DancingSamurai.ca

Oh, not overtly, but with some ‘anti-blasphemy’ legislation. They’re basically saying it should be illegal to offend somebody’s (religious) feelings.

UNITED NATIONS – Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.

Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85-50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.

But while the draft’s sponsors say it and earlier similar measures are aimed at preventing violence against worshippers regardless of religion, religious tolerance advocates warn the resolutions are being accumulated for a more sinister goal.

This is torn apart by Orac and PZ much better than I could ever do…

In other words, it creates a right not to be offended and elevates it above the right to freedom of speech. The spread and ascendence of such a “right” is anathema to the most important right of free people: freedom of speech. Once again, I find myself pointing out that no idea, religious or otherwise, should be above criticism. Period. And no one–I repeat, no one–has the “right” not to be offended.

And, of course, as this comic quotes, this is the kind of person this sort of argument comes from, most of the time:

Respect

Bronze Dog has a brilliant post comparing the arguments of theologians with the very common fight between fanboys of common fictional characters. He does have a point there!!

Fiction and theology often end up looking much the same when you try to apply their principles to the real world. No, a katana can’t cut through a machinegun under normal conditions, no matter how many times your favorite anime ninja did it in the show. The mythbusters tried it. Within that anime, you can say additional forces are generated by the ninja’s chi, but we recognize that as fictional physics that apply in the show’s “universe.” Theologists, however, expect their system of rules to be treated as real as any scientific theory. They don’t stand up well to any tests.

One of my favourite (US) blogger-physicians comments on politics:

[...] I cannot bring myself to vote for any political candidate who believes in magic instead of science, and who uses those beliefs to determine policy.

Homeopathy is magic. “EverCleanse” colon cleanse (advertised daily on the radio) is magic. Enzyte is magic, and it’s inventor/marketer is on his way to jail for fraud. Chiropracters run the gamut from those who understand that they’re glorified physical therapists to those who don’t believe germs cause disease; in general, chiropractic is magic.

Creationism is magic, but because it is cloaked in the trappings of religion, it gets treated with kid gloves. Religion needs to stay out of the science classroom, and I cannot bring myself to vote for anyone who doesn’t understand why.

I think it’s a shame that ignorance has become not only prevalent but desirable in this formerly great land of ours. I suppose hypocrites are so popular because they make people comfortable with their own hypocrisy.

I can’t even tell if my dominant emotion is fear or sadness.

All I can do is apply my own private, non-partisan litmus test in the privacy of the voting booth. Magical thinking is a thought process of childhood. It’s time this country grew up.

(more…)

As some of you may have noted, I have been unusually silent of late. No, my wife hasn’t kidnapped me! Married life is indeed busy, but most of my time has been consumed by studying for my exam and the application for the short fellowship I’d like to do next year. As I’ve sent in my statements and studied until my brain is numb, I’m taking this opportunity to take a break and write about non-medical things for a moment.

(more…)

I can’t believe I missed PZ’s wonderfully moving article a few weeks ago.

When someone weeps over a dead child or creates a great poem, it should matter not at all what some priest imagines his pantheon is doing. Take your eyes off your hallucination of heaven—what’s real are that woman’s tears, that child’s triumph, that grain of sand, that bird on wing. The meaning is derived from the reality of what we see and feel, not some convoluted vapor and self-serving puffery about an abstract concept like “god”.
…
There is some great work in that Bible Fish quotes, some wonderfully lyric writing, and it reflects a few thousand years of people straining to make sense of their world. What diminishes it is not the atheists who reject the answer it gives — that there is an all-powerful magic man behind the universe — but those who accept it, who seek meaning in rote recitations of its words without concern for how the minds of human beings could find some solace in the struggle to explain. Instead of a representation of thought, it’s treated as a recipe book for salvation. Perhaps Fish should turn some of his pious tut-tutting against the blind believers who want nothing but an answer, rather than against those few who can still appreciate the question.

(more…)

I posted about a study before that showed male, religious physicians are likely to refuse to provide treatment they don’t believe in — which generally means refusing contraceptive methods including abortion to young, vulnerable women. An article in MSNBC today tells the same tale with a bit more of a personal twist — but not even over abortion, but emergency contraception. For rape victims. (via Kevin, M.D.)

(more…)

… as a crossword puzzle. (Local copy)

What really caught my eye was this teacher’s comment, which seems like a neat way to illustrate the concept.

I teach high school freshmen biology and have used a puzzle model to teach nature of science for some years now. Each group gets a small portion of the puzzle, no box and only draws a few pieces in order to make a hypothesis. They then draw a few more, make a new hypothesis and then look at the other groups’ sections. Each group will draw almost the exact same conclusion about the picture which we then liken to a scientific theory. Anytime a question or comment arises later concerning scientific uncertainty, like the incompleteness of the fossil record as an example, all I have to do is remind them of the puzzle lab and I get looks of complete understanding from the class.

(via Pharyngula)

On one of Pharyngula’s posts (Why people believe in bad ideas), I found a link to Paul Bloom’s essay, “Is God an Accident?“. It’s quite a nice review of various thoughts on the origins of (or rationales for) religion. He suggests a theory whereby our natural — and likely adaptive — inclination to assign agency and purpose to events is implicated. A stimulating, and not overly long, read!

Our dualism makes it possible for us to think of supernatural entities and events; it is why such things make sense. But there is another factor that makes the perception of them compelling, often irresistible. We have what the anthropologist Pascal Boyer has called a hypertrophy of social cognition. We see purpose, intention, design, even when it is not there.

Local cache: Paul Bloom – Is God an Accident?