Winston

Boston, Massachusetts, UNITED STATES


Joined February 20th 2007

Number of Posts:
72

Number of Comments:
733

Karma:
5



Tags & Posts

Bookmark Tags



Popular Tags

Popular Posts

The Hilinator  (106)
Holy Rollers  (104)

Blogs

Winston's Blogs

792 Vote(s)
82 Comment(s)
11 Post(s)
Thought Zone (Member)
23558 Vote(s)
3413 Comment(s)
203 Post(s)

I mentor these bloggers

Learn more about the Orble Mentoring Program.


I do not mentor any bloggers.

Recent Posts

If you're a private educational institution, then you have a good deal of leeway to teach what you wish. Not being sponsored by government funds means far less government intrusion in your curriculum. Sure, there are still standards that need to be met (literacy and mathematics, for example) but otherwise it's pretty open. This is why some private Christian high schools have "science" courses which promote ideas like young-earth creationism and actively deny evolution. Fine. If people actually want to pay to make themselves dumber, that's OK with me. So, no problem so far. However, it seems that Christian high schools in California that ONLY teach creationism are bent out of shape over the fact that colleges are not accepting those "courses" as valid for biology or history credits. That's right. Conservative Christian schools that deny accepted science are mad that they can't get science credit at an accredited state university. Makes sense.

Before I go further, let's take a closer look at the story. Here are some excerpts from the news article, taken from the online edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. All bold font is added by me:

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations. " What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."

Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.

UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.

For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.


There's so many awesomely dumb things in this article to address, I hardly know where to start. Let's begin with the line, ' "It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. ' I would dearly love to hear Ms. Monk elaborate on this statement, because I just can't figure out what paths her mind followed to end up at that conclusion. Ms. Monk, wouldn't it be just as simple to say that CA Christian high schools are attempting to "Christianize" secular universities? As an accredited public university, UC is under an obligation to teach the accepted scientific explanations for things like biology, evolution, geology, cosmology, etc. By trying to have personal faith articles validated as equivalent to scientific research, Jennifer Monk and the AFF are essentially trying to have UC endorse Biblical mythology as being on equal footing with secular science. Unfortunately for this group, classes are generally not based upon the idea that "whatever ideas anyone has are equally valid." A good education teaches what the best data says at the current time, not what certain fringe groups want it to say. Sorry Ms. Monk. I will also say that NO ONE is trying to secularize Christian schools. You're free to teach what you wish. What the UC is doing is exercising their right not to recognize unsubstantiated, uncritical teaching. Big difference.

UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations. You mean the University of California won't accept my personal belief that invisible flying gnomes paint the sky blue every morning?? What a crock!

Seriously, what do these religious schools expect? They are entitled to their articles of faith, and I will never argue that. However, even the most ardent theist has to admit that their position, however heartfelt, is not tenable in a scientific sense, right? Oh wait, let me highlight an excerpt from the article again: Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that, does it? The world is flat, mankind started off as two naked people in a garden, bats are birds, the sun moved backwards one day, pi equals 3 and dinosaurs were killed in a flood 4500 years ago. Screw off, science.

Let's be clear here. The school is not being anti-Christian. They are being pro-education. A Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Asatru, Zoroastrian, or Wiccan applicant to the school who had an equally unscientific agenda would have the same problem that these Christian students have. It's clear that the university is willing to work with believers, to a certain extent:

"...the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution."

See? That's not unreasonable. The school isn't refusing to acknowledge a religious viewpoint, they are only refusing to allow the sum total of their curriculum to be dismissed out of hand because of personal faith. Their school, their rules, their curriculum. If you object, go to Bob Jones University. Seriously, Christian high schools of California, why are you arguing about this?

At any rate, a hearty "well done!" for Justice Otero and his eminently sensible ruling. There is no malice or hidden agenda within his decision -- his reasons are quite clear. The texts and classes were rejected because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking. I realize that there are certain populations within the Christian community that are openly hostile to critical thinking, but I take comfort in the fact that it still carries some weight with the majority of people.
101
Vote
   


