History

There’s been a lot of commentary in the blogosphere about a January 3, 1954 letter from Albert Einstein to philosopher Eric Gutkind which contains the following statements: The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.and For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.Einstein expressed similar sentiments in a pair of letters he wrote on July 2, 1945 and September 28, 1949 to Ensign Guy H. Raner of the U.S.S. Bougainville which were first published in Skeptic magazine in 1997: From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere–childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of the world–as far was we can grasp it, and that is all. [July 2, 1945] and I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. [September 28, 1949] Einstein didn’t consider himself an atheist in the common usage of the term (his 1945 letter restricts the term to “from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest”), though he was clearly comfortable being called an agnostic. He rejected the idea of a personal god, but was apparently willing to accept the possibility of Spinoza’s pantheistic god. UPDATE (May 14, 2008): ERV quotes this description of a statement by Oxford historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke, and describes it in a comment as “a ‘respected’ theologian lying to try to ‘keep him’” (emphasis hers): “Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him,” said Brooke. “It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions … but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion.” Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." ...

Max Dunlap, the convicted killer of Arizona Republic investigative reporter Don Bolles, is seeking clemency in a hearing tomorrow. He would like to be released from his life sentence because he is 78 years old, suffering from incontinence from diabetes, and unable to walk easily due to a head injury received in prison. He was sentenced to life in prison for his role in paying two men (John Harvey Adamson and James Robison) to kill Bolles with a car bomb. Bolles died 11 days after the explosion, which took place on June 2, 1976 in the parking lot of the Clarendon Hotel in downtown Phoenix. Although Dunlap has never fingered him, it is widely believed that the hit was ordered and paid for by Arizona liquor wholesaler, land magnate, and organized crime figure Kemper Marley, who was a primary target of Bolles’ investigative reporting. (Adamson testified that Marley was behind the murder.) Not only did Marley never spend a day of his life in jail for his role in Bolles’ murder or any other crime, he has a building named after him at the University of Arizona–the Kemper Marley College of Agriculture building. He also has a building named after him at my high school alma mater, Brophy College Preparatory, called the Ethel and Kemper Marley Information Commons. He died in 1990 at the age of 83 at a beach home in La Jolla, CA. Kemper Marley employed former bootlegger Jim Hensley in one of his wholesale liquor businesses, United Liquor, which had a monopoly on liquor distribution in Arizona. In 1948, Hensley was convicted on seven counts of filing false liquor records, and was charged again in 1953, but was found not guilty that time thanks to a defense from attorney William Rehnquist, future chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. By 1955 Hensley had his own Budweiser distributorship. Hensley’s daughter Cindy inherited his fortune in 2000. She now shares it with her husband, Arizona Senator John McCain. The story of the Hensley fortune–and of how McCain is beholden to liquor interests–is told in a February 17, 2000 Phoenix New Times story, “Haunted by Spirits." The Arizona Project of Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc., is a package of stories, photos, and audio about Don Bolles, who was a member of the organization. UPDATE (July 22, 2009): Max Dunlap died in prison yesterday.

John Lynch points to an essay by Dennis Durst on “Evangelical Engagements with Eugenics, 1900-1940." Historical Comments Ktisophilos (2008-05-05): You can point to an essay; I can point to a book: Christine Rosen, Preaching Genetics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004. As one review stated:"Christine Rosen argues that religious leaders pursued eugenics precisely when they moved away from traditional religious tenets. The liberals and modernists—those who challenged their churches to embrace modernity—became the eugenics movement’s most enthusiastic supporters. Their participation played an important part in the success of the American eugenics movement." ...

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars links to and comments on an essay by Elizabeth Castelli on the history of Christian persecution, real and imagined. It’s interesting how many Christians argue that they are being persecuted, even as they are engaged in persecution themselves. Which reminds me again of Robby Berry’s classic “Life in Our Anti-Christian America." Hume's Ghost (2008-04-29): It reminds me of white supremacists complaining about being persecuted by blacks.One of the most pathetic things that has always struck me when listening to white supremacists speak is their sense of being persecuted by an oppressive minority and/or the forces of liberalism. It is difficult to make sense of the assertion that white males in the USA are disadvantaged unless you consider that supremacists are 1)scapegoating an Other they are prejudiced against for perceived societal failings and 2)that their definition of being persecuted amounts to not being allowed to persecute others.Another group that shares the same persecution complex is that of the religious right. More specifically, the dominionist or Christian nationalist elements of the religious right which similarly consider the failures of society to stem from an oppressive minority and also feels that not being allowed to enforce religious orthodoxy on others amounts to being persecuted. I suspect, however, that it is easier to see the bigotry underlying the persecution complex of the white supremacists than it is from the Christian supremacists, for the obvious reason that we've as a nation already rejected the ideology of white supremacism.For example, if one were to hear someone say the following, it would be fairly obvious that the person making the statement is a bigot:You can be any race you want and PROUD of it... except white. I watch tv and flip around and you've got networks for gays, for women, for Spanish speakers ... There's even BET a network just for blacks. Obviously, the owners of the network are black and are proud of it, but if the owners were white and tried to create a White Entertainment Television channel all Hell would break loose. Is that really that different than this comment agreeing with Ron Paul's view that Christmas is under siege?You can be ANY faith you want and PROUD of it... except Christian. I walk around one of the largest malls in California, during the holidays, festive colors everywhere, and what is directly in the center of the mall? A massive menorah. Obviously, the owners are Jewish and expressing their faith. Were the owners Christian and tried to do the same with a crucifix, Hell would've broken loose. ...

