The A-Unicornist

h/t: Michael Hawkins

I first heard the term "total war" many years ago in reference to a series of real-time strategy video games, like Rome: Total War . In fact, if you do a Google search for the term, the first links are game-related. But in reading Stephen Pinker's new book , I've learned there's a much nastier connotation to the term: genocide. Total war means not just killing your enemies, but their families too. You burn their villages and utterly wipe them. And while the relatively famous Biblical accounts of divinely-commanded genocide in the Old Testament are almost certainly fiction, total war wasn't that unusual in tribal warfare. It's interesting to consider why . How could anyone, even tribal humans, do such horrible things? I've talked before about the hard-wiring of our empathetic circuitry – why wouldn't that be sufficient to stop people from killing babies? Pinker recounts events, detailed through historical writings and archeological findings, of

Given that it's that festive time of year centered on a certain mythical deity, I've decided to offer up, as concisely as I can, the two major reasons why I deconverted from Christianity. 1. The events depicted in the Bible are either impossible or almost certainly fiction The story of Creation is a myth bearing no resemblance to reality – light is created before the sun, the Earth before the stars. Many Christians, realizing this, simply say it's metaphorical. Not literal. But the reality is that until scientists came along and proved it couldn't have happened that way, there was no reason not to take it literally. Adam and Eve couldn't have existed. Evidence from molecular biology shows that humans descended from a population of no fewer than 10,000 of our evolutionary ancestors. It's simply impossible for it to have been one man and one woman. But if there's no Adam and Eve, how did "sin" enter the picture? Noah's Ark is also impos

I haven't been blogging a ton lately, and this post is just to tell you that it'll probably continue to be sparse. That's because I've got 700 or so pages to absorb: I read the first 16 pages or so last night. If you're unfamiliar with the book, Steven Pinker (a cognitive psychologist at Harvard, well-known in the secular community) argues, using mountains of research, that – contrary to the popular assumption – our world today is the most peaceful one in human history. Per capita violence, in virtually every area, is the lowest it's ever been. He then uses modern research in psychology, sociology and economics to explain why this is so. He begins the book by talking about the violent Bronze Age societies, and after an unsettling tour through the appalling violence of the ancient Greeks, the Old Testament (much of it sanction and/or commanded by God), the crucifixions and bloody games of Rome, the use of torture to force confessions from

A few days ago I caught the trailer for The Hobbit , directed (of course) by Peter Jackson. Just when I thought 2012 couldn't get any more awesomerer...er, the new trailer for Prometheus has hit. Why, you ask, is that a big deal? Because it's Ridley Scott's return to science fiction, a genre he practically defined for modern film making with Alien and Blade Runner . It's been speculated that this is a prequel to Alien , and while that much isn't certain, what is certain is that the movie takes place in the Alien universe – fans will recognize the ship and the massive cockpit where the original crew of the Nostromo found the corpse of the " space jockey ". It's a spooky and intriguing teaser, and with the caliber of talent involved I have high hopes for this one. Oh, and the special effects are jaw-dropping. This trailer must be watched in full HD.

I remember a line from the movie Grumpy Old Men : "The only things you regret in life are the risks you didn't take". I have to admit, that's been a hard lesson to absorb. But in retrospect, I realize that I've let certain opportunities slip away because I took the easy road. As long as something you want stays in your head, there's no possibility of failure. You don't have to face the ramifications: being hurt, disappointed, embarrassed, rejected, or whatever other undesirable outcomes may be possible. It's much easier to let it brew in your head as a comfortable fantasy. The truth can be hard to accept: nothing ventured, nothing gained. But as I grow older, a life of quiet discontent seems much less appealing than a life of spectacular failures and great passions.  So, I don't care what anyone says. I'm going to clown college! Okay not really.

I've had an interesting conversation/debate with my brother, a Christian, on Facebook today. I posted the following picture, which mocks "Tebowing", named so because Tim Tebow genuflects every time he scores a touchdown: The point here is obvious: that it's absurd to believe that God helps you win football games while millions die of famine. My brother responded by noting that Tim Tebow isn't just some paper Christian – he gave his entire signing bonus to charity, and is turning a luxury condo into a soup kitchen for the homeless. My brother then suggested that we non-believers have no business mocking or criticizing his beliefs because chances are we are not doing anywhere what he is to help the needy. So while we may find his underlying motives objectionable, we should still agree that they produce a "net positive" for humanity and avoid criticizing them: I'm not talking about non-believers generally. I'm talking about you and ever