Oh My Family, I Hardly Know Ye

August 12th 2008 23:50
Last week, I saw my family for the first time in three years. The last time we were all together was when I got married. We had a great time on both occasions. The long duration between visits has nothing to do with any animosity or quarreling. We all just live really far from each other, too far for a weekend visit. So it was quite an event when we all got together recently in Pittsburgh, PA, where my brother and his family live. It was a very enjoyable trip (Pittsburgh is actually a very nice city -- not the blue collar steel mill town that it is still somewhat associated with) and packed a lot of activity into a few days. Seeing my dad, brother and sister again was gratifying, and I sincerely hope that we are able to get together more frequently going forward. And yet at the beginning of the trip, during the 11 hour drive, I was agitated and a bit ornery (note to my wife: sorry honey!). Partly because of the stress of the trip and because I'm not a huge fan of overly long drives, I'm sure. But there was something else, too, which took me awhile to identify. I realized that I was actually stressed out about seeing my family, although I love them dearly. And I knew why: my views on a number of issues and the rest of family's views are, shall we say, divergent.

Anybody who has read my posts with any regularity is familiar with the fact that I am an atheist (12 years of Catholic school education notwithstanding). My father and brother have adhered to Catholicism, but while I think my dad's faith has waned a bit, my brother has beefed up his involvement with the Church. My sister, on the other hand, is a very devout.....something. Not sure what, exactly, but some form of Protestantism, most likely of the evangelical variety. So, I don't mesh with them theologically. Our political and social disparities are almost equally impressive. I am an Independent who, depending on the topic at hand, sometimes finds common ground with Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians. Overall I would be considered too liberal to have much to do with the Republican party, but we do see eye to eye on a couple things. By contrast, my family is generally conservative across the board. I was raised this way myself, but slowly shed more and more of those viewpoints as I realized that I was parroting the ideology I'd been raised with rather than forming my own beliefs. The conclusion I came to was that no one party has all the answers and issues need to be addressed on a case by case basis, as opposed to judging them along Party lines. My sister is obviously conservative, as you don't find a lot of Christians of her particular stripe in the liberal bent. My dad is nearly 70, and was raised in a conservative environment. Gay marriage is out and taxes are bad. No surprise there. But in many ways dad is still reasonable and approachable. His every viewpoint is not carved in stone, and he doesn't bark neo-conservative talking points on command. His views are his own, and he is capable of discussing them. My brother though......wow. He and his wife are conservatives to the nth degree. As an example, I felt my stomach clench a bit last week when I saw a selection of Anne Coulter's books on his shelf, right next to the Limbaugh section. Opposing views are one thing, but Anne Coulter is a shrill, ignorant, hateful and contemptible freak who is not even taken seriously by many conservatives. So imagine my utter horror at seeing her books in my brother's house, the brother whom I love and who, with his fun-loving and equally conservative wife, is raising my two beautiful nephews. What horrible ideas will they be exposed to by my brother and sister-in-law, however much they are presented with the best of intentions? These books are not there as part of a research collection or anything, lest anyone think that perhaps they are not representative of his views. I have heard him espouse some of those same points myself. It really made my heart sink a bit to see that.

Anyway, back to the drive. So here I was, traveling 11 hours to visit people whom I hardly ever see and with whom I have very little in common, outside of genes and shared experiences. Truth be told, if they were not related to me, I doubt I would get along with my family. They are all very good people, loving and law-abiding. But there is so much about them I can't understand. I feel much more comfortable being myself around my wife Julia's family (with whom I'm very close), as we only live a couple hours from them and see them all the time. Plus, they are far less conservative and are tolerant of our viewpoints. It bothers me to feel more uncomfortable around my own blood relations than I do around my in-laws, and I allowed that to make me irritable and anxious on our way down to for our visit. As I identified the problem and Julia and I discussed it, she suggested just getting it out in the open, if only to relieve some of my own stress. I declined, however, not seeing much benefit to that. My family is pretty smart. They know I'm not religious (our wedding ceremony, which surreptitiously did not have ANY religious themes at all, probably helped cement that idea for them) and they doubtless know I'm more socially liberal. My sister and I have argued about evolution vs. intelligent design, and long ago my brother and I argued about gay rights. They know enough to know that we don't agree, but they still love me and vice versa. Besides, I took enough away from those discussions to not be eager to reengage in them, especially considering how infrequently we all see each other. Even though I'm older now, and probably better equipped to make my points than I was back when these disagreements occurred, I just couldn't see the point in making my viewpoints an issue. As long as no one called me out, I decided I would leave well enough alone and enjoy the trip.

That turned out to be the right call, I think. A couple eye roll-inducing comments aside, we managed to avoid any minefields. Perhaps I should be more forthright about my position, and perhaps in other circumstances I would be, but considering the situation I think I made the right choice. I wish I felt I could be more open about my own views, rather than just keeping my mouth clenched shut from time to time, but I also can't see how that will benefit me. Enjoying the very limited time I have with my family seems more important than trying to make myself feel better at the expense of harmony.

