful to have arisen by natural causes, so an intelligent being must have designed it.”  You could also say it like this:  “Since I personally can’t think of a way this might have developed through Darwinian selection, I”m going to claim that it isn’t possible.”

The problem here is that Behe’s examples (bacterial flagella, cilia, the immune system, the blood clotting cascade) have been shown to be wrong.  Simpler (that’s “reduced in complexity,” for Mr. Behe) versions are found elsewhere.  For anyone interested in the science behind these examples, I would suggest Kenneth Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God.  Miller is the biologist who testified, along with Behe, at the Dover, Pennsylvania trial over creationism in public schools.

Of course, it’s not just that Behe’s examples are wrong, it’s the fundamental idea behind trying to hold up such examples.  He has a good point that evolutionary scientists should be actively formulating theories for how these biological systems originated (and they are), and science welcomes all challenges (in fact it thrives on being challenged).  But Behe has concluded that nature screams out “intelligent design” while ignoring the fact that it simply doesn’t exist.

One of the most common arguments against intelligent design is the imperfection, waste, and vestigial structures in living organisms (junk DNA, pelvic bones on snakes, backwards wiring in the vertebrate eye, etc.).  Behe’s answer to things like this is twofold.  First, he says that maybe these inefficient structures really have a purpose we haven’t figured out yet.  Yeah, maybe.  Maybe there’s a designed purpose for wisdom teeth, hemorrhoids, and DNA that doesn’t code for any protein. Maybe there are also microscopic fairies that live in our mitochondria.  This is the courtroom equivalent of trying to introduce reasonable doubt by saying an invisible alien committed the crime.  Without any evidence backing it up, without a theory, without even a guess, it’s inconsequential.

Second, Behe accuses scientists who bring up this argument (like Miller and Richard Dawkins) of making assumptions about the mind of a designer.  A designer isn’t under any obligation to make us perfect, Behe argues, and we can’t know why he made us this way or that way.  Not only is this argument non-scientific (it can’t be tested), but it smacks of the same old religious hocus pocus: You just have to trust what God did even if you’ll never understand He did it.

Behe makes perfectly clear his delusion by using the following analogy.  He says that if a photocopier that has made ten perfect copies suddenly makes one copy that has smudges on it, that’s not a reason to assume the photocopier was developed by gradual Darwinian steps.

Nice try.  But a more appropriate analogy would be if the photocopier had a completely useless circuit or gear inside it.  A circuit or gear that does nothing, and indeed looks like a usable part from an earlier, less sophisticated model of photocopier.  Machines designed by intelligence never have things like that; living machines designed by natural selection do.