In part 1 , I gave the general outline of Social Contract Theory. It's essentially the idea that we are a bonded, interdependent species, and that in order to survive and thrive we must live in cooperative social hierarchies. This necessitates the advent of certain rules, whether explicitly stated or not – that we must respect the needs and interests of others if we wish others to respect our own needs and interests. It could be said that the 'Golden Rule' is the unstated heart of all SCT. Conventional SCT has been what Frans De Waal describes as a 'Veneer Theory' – i.e., we are in our most basic form cruel, selfish and tyrannical. It is only through our capacity for reason, whether it is as Thomas Hobbes suggests the ability to recognize our responsibilities toward others or, as John Locke suggests, our ability to recognize some transcendent moral authority to which we are ultimately subject. Either way, our nature is perceived as the disease, our capacity for re

Note: I'm going to be splitting this post up into two parts, for brevity's sake. Yesterday I was watching old videos on Youtube of Christopher Hitchens. In particular, I watched his second debate with Frank Turek, on the question "Which better explains reality – theism or atheism?" I don't know much about Frank Turek, but, while maintaining a half-yell for virtually the entire debate, he recited all the typical arguments – the cosmological, the teleological, the moral (Hitchens rightly pounced by pointing out that these are, at best, deistic arguments). Turek's challenge to Hitch on the moral front was especially facepalm-worthy; he did exactly what virtually all theists do: he falsely equated atheism with moral nihilism. The old, "Without God, everything is permissible" canard. (I've addressed one glaring failure of this argument here .) Considering how a lot of these Christian apologist types like to posture themselves as learned in topi

Christopher Hitchens has lost his battle with cancer, at age 62. Far too young for such a brilliant mind. Hitch, you were an inspiration. I didn't always agree with you, but you were always provocative, always lucid, always eloquent. You cut to the heart of matters, had the courage to expose evil behind sacred cows, and faced death with dignity and courage. You will be missed. "I suppose one reason that I've always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate that the universe is designed with you in mind. Or even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me." - Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir

After reading this facepalmer from Fox News (shocking) that accused people mocking Tim Tebow's overt displays of piety of being "anti-Christian bigots", I thought it was about time to chime in. I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else here, but there are a few things to say about "Tebowing". First, it's hypocritical. Jesus was flatly against these kinds of charades: "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." [Matthew 6:1] "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men." [Matthew 6:5] Secondly, it's silly. Why would anyone really, honestly think that God gives two shits about who wins a football game? I dare say that if God is indeed helping Tebow throw a ball around, he's got his priorities back-asswards. How a

Things that are invisible and otherwise empirically undetectable look a lot like things that don't exist.

Here's a fascinating one : Researchers in the United States and Great Britain have made a significant breakthrough in deciphering dolphin language in which a series of eight objects have been sonically identified by dolphins. Team leader, Jack Kassewitz of SpeakDolphin.com , ‘spoke’ to dolphins with the dolphin’s own sound picture words. Dolphins in two separate research centers understood the words, presenting convincing evidence that dolphins employ a universal “sono-pictorial” language of communication. I've read several books by the primatologist Frans De Waal, and the central theme of much of his writing is that humans are not as different from animals as we would care to admit; or rather, animals are much more like us than we would care to admit. It's perhaps comforting to reassure ourselves that we, with our superior intellects, are entitled to complete dominion over the Earth and all the instinct-driven beasts within it. Then God said, "Let us make

Isaiah 45:7 says, I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things  In Matthew 6:13, Jesus instructs his followers to pray, Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil So, the Judeo-Christian god creates evil, and then wants you to ask him to be delivered from it. Makes perfect sense. h/t: Michael Hawkins

Most atheists, it seems will tell you that they are "weak atheists"; that is, the extent of their atheism is a " lack of belief in gods ". This is just another way of saying, "Gods may or may not exist, but their existence hasn't been sufficiently established by falsifiable evidence, so I do not believe in them." This is often thought of as a sort of "agnostic atheism", and it's pretty consistent with where most non-believers fall. In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins rates belief on a seven-point scale: Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God

Tristan authored a rebuttal of Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism over at Advocatus Atheist not too long ago, and now Stephen Law , who actually does this stuff professionally, has a paper up in the Oxford Journals called Naturalism, Evolution and True Belief that takes Plantinga on in even more detail. It's a beefy read, and personally I always find the heavy use of acronyms a bit confusing, but it's a good read if you're in to that sort of heavy philosophy. Is Stephan Law's rebuttal successful? That's for you to decide.