What do you think? Does anyone reading this have a similar dynamic and, if so, how have you dealt with it?
81
Vote
   


Whose Fallopian Tubes Are They?

July 22nd 2008 21:57
I'll admit right off the bat that I did not conceive of this topic myself. My wife suggested I discuss it here as a result of a conversation we were having, and it sounded like an interesting topic. So, here goes.

I don't think I need to point out that abortion is a hot topic, on Orble and everywhere else. There are tons of arguments both pro and con, and the debate is not likely to end any time soon. However, a tangential aspect of that debate is the issue of birth control. If effective birth control were made available and used properly, then unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions) would be a matter of far less consequence. Obstacles exist that prevent this, of course. The Catholic Church opposes any form of birth control that isn't the rhythm method or prayer. Various hardcore Christian groups support abstinence-only education that does little to prepare women for what to do if they actually DO have sex and become pregnant. The morning after pill is objected to on religious grounds as an "abortive agent" when it generally is nothing of the sort. These are all religious obstacles. But there are secular obstacles as well, obstacles that are no less frustrating or condescending. The one that I am referring to in particular is the obstacle of gynecologists themselves, and the procedure known as tubal ligation (getting your tubes tied).

Tubal ligation is a very common form of birth control in America. Millions of women have had the procedure, and while it does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs, it is highly effective (99.5% by some estimates) at preventing pregnancy. There are no drugs involved, sexual spontaneity is not compromised, and there is no way to forget to use proper birth control. For those people who truly do not want children (any or additional) it is a nearly perfect solution. As with any medical procedure there is a risk of side-effects, but the vast majority of women who have the procedure will not experience any significant problems. So what's the issue?

While I cannot say exactly how common this is, and could not find any hard numbers on it, suffice it to say that it is not uncommon for younger women to be denied a tubal ligation by their doctor, but not because of religious objections or even because of the potential risks. The prevailing reason seems to be that women under 30 are simply too young to make that decision, and are thus being prevented from doing something which they may regret.

Now, I'm not entirely clear on how I feel about this. On the one hand, while tubal ligation reversals are doable (and more successful now than in the past) there is still a risk that a tubal ligation can't be undone. Regret is one possibility, of course. And people do change their minds about things, so it is not unreasonable that someone may feel differently about having kids at 35 than they did at 25.

On the other hand, if an adult women is sure that she does not want children, and if she is responsible enough to want to avoid the issue of unwanted pregnancy or abortion, then is it anyone's right to deny her access to a legal medical procedure based solely on an arbitrary assessment of her age and capacity to make a decision? I can't see how that can be the case. As an adult, a woman owns her decisions, for better or for worse. For a doctor to try and protect another adult from their own (legal) desires is offensive and misguided, however good the intentions may be. True, there is no law to the effect that woman can be denied this procedure due to being below a minimum age, but doctors can and do refuse to perform non-essential procedures. It is a widespread attitude. I myself have known one or two people who faced a good deal of opposition in getting snipped, and they already had several children!

So, what do you think? Ladies, I'm asking you in particular, as we men don't have fallopian tubes nor can we give birth. But guys, feel free to toss your $0.02 in as well.
76
Vote
   


Man, I really meant to get to this one a few weeks back, but it just didn't come to pass and I forgot all about it. Fortunately something jogged my memory and now I stand ready to spread the Good Galactic News of Space Alien Jesus!


[ Click here to read more ]
111
Vote
   


Holy Rollers

July 7th 2008 22:47
Picture this: several weeks after placing an order with the Department of Motor Vehicles, you receive a package. It's your custom license plates! Eagerly, you rip open the packaging and inspect them to make sure that they are what you ordered. Sure enough, all is well. You are now the proud owner of the state-issued "God is Fake" plates. Even better, you paid practically nothing for them, as the cost was absorbed by the government! Congratulations.

If the above scenario sounds implausible, that's because it is. The state has no business sponsoring license plates that either endorse or refute religion, and such a license plate would never, ever, be approved through the legislature. Well, not a plate refuting religion, anyway


[ Click here to read more ]
104
Vote
   


Hooray for Ken Ham's Creation Museum! Now you and the family can head to Petersburg, Kentucky, and see the Good Science and Good News for yourselves! It's the most fun that you'll ever have making yourself dumber!

