Religion

The Phoenix New Times, one of the country’s oldest free “alternative” weekly newspapers which has won numerous awards for its investigative reporting, has published the Mohammed cartoons that have stirred up so many protests. The cartoons appear in conjunction with an article titled “The Chosen One,” about local feminist Muslim Deedra Abboud, the director of the Arizona chapter of the Muslim American Society’s Freedom Foundation, a civil rights group headquartered in D.C., and former director of the Arizona chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). She left CAIR after growing tired of responding to Ann Coulter, whom she feels doesn’t deserve the attention. (I agree.) Abboud is a recent Muslim convert, a former Southern Baptist business major at the University of Arkansas. She converted after a period of arguing against Muslims, then reading the Koran. Apparently she found Islam more sensible than Christianity, as she questioned the Trinity and how the notion of Jesus dying for the sins of mankind could possibly make any sense. It’s too bad she jumped out of the frying pan into the fire, dropping one bogus religion only to adopt another. Regarding the cartoon controversy, she is quoted saying “I don’t think Americans have been given the full context of those cartoons,” Abboud tells Uncle Nasty, her voice becoming louder as she tries to speak over the one on the other end of the phone. “I’m not defending the violence. But the editor of the Danish paper wasn’t trying to make a point; he was clearly trying to offend people."Actually, the editor of the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, solicited the cartoons because Danish author Kare Bluitgen had written a children’s book about Mohammed and was unable to find an illustrator. The editor wanted to see if there was really such a chilling effect against artists that they were afraid to illustrate the book, and solicited artists’ renditions of Mohammed, without specifying that they take any particular position. The instruction was to “draw the Prophet as they saw him." That children’s book, The Koran and the Life of Mohammed, is now a best-seller in Denmark, by the way–though its illustrator remains anonymous. The controversy arose four months after the Danish paper published the cartoons, and was heightened by Muslim imams