Well, Rick Perry's made an ass of himself. I know, I'm shocked as well. And now, the parodies of his gay-bashing, falsehood-touting commercial have begun popping up. Some are clever, some are a little too try-hard, but it's encouraging that the reaction to Perry's bigotry and ignorance has been swift and merciless.

In his debate with Bart Ehrman, William Lane Craig – as he usually does – stated that there are four "facts" about the Resurrection: Jesus' burial the discovery of his empty tomb his post-mortem appearances the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection Ehrman, however, didn't take the bait; instead he challenged Craig on whether those "four facts" have been sufficiently established as facts. After taking a pounding in that debate, Craig has devised an ingenious dodge to circumvent similar arguments in the future: he simply states that most Biblical scholars agree on these historical facts. Well, of course they do: they are almost all Christians ! In other news, the vast majority of Muslim scholars affirm the historicity of the Koran. The Ehrmanator There are a handful of non-Christian Biblical scholars, but as you might imagine, work can be slim pickings for these folks. Most Biblical scholarship is done at theological seminaries,

Over at the always unintentionally hilarious Evolution News blog (which, contrary to its name, is a site for Intelligent Design creationism) there's an article about some new research which has supposedly undermined naturalistic explanations for the origin of life – aka abiogenesis. Oh, but don't get too excited – the IDer's still haven't done any original research. They're reporting on a study published in the journal Nature which suggests that as soon as 500 million years after its formation, Earth's atmosphere may have had abundant oxygen. Here's where the conundrum supposedly arises: scientists (real ones, not IDers) have long though that an anaerobic environment – that is, a low-oxygen or "reduced" atmosphere – would be best for the formation of the amino acids that would eventually form RNA. This new research, according to IDers anyway, suggests that the time was far too short for RNA to have formed by "chance". Well, not acc

The year's not quite over yet, but there's nothing really notable on the horizon for the last few weeks of 2011. So I'm going to go ahead and dish out my picks for the things that I liked most this year. Best book: The Science of Evil by Simon Baron-Cohen Yes, he's related to Sacha Baron-Cohen (they're cousins). But this book isn't satirical; it's an exceptionally well-researched exposition on human empathy that moves important questions about morality ( how can people be cruel? ) away from religion and into the empirical sciences. This is one of those books I consider essential reading for non-believers; it's by no means a polemic, and he even states late in the book that he does not have a "Dawkinsian anti-religious agenda", but it's the kind of book – like A Brief History of Time , Primates and Philosophers or Religion Explained – that takes a Big Question traditionally monopolized by religion and demonstrates not only that the re

See if you can spot the fallacy in statements like these: The fact that the universe contains order and complexity shows that it operates according to finely-tuned laws The observation that humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong is consistent with the Christian belief that God has created us to adhere to a higher Moral Law The reliability of our cognitive faculties is consistent with the belief that God designed us to be rational beings With all these types of statements, while they may cause a skeptic's bullshit detector to start buzzing, it can be a bit difficult to identify exactly where the fallacy lies.  They're used often in the rhetoric of theologians as a means of giving faith-based ideas the illusion that they are grounded in reason, but their usage reveals a poor understanding of how rational inquiry actually works. Technically, the fallacy at work here is assuming the consequent , where necessary and sufficient conditions are confused. For example,

I think all Obama needs to do to win the next election is just play the campaign ads from conservatives verbatim.

For guy who positions himself as someone who engages with and responds to the arguments and concerns of atheists, Craig does a consistently fine job of not having the first damn clue what the arguments and concerns of atheists actually are .

The pic in my previous post, to me, seems like the kind of thing you'd see on Christian Nightmares . It's just amusing all by itself... at least, to non-believers. To us, the absurdity of it is readily apparent. But obviously to that believer, and many like her, it's not absurd at all – in fact, it's a completely normal part of their lives. Basically, this friend of mine goes to the doctor worried she might have kidney stones. It turns out to be a few cysts, one of which ruptured. She immediately praises the Lord. I'm going to be charitable here and assume she's praising God not for giving her a ruptured cyst, but for preventing her from having more serious (or at least more painful) health complications. So here's the problem: where, exactly does God play his role? Why not prevent her from having any health complications in the first place? Since when is a ruptured cyst something to be enthused about? No matter how serious the problem, though, the beli

Spied on my Facebook feed just now:

I always try to emphasize that my non-belief is not a doctrine (how can it be?), but the outcome of a rational epistemology. Good critical thinking skills, of course, should not apply exclusively to the supernatural. That's why a lot of non-believers are also skeptics about alternative medicine, psychics, the Illuminati, and whatnot. But if there's one truth about critical thinking, it's that it can easily be compartmentalized. There are some exceptionally smart people who go to great lengths to rationalize absurd beliefs, who fail to apply critical thinking skills to one area or another when, on the whole, they are generally rational individuals. That's why I often like to point out, when I'm accused of painting theists as stupid because I think they adhere to an irrational belief, that Isaac Newton – one of the most brilliant minds that ever lived – spent much of his life as an alchemist. You can be very smart, in general, and very wrong about specific things.