OK, enough sarcasm I suppose. That's really more Ruby's area here than mine anyway. The reason I'm bringing up the insult to intelligence known as the Creation Museum is because it was recently mentioned to me during a discussion in which someone was attempting to cite legitimate scientists who support creationism and intelligent design as viable alternative theories to evolution. I have to admit, my jaw dropped a little. Of all the examples I would have picked if I were trying to argue for creationism or ID, I can't think of much I would have relied on less than Ken Ham's nonsensical edifice to ignorance


[ Click here to read more ]
111
Vote
   


The Hilinator

June 4th 2008 22:18
It's over, right? Obama has secured the necessary delegates for the Democratic nomination. Great, done. On to the presidential elec........what the......

"Now, the question is: Where do we go from here? And given how far we've come and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight."

[ Click here to read more ]
106
Vote
   


Sometimes it can can be a bit depressing when, as an American, I read something that makes me realize just how low our star has fallen in the eyes of the international community. It wasn't all that long ago that the thought that other countries might look askance at us never crossed my mind. Obviously we weren't perfect, but I wasn't actively embarrassed by our national identity. I'm still proud to be an American, and I still love my country, but every now and then I wince a little at something I see in the news. The story I'm going to share with you here is a good example (taken from news.bbc.co.uk):

US car dealer in free gun offer
[ Click here to read more ]
105
Vote
   


Tragedy and the Fresh Spring Air

May 14th 2008 23:06
It's gorgeous out, a perfect New England spring day. When I walked out my front door this morning I was struck by the scent of fresh mulch and honeysuckle, and for a moment I simply breathed deeply, savoring the newly-budding emerald greenery and the crystalline blue sky. Eyes closed, I stood and just listened to the rustle of leaves and the chirping of birds already well into their day's activity. I love spring and summer with every fiber of my being. The simple pleasures of watching the trees bloom and inhaling the fresh air have not diminished for me in 31 years. It was with great reluctance that I opened my eyes and continued walking to my car to head for work, rather than staying to enjoy such a peaceful, perfect moment. I enjoyed this simple episode despite the fact that I had just read on the news that over 15,000 people in China were confirmed killed thus far due to the earthquake. The toll is likely to rise significantly. 15,000 is a town. Gone, snuffed out. Whether these deaths are attributable to the blind motions of nature or to the whim of a capricious deity makes no difference. The tragedy is absolute. In the face of such calamity, how is it that a spring breeze is able to bring me so much pleasure?

It is not that the people of China do not have my sincere sympathy. It isn't that the populace of Myanmar is not deserving of my fervent wishes for relief. I have been saddened by all the accounts I've heard, as I am by numerous tragic events that occur with clockwork regularity around the globe. Saddened, but not crushed. I am not rendered despondent at the news that many, many thousands of my fellow human beings have been killed by terrible disasters. Would it matter if they were American? Probably, but only to an extent. Would it matter if they were from my part of the country? My state? My town? Each successive step closer to my proximity raises my level of grief/concern. Why? The carnage is equally real and raw in any case. The difference, I suspect, is the the more immediate the problem, the more readily I think, "that could have been me or those I'm close to


[ Click here to read more ]
92
Vote
   


Are you a man living in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Do you believe in black magic? Tired of worrying about having your penis stolen by wizards? You're not alone! Supernatural penis theft is on the rise, and unless you know what to look for and how to handle it, it can be quite a big problem.

Here are some handy tips to use in the event that you suddenly find your penis missing


[ Click here to read more ]
69
Vote
   


 

Recent Comments

Comment by Winston
on Post-Easter Musings on Atheism

October 16th 2008 18:08
Timothy, I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive. I don't seem to recall attacking you at all? I apologize if you took something I said personally, as I had no intention of offending you.

However, do you really want to get into an argument about this? This is one of the reasons I am not around Orble much anymore: people who think that because they're anonymous behind a keyboard, basic civility is not required. I don't understand that. If you want to have a discussion with someone, or if you feel that someone has said something in error, try being polite. It's amazing how much more inclined it makes people to answer you, rather than writing you off as someone looking for a fight.

With that being said, I find several errors in your argument above.