Matthew LaClair has an op-ed piece in today’s Los Angeles Times in which he talks about his evangelizing history teacher and the biased textbook used in his class. James Q. Wilson defends his textbook in a companion L.A. Times op-ed; the bulk of his defense is that the later edition of his book fixes the problems LaClair complains about. UPDATE (June 29, 2008): The July/August 2008 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer comments on this controversy. It seems that the later edition of the book is not yet available for schools and contains most, if not all, of the same misrepresentations and problems that LaClair complained about. Wilson, through his dishonest op-ed, has thrown away his credibility.

I agree with Orac at Respectful Insolence, contra bioethicist Arthur Caplan, that “Expelled”’s argument that Darwinism was a contributing cause of (the main cause of?) the Holocaust doesn’t constitute Holocaust denial. Historical Comments Eamon Knight (2008-04-24): Yeah. "Expelled" abuses the Holocaust in a despicable way, but to call that "Holocaust Denial" is an abuse of that term.

Robert F. Scott and Ernest Shackelton’s Antarctic campsite cabins at Cape Evans on Ross Island have been sitting there since 1913 and 1908, respectively, and are still intact and remarkably well preserved. The Fogonazos blog has the photos. (Via The Agitator.)

Tom Gilson closed the comments at his Thinking Christian blog post about P.Z. Myers calling in to the presenter line on an “Expelled” event conference bridge, preventing me from posting this comment: The claims of “Expelled” about individuals who have allegedly been persecuted are bogus–Gonzales was denied tenure because he wasn’t publishing research, Sternberg wasn’t persecuted at all, and Crocker simply didn’t have her contract renewed (and deservedly so–she was both a bad teacher and was making horrible creationist arguments, as has been documented with her PowerPoint slides online). On the other hand, Chris Comer really was removed from her position as Director of Science at the Texas Education Agency for simply sending out an email announcing that Barbara Forrest was giving a talk about “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” The ID advocates have no case of persecution that approaches that in severity.He also deleted a link that Norman Doering included in a comment, and banned Norman from his blog. Norman’s comment was this: ...

Pat Boone writes a column in which he imagines a conversation between himself and Thomas Jefferson, in which he completely misrepresents Jefferson’s views and quite a few facts. Ed Brayton supplies a critique. (You can find the link to Boone’s column there.) Historical Comments olvlzl (2008-03-05): Pat Boone writes fan fiction. Look at his history, his entire career was based on covers, stealing the work of superior black artists and white washing them. It's just more of the same for the zit meds huckster. Anthony McCarthy, who someday will stop reminding people that he used to be covered by olvlzl ...

Last night while looking for something else, I came across my copy of the September 1996 issue of Internet Underground, a short-lived glossy magazine promoting interesting things on the Internet. This issue featured an article I wrote for them about skepticism on the Internet, which I present for your enjoyment below. If I had to update it today, I’d need to add information about blogs (like Science Blogs), podcasts, and various online forums that have come into existence in the last eleven and a half years or so (including IIDB, its offshoots like Freethought Forum and Heathen Hangout, and skeptical forums like those of the James Randi Educational Foundation and Richard Dawkins), but everything I described below is still around, despite some name and domain changes (I’ve updated the links) and diminishing significance of Usenet. I’m not sure how I missed the Skeptics Dictionary or Snopes.com, which were both around at the time. You can see a PDF of the article in its original format here. 403 Forbidden: Skeptics Seek the Cold Hard Truth By Jim LippardThe Internet is a place where world views collide. Christianity meets atheist, conventional wisdom meets conspiracy theory, fringe belief meets orthodox science. While most Usenet newsgroups promote particular views and are populated mostly by their purveyors, the critics make up the majority on sci.skeptic. These critics who refer to themselves as “skeptics” have only a tenuous connection to the skepticism of the ancient Greeks, such as Pyrrho, who denied the possibility of knowledge of any kind. Instead, they tend to hold that while knowledge is quite possible, it must be grounded in scientific inquiry and rational investigation. Doubt is valued as a means to reliable knowledge rather than an end in itself. Skeptics often share an interest in the unusual, bizarre, and the seemingly impossible with the denizens of newsgroups such as alt.paranormal, alt.astrology, alt.alien.visitors, and alt.forteana.misc. There are plenty of fans of The X-Files to be found among skeptics. Where skeptics differ from “believers” is with regard to what are acceptable standards of evidence and what constitutes reasonable methods of investigation. A commonly touted skeptical aphorism is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and testimonials, feelings and handwaving are not considered extraordinary enough to carry the weight. ...