Yesterday I popped over to Debunking Christianity , where John had a post up talking about some the paradoxes of the omni-qualities of God (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.). It's a great post. But, like clockwork, some Sophisticated Theologian™ calling himself Dr. Günter Bechly chimed in to remind us all what intellectual cretins we all are: "I am a scientist and not a Christian, but such arguments by new atheists are rather embarassing than convincing, because they show a fundamental ignorance or lack of knowledge about sophisticated theology. .... No professional philosopher could yet demonstrate that the concept of classical theism is logically incoherent. I know, you're probably peeling your palm off your face. But wait, there's more! When asked by others to expound on Monolism, part of this Sophisticated Theology™ of which we're apparently totally ignorant, our umlauted teacher replied, "I am not prepared to explain Molinism here (get a book, rea

This has been lighting up my Facebook feed today, and it's pretty impressive: Of course, this is just a single example, but it's consistent with research . Let me take a moment to really shove that abstract down the throats of religious conservatives, whose arbitrary interpretation of Bronze Age scriptures is the driving force behind most of the opposition to gay marriage in this country: "More than two decades of research has failed to reveal important differences in the adjustment or development of children or adolescents reared by same-sex couples compared to those reared by other-sex couples." All those horrible effects of gay marriage? They don't exist . Science has proved religion wrong, as usual.

The other day on Facebook, a lesbian friend of mine pondered why Christians are not as anti-divorce as they are anti-gay-marriage. "You know", she said, "to preserve the 'sanctity'". This elicited the predictable response from several conservative Christians who opined about 'scripture' and 'Biblical marriage'. It is ironic that Christians don't crusade against divorce nearly to the extent the crusade against gay marriage, particularly because Jesus specifically stated, in Matthew 5:28, that it's a sin to divorce unless your spouse had an affair. That's every bit as much scriptural justification as their crusade against gay marriage – more actually, since Jesus himself never said anything about gay marriage. But I digress. Let's get something straight: the line that conservatives push about Biblical marriage being between one man and one woman is just something they made up. This is a classic case (there are lots!) of holi

I wish every believer I know would listen to this.  (h/t: Shaun )

I hope you've all had a great holiday. I have many things to be thankful for: My amazing family. My parents live about 15 minutes away from me, and I love being able to see them so easily. I wish it were easier to visit my brother and his wife out in California, but a lot of people I know hardly see their family at all so I count myself lucky. My parents are supporting, loving, kind, humble, and honest. I admire them both very much. My friends. I've had many of the same friends for many years (one of my best friends is someone I've known since middle school, nearly 20 years ago) and I feel very fortunate to have such awesome, fun, and supportive people in my life. I've had friends stick with me through good times and bad, and there's no real way to repay that except to pay it forward. My co-workers and clients. I'm lucky to have a job that has good hours and is very low stress, and I work with some first-rate trainers and loyal, hard-working clients.

I totally stole this from Tristan (with his permission, of course), but it's just too good. I read Lisa Randall's excellent book Warped Passages a few years ago, and loved it. Her new book Knocking on Heaven's Door is on my short list, but Tristan beat me to it and yanked out a few quotes from her on the conflict between science and religion. I've never known her to have a Dawkinsian anti-religious agenda, but she knows her epistemology and these quotes really capture the heart of the matter: "For a scientist, material mechanistic elements underlie the description of reality. The associated physical correlates are essential to any phenomenon in the world. Even if not sufficient to explain everything, they are required." "The materialist viewpoint works well for science. But it inevitably leads to logical conflicts when religion invokes a God or some other external entity to explain how people or the world behave. The problem is that in