Despite your assertion, atheism means "lacking a belief in a god or gods". The prefix a- means "without". Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods". So, atheism is the position of being without a belief in a god or gods. That's it. It is not a positive assertion that a god definitely does not exist, because that would entail knowledge that is unobtainable. Yes, some people (frequently theists) use the word to mean a positive denial of god, but that is not the way most atheists generally apply the label to themselves. Once we start talking about knowledge, we're talking about gnosticism and agnosticism. Yes, agnosticism and atheism are different things, but not so very much. If your agnosticism prevents you from answering the question of "do you believe a god exists" with a yes, then you are an atheist (an agnostic atheist), as you lack a belief in that god. Here’s an excerpt from an essay I found by Gordon Stein (a noted skeptic who died in 1996). I think it expresses this view very well:

Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

You claim that only 'hard atheism' is a positive belief that God does not exist. Does this mean that everyone who is not aware of God or who doesnt actively choose to believe in God is an atheist?

Yes. What else should I call them? Potential theists? As I've already said, atheism is just lacking a belief in a god. That's it. The term says nothing at all about whether or not they might believe in a god at some point in the future, or about any of their views on anything else at all. It's just a word to describe a position (or lack thereof) on one point. It ABSOLUTELY is the default position for everyone, I couldn't agree more. But why is that useless? Not believing you can fly is a default position as well. Is that useless? Believing unfounded things can be dangerous, so it’s probably a good thing that our default position tends to be unbelief. Until someone offers some actual evidence, gods and flying people are about equally worthy of consideration. The babies and rocks argument is completely absurd and untenable, by the way, as to the best of my knowledge babies and rocks are also not democrats, conservatives, Marxists or Yankees fans. Maybe we should limit our arguments to sentient beings with the capacity to form complex opinions?

You have to choose to be an atheist just like you have to choose to be a theist or agnostic.

No. I imagine we're going to have a fundamental difference of opinion on this, because I don't see it that way at all. Belief is not a choice. It is not subject to the will. Belief is the result of being convinced (or unconvinced) by evidence. You can't decide to believe something. Go ahead and try it. Close your eyes and decide that you're going to believe that Elvis lives in your closet, and he's making you a grilled cheese sandwich right now, but if you look for him he'll turn invisible and intangible. Do you believe it yet? Try harder! I'm betting it's not working. That's an absurd example, but it works for this purpose. Without some evidence that Elvis lives in your closet, you can't choose to believe or disbelieve that statement. While the statement can never be proven false, given the set of conditions listed, there is absolutely no reasonable way to give it any credence. Are you making a choice by disbelieving, or is that simply the result of not being convinced by the available evidence? Now, let’s tweak the example and say you looked in the closet and, sure enough, you did not see Elvis but you DID find a sandwich crust. Would that convince you that the whole statement must be true? Possibly, as the evidence that convinces people that a god exists is about as flimsy as that crust of bread. But if you do conclude that Elvis and the grilled cheese are there, based on that bit of sandwich, it still is not a choice. You have been convinced by evidence that you perceive is in support of the statement. Obviously there are an infinite number of explanations for the scrap of sandwich more plausible than an invisible Elvis (at least in my mind), but that does not change the fact that some marginal evidence that the statement could be true persuaded you. You did not “choose” it; you accepted it. That’s the way belief works, you either accept data as true or you don’t. I can't choose whether or not to believe in god. Without good evidence it is simply a non-issue. The information that is commonly presented as evidence strikes me as entirely unpersuasive and inadequate. I don’t choose to feel that way, I simply feel that way. It's not that I decided not to believe in god, it's that nothing has convinced me otherwise. I’m compelled by what I see (and don’t see) to make the conclusions I make. Do you honestly think that it’s possible to choose what you believe? That implies that I could see clear evidence for something but exercise my will to disbelieve it anyway. If Zeus shows up in Times Square and starts flinging lightning bolts I’d say choice sort of goes out the window, whether I want to believe in Zeus or not. Even people who are delusional and clearly believe things that are demonstrably untrue believe them based on some sort of personal evidence and conviction. There is a big, important difference between this view and your statement above. Being convinced by something is not the same as making a choice. The only choice I made was to use the label. The beliefs behind it are dependent on the evidence. If and when the evidence dramatically changes, the beliefs probably change as well.

are you claiming that belief and knowledge are interchangable/synonymous?

Not exactly, no. They are not synonymous, but they are inter-dependent. Do you know things you don't believe, or vice versa? Doubtful. If you do, you shouldn't. I may not have made my point as clearly as I should have initially, I admit, but I think if you actually read what I wrote you'll see that I noted the distinctions. Even so, the bottom still line holds, that being agnostic (i.e. thinking that ultimate knowledge of god is unknowable) generally results in lacking a belief in a god (although, as Stein noted, it is also possible to be an agnostic theist). Conversely, most atheists are open to the idea that despite their oftentimes strong unbelief in a god, that god's existence or non-existence is ultimately unknowable. In this instance, there is much overlap.

Agnosicism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. That's it it has nothing to do with 'what you know'

So, you're saying that not knowing something has nothing to do with what you know? Ha. OK. I’m still not sure why you find this statement (‘Atheism deals with what you believe, agnosticism deals with what you know’) so amusing. That’s pretty much the definition of those words. One deals with belief, one deals with knowledge. Problem? Now, as to your citing of my apparent contradiction, I’ve already stated above that while, yes, they are different things, they overlap so heavily that I see it as futile to try to address them entirely separately. They are complimentary terms that work together to describe someone’s attitude toward the idea of a god or gods. Another reason I describe agnosticism as being a form of atheism is more pragmatic. If you are like most self-described agnostics and your agnosticism means that you don't worship a god, attend services, observe rituals, adhere to dogmas, etc., then what is the difference between you and me? The end result is the same, In practice they're often hard to tell apart.

By the way it is easy to logically prove that something cannot exist it is called a logical fallacy like the 'stone so heavy that even God can't lift it'

I completely agree. What I actually said was "it is not logically possible to prove a negative". As in, disproving things for which we have a complete absence of evidence. See the difference? By all means, if you CAN do it, let me know. Prove conclusively the statement that god, Santa Claus, leprechauns, imps, Bigfoot, aliens, chupacabra, vampires, fairies, gremlins, Medusa, and the Loch Ness monster do not exist. I'll wait. If you can't do it, does that mean that we should be ambivalent about the existence of all those things? Are you agnostic about gremlins too? Honestly, I don't see the point to that position. There comes a time when it makes sense to say that, given the available evidence, you think something is untrue. That does not mean that new evidence might not convince you otherwise! But the wishy-washy "unknowable" position is just bizarre. Unknowns are a part of life; almost nothing is known to a 100% degree of certainty. How do you make decisions, if not by weighing evidence for and against and being swayed by the strongest case? Do you refuse to say that you know anything?? There's a paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I looked at per your recommendation) that echoes this sentiment. I liked it.

"Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper's dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn't know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy."

Can I say for sure that I know that there is no god? No. But I can say that based on the evidence, I know that there is probably no god. Room for error? Always. But it's unlikely. That sliver of doubt is not enough to sway me, and because of that I do not believe that there is a god. I have an opinion based on evidence and observation. Everyone does. Thus the reason that I find the agnostic label, used by itself, to be complete BS. While it certainly suggests that you do not find the idea of god particularly plausible, in the end it tells me nothing about what you really believe. The term agnostic, used by itself, is a dodge. I’m an agnostic as well, but absent a declaration of my belief (theist or atheist), who cares? You have some opinion on the matter, whether you wish to commit to the idea or not. Isn’t that more important? What do you believe based on what we know now? Either you don’t know if a god exists but you think it probably does, which makes you a theist, or you don’t know if a god exists but you think it probably doesn’t, making you an atheist. You can be agnostic about either position, but you must give more weight to one than the other. By itself agnosticism is a non-position, and as such it is completely useless.

You know, I'm really not on here much anymore. I happened to check back today out of curiosity as to whether or not you responded. I wasn't expecting the hostility, that's for sure. I’m not sure what your beef is, or where you got the 'show your intellectual superiority as an atheist' line from: I sure didn’t say it, so I’m not sure why it’s in quotes. I’m not trying to show my superior anything – are you?

I'll probably check back again at some point. But I just don't have it in me anymore for these long, tedious, back and forth arguments. The only reason I have written such a long response is because you said a lot of things I had an issue with, and you said them in an antagonistic fashion. I'll generally respond once to someone when they're impolite, but not twice. I like discussing things, and I'm more than open to respectful differences of opinion. If at some point you want to respectfully continue to explore our differences, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, let's not bother pursuing a discussion that will go nowhere. I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this discussion if it's just going to be a pissing contest. In the end, we're both entitled to our opinions anyway, and neither one of us has to like the other's.

Comment by Winston
on Post-Easter Musings on Atheism

October 11th 2008 03:19
Hi Timothy. I apologize for taking so long to answer you, I haven't been on Orble much lately.

Let me try to clarify. Atheism is defined as "lacking a belief in a god or gods". It is not a positive assertion that a god or gods definitely don't exist. In the absence of a positive assertion, it is the theist's job to provide evidence for their positive claim that god exists. While I have more reasons than I can count as to why I find the idea of a god implausible, it really isn't my burden to present them: I'm not the one making an extraordinary claim. I have no "proof" that god does not exist, as it is not logically possible to prove a negative. Now, there are atheists who claim that god DOES NOT exist. Atheists making this positive claim are referred to as "strong atheists". Strong atheism is an unprovable position just as is theism. When most people think of atheism, they think of strong atheism, but the great majority of atheists would not identify themselves this way,

Agnosticism IS atheism, just a different shade. If you are not able to answer the question "do you believe a god exists?" with a yes, then you are an atheist. Atheism deals with what you believe, while agnosticism deals with what you know. I am an atheist. Based on the evidence, I do not believe that a god exists. However I do not, and can never, know for sure that a god doesn't exist, just as I can't know for sure that there aren't leprechauns living in my closet that hide every time I open the door. So, that would make you an agnostic atheist: you lack belief in a god, as well as knowledge regarding that god's existence. Referring back to the strong atheism above, a gnostic atheist would be someone who KNOWS a god does not exist. Again, this is not representative of most atheists.

The word agnosticism is frequently misused as not being sure whether or not you believe in god. That's sort of become the common usage for it, but it's incorrect. I think the reason many people use the atheist label is because, as they learn more about their beliefs, they realize that the term "agnostic" is no longer accurate. Then again, I'm not sure that more people actually use the atheist label. The term "agnostic" is at least slightly less reviled that the term "atheist" which is one reason that many people choose to use it (not realizing that the distinction is not what they believe it to be).

I hope this answered your question. I probably typed more than necessary, it's a bad habit of mine

Comment by Winston
on The Sheer Horror Of Being A Brunette

October 10th 2008 20:33
"Have we become so opportunistic, so out of touch with reality that we think we can score a few easy millions by blaming our own actions on other people?"

Yes. And it generally works.


Hello ladies. I won't bother getting into details, but I will say that the prospect of Palin succeeding McCain as president f#*king terrifies me.

Read this article from the NY Times if you want some more reasons to worry:

AAAAAAAIIIIIIGH!!!

you are a very wise man!

Nah, I wouldn't say that. At best it's nice to know that getting my degree in Communication has a couple practical applications, like being able to get a point across and having dialogs with people without resorting to acting like an asshole.

Comment by Winston
on delightful words

August 21st 2008 14:33
Fun list Morgan. I use a good chunk of those words from time to time, but generally only when I write. If you toss too many of those around in casual conversation, people start to look at you a little funny.......I hate to be seen as loquacious!

Comment by Winston
on Conveyer Belt Sushi

August 21st 2008 14:22
Hello Amy. Sushi is one of my favorite foods, and my wife and I could happily subsist on it forever. But these sushi train conveyor things aren't very big over here in the States, at least not that I'm aware of. I have been to one, and I will say that while it was adequate it was not great. For me, part of the experience is in going to a nice sushi place and watching the chefs work behind the bar. At the sushi buffet we went to, with the conveyor belt, sushi robots spat out a continuous stream of rice covered nori which the workers then stuffed, assembly-line style, with fish and other ingredients. It was like watching a production line manufacture VCRs or something. Kinda weirded me out a little, and we haven't gone back.

Still, decent assembly-line sushi is better than no sushi at all!


Hello Morgan, Jeff and Ruby--

I wave the white flag of truce! I'm out of responses on this one, and while I agree with all of you in principle, I obviously have a couple of differences in how I view it in practice. I will say that I have enjoyed this conversation quite a bit (especially since I was a bit surprised by it. It isn't the one that I actually intended, as it is tangential to my post but not actually the same topic). I think a lot of good points were made, and it has given me some food for thought. I may expound upon some of what we discussed here in a later post, so thanks for the prodding (Morgan!)

Btw Morgan, to me, this is how most blog discussions should go. We're all friends here, even if we have some disagreement on this topic. I've never found that people consider a point more seriously after being insulted or maligned. Then again, there are folks on Orble who make much more of an impact than I do using that approach, so what do I know?

Morgan, you are tenacious

If you take the line from the textbook at its word, then anyplace where science and the Bible differ, the Bible wins. That would impact, well........everything, I guess. Cosmology, geology, biology, physics, math (remember, in the Bible pi = 3), at the least. I don't know of any passages interfering with chemistry off the top of my head, although there may be some. So maybe these kids can be chemists?