My blog originally started out simply as a way for me to organize my thoughts. I never really had any expectations of a regular readership... y'know, people actually caring about what I have to say. But over the last couple of years my little blog has gotten itself a mildly respectable following, and I'm happy to say that 99% of the comments have come from intelligent, nice people. But I'm also a bit frustrated that, over the last year or so, the blog has pretty much plateaued. My hits are up marginally, as are comments, but I haven't seen a dramatic growth in the numbers. The Facebook page has helped, as has dialogue on other blogs. Anyway, in an effort to promote the blog a bit more, I decided to start sharing posts on Reddit. Bud over at Dead Logic had some crazy success with it, and the Secular Student Alliance got a big boost from it too. Sure enough, in terms of raw hits, it's a success. My previous post garnered nearly 1,300 hits in a matter of hours

Slate has a rather disturbing article filled with quotes from the Republican presidential candidates, uttered at a recent event called the "Thanksgiving Family Forum", in which they make it quite clear that they don't mind the idea of a theocracy at all – as long as it's an evangelical, probably Protestant theocracy. Noticeably absent from these proceedings? Mitt Romney. Of course, he's a Mormon, which means he's not a True Christian™. Anyway, read on for some highlights from this monstrosity . Truly, the best way to keep these people out of office is to just let them open their mouths. p.s. – I'm reminded of Newt Gingrich's statement that the U.S. is in danger of becoming an atheist nation run by radical Muslims. Whatever that means....

I occasionally peruse the blog of former-frequent commenter, now-banned Jack Hudson , and he recently posted this video interview with physicist/theologian Stephen Barr, which I wanted to comment on. It's essentially promoting accommodationism – the idea that there's no inherent conflict between religion and science. I'll let you watch the video for yourself, but because it's fairly lengthy, I've summarized what I view as the central points below. The themes are as follows: Science and religion answer different questions Science has confirmed some of the things in the Bible Christians are responsible for some significant advances in science Atheists are committed to a dogmatic form of materialism that discounts the possibility of the supernatural (see the 19:00 mark) This video does a great job of illustrating just how detached theologians are from the real issues concerning atheists. It's a terrible misunderstanding of our position at every front, and

I don't know what it is with the migration of several of my favorite blogs to this network, but: The templates are all totally generic and ugly There are lots of intrusive ads I don't see what the payoff is. Blogger and Wordpress are so much nicer.

I came across this video over on the always entertaining Christian Nightmares (which is entertaining because it more or less exposes the absurdity of Christianity in the words of its own practitioners). It's a clip about something called 'prayer circles' (not people standing around holding hands, if that was your guess). This guy is going on about the power of prayer, but the money quote is just past the 1:30 mark. He says, "Our prayers are like time capsules. You never know how or when or where God is going to answer them, but you can live with the holy anticipation."  There's a massive hole in logic in that sentence. The question is a simple one, but it's a big one to which no Christian (or theist in general, for that matter) has ever been able to give me a straight answer. Ready? It's this: How do you tell the difference between a prayer that wasn't answered the way you hoped, and a random even that would have happened anyway? The pr

A few years ago, at the encouragement of my (devout Christian) older brother, I contacted the pastor of my parents' church just to see if he'd be interested in chatting. He replied that he would love to meet with me, and we eventually met and talked for about an hour and a half. At the end, he loaned me two books – one by Frank Tipler, a physicist, called The Physics of Christianity , which turned out to be one of the most loony books I've ever read. The other was a much more reasonable accomodationist tome by John Polkinghorne called The Faith of a Physicist . I originally tried to take notes on things I found questionable, but filled up pages so fast I had to stop. John Polkinghorne Anyway, some time later I contacted the pastor about meeting again. I wanted to talk about the books and about some of the issue we'd covered in our previous conversation. At the time, he had some medical issues, so I simply left a message. After he got through that, I contacted him

I think that if there's one overarching goal of the modern new atheist/skeptic/freethinking/whateveryouwanttocallit movement, it's to remove from our culture the notion that faith is a good thing. Faith is, by definition, believing in things in spite of – or even because of – a lack of evidence. When we have good evidence for something, we don't actually need faith – we can just accept reality as it is. I mean, isn't that alone a good reason to chuckle at the so-called logical 'proofs' of God's existence? If it was that easy, if we really had proof that God existed, faith would be pointless. If there's another position that should be evident among new atheists, it's that we love science. We love it so much that we're even accused of scientism ! One of the interesting contrasts between science and faith is that both claim to be means of "knowledge", yet only one of them has given us reliable information about the reality we inhabit t