Now, that's if you take the passage at its word. I tend to think that, despite what the book says, they focus on evolution and possibly a little cosmology, and let the rest of science alone. No one I have ever heard about is objecting to kids learning that the earth revolves around the sun, although that is obviously at odds with the Bible. Even fundamentalist mathematicians and engineers have to learn that pi = 3.14159265etc and so forth, despite what the Bible says As far as I know, chemistry and physics are taught pretty much as is, although I'm sure they're given a "god is awesome" slant. So we're really primarily talking about biology here. Essentially, this is another facet in the conflict between creationism and evolution.

So, in light of that, I stand by my premise. The worst outcome seems to be that these kids won't go on to become evolutionary biologists.

I don't know enough about geology or engineering to give any meaningful feedback on your analogy, but what you said makes sense. So perhaps certain fields of engineering MIGHT evade them as well. (I would have to see some stats on that before I would subscribe to that idea, however).

your responsibility as a parent is not just to feed, accomodate and clean their young, it is to teach them how to do these things for themselves . . . give a kid a bath and theyre clean for a day but teach them how to install a gravity based sewer system and they will avoid the bubonic plague forever

That is a wonderful summation, and I really enjoy the way you phrased it. You're wearing me down, that's for sure! But, to me, this argument over what can be taught in private high schools is still almost entirely irrelevant. This is because a) I still think it is a church/state issue, and thus the government has no legal recourse at the current time and b) this is a teeny tiny microcosm of the problem. As I said there are millions upon millions of public school educated Americans who are every bit as ignorant of how science works as these CA high school students. The problem isn't a few private religious schools. The problem is a general failure in our entire educational system, coupled with widespread, pervasive ignorance caused by adherence to dogmatic religious teachings. Changing the rules (and potentially causing severe political and legal fallout) over a handful of schools will accomplish essentially nothing in the scheme of things. To me, this is a matter of knowing when to pick your battles, and this is not the one to pick.

And yes Morgan, you are tough in your own exceedingly pleasant and polite way!

Ruby, you should have created me to be more agreeable

Morgan and Ruby -- Man you guys are tough! OK, the only people accepting that junk as science classes are the very small sliver of the population who hold such hardcore views. Even many fundamentalists aren't entirely opposed to learning science that disagrees in any way with the Bible. They probably won't agree with it, but they'll study it. Besides, the UC and other colleges have made it very, very clear that they do not accept it. The main point here, that we can all happily agree on, is that the courts upheld the rights of secular educational institutions not to be forced to change admission standards based on religious beliefs. Hooray!

Morgan, you raise great points, as have Ruby and Jeff. I can't really fault your approach to this, as I'm on the same page as you in what I would prefer to see taught to all children. However, the way the U.S. government is set up, this really becomes a church/state issue. While the state rightfully can intervene in religious matters such as the ones Jeff mentioned above, wherein people suffer real, physical harm or death due to religious practice, they are prohibited from interfering with religious practice in general. Until someone can present a strong enough case in court that shows that the exclusive teaching of creationism constitutes irreparable harm to minors, then it can't (and shouldn't) be changed. There is currently no legal standing to do so.

"it is no different to neglectful parents not clothing or washing or feeding their kids"

See, that's where I have disagree slightly. While I personally find omitting the teaching of actual science to children reprehensible, I also concede that it is wholly possible for a person to have a decent job and live a healthy life without understanding evolution or cosmology. Inadequate food or clothing are demonstrably, tangibly harmful situations. Poor understanding of science is not in the same category. As it stands, there are millions of people in America who do attend public schools and have an absolutely abysmal understanding of science, either from a poor education or from having the science beaten out of them by religion anyway. The level of basic scientific literacy is this country is appalling. So, I'm not really ready to declare these kids disadvantaged, when I doubt they are much more scientifically illiterate than millions of their secularly educated peers.

It's not really comfortable for me to defend these people in any capacity, as I'm thrilled that they lost their court case and I despise their stance on this issue. But, I can't approach this issue the way I think it should be, I have to approach it the way it is. And the way it is is as I've discussed. It would be much simpler and more gratifying for me to agree with you guys on this point and call for science standards across the board. Unfortunately I can't in this situation. I'm just thankful that it's such a relatively minute portion of the population that we're discussing here.

Please, go easy on me!