It really grinds my gears when Christians try to give their religion credit for all the sociocultural progress we've made, all while blaming atheism for everything from economic woes to Stalin's genocide. It's astounding self-deception, one in which the innumerable Christians responsible for histories greatest cruelties and injustices are dismissed as not being 'true' Christians; that way, Christianity is responsible only for the pleasant things, and all the unpleasant things can be blamed on atheists or misguided believers who never would have done such things if only they'd had the correct theology. It simply cannot be ignored that Christians were responsible for, among many other atrocities: The wanton killing and displacement of Native Americans Encomienda The Atlantic slave trade The Crusades The Inquisition The Nazi regime and the antisemitism that inspired the Holocaust  Witch burnings The KKK The murder and forced conversions of Germanic peop

Back when I did my series on morality , I used the Nazis – and the Holocaust in particular – as an example of people doing really cruel things. In truth, the inhumanity of the Holocaust – while still fairly fresh in our minds because it was relatively recent – is far from an isolated incident. Encomienda , the Atlantic slave trade , the Trail of Tears , tribal warfare in Africa are just a few of the many examples of humans doing horribly cruel things to others en masse . How do we account for this cruelty? It seems a little easier to account for something like a serial killer or child molester – we just say something like, that person was a sociopath . One of my clients works as a prison nurse, and has told me that one thing the prisoners frequently have in common is a horrible childhood full of abuse and neglect. Another former client works as a public defender specializing in death penalty cases. He's told me that only a very small percentage of killers are true sociopaths – t

The idea that our morality is bestowed upon us by God is one that, to me, has always suffered from a problem so obvious that it really shouldn't even need mentioning. Nobody has direct, objective access to God. Now, some people will of course claim they have personal access to God, but these claims are not independently verifiable – which is pretty important when you're living in an social, cooperative and interdependent society. If someone tells you God spoke to them, how could you possibly substantiate – objectively – whether their claim was true? Revelatory claims, by definition, fall outside the realm of empirical knowledge. Are God's commands known from his Holy Book? Whose interpretation of which one? And again, how can those claims be independently verified? So even if it were true that God's commands form the basis of our moral compass (and of course I don't think it is), it would pretty useless to us unless we all could independently veri

I linked to this over on the A-Unicornist Facebook page, but I also wanted to link to it here because I think it's just that damn good. Shaun at The Atheist, Polyamorous Skeptic has an outstanding post responding the accusation of "scientism" that is often leveled at non-believers. Choice quote: Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the critics of the so-called “scientistic” people (one is tempted to juts call them “scientists”) seem to not understand the position as it is commonly used by those, such as myself, who believe that science is the preeminent epistemological methodology in the world (perhaps the universe!).  The other part is, as has been pointed out, that this method conflicts too much with theological methodology which is often non-empirical.  People like [theologian John Haught] have a bias, a conviction that ties them to a set of doctrines which make claims at odds with science, and so they see something beyond the reach of empiricism.

Thanks to the modern miracle of express shipping, I have a shiny new motherboard. Literally shiny, since my old one was a little dusty. I still won't be blogging much... I had to reinstall Windows, so I'm in the exciting process of re-installing all my programs and getting everything the way I like it. Then, since everything is working now (y'know, like that new memory I was installing when my computer keeled over), I'm finally going to get around to overclocking the living shit out of this thing, which will take a few days. Oh, and Skyrim will unlock tomorrow night, so I'll basically be in my underwear for the next week, eating reheated pizza and drinking Mountain Dew by the gallon. Here's a pic of my new rig. I'm thinking of painting some flames on it: Update: Well, that was easy.... 4.1ghz. And I'm not even pushing the damn thing. When I started building PCs back in 2006, the AMD FX chips were the kings, and it was a huge dea

QualiaSoup continues his already outstanding series on morality by absolutely demolishing William Lane Craig's pet moral argument (and more!). A must-watch:

Hey look! Computer access... after hours at work. In my computer-less evenings, between lengthy bouts of guitar practice, I'm reading a great book called On Desire  by William Irvine, a professor of philosophy at Wright State University. It's a thought-provoking examination of how desires drive our behavior, how they're formed, and how we can deal with them. In my reading thus far, Irvine has briefly touched on an interesting point which strongly links desire to our moral behavior, and it got me thinking in new ways about some theistic arguments I've heard in the past. Motivated self-interest In his debate on morality with William Lane Craig, Sam Harris asserted that our desire for well-being is something we take as axiomatic. Craig's response was that we don't have any objective reason to desire well-being, so using it as a cornerstone of moral judgment, as Harris does, is just begging the question. The theistic argument is that morality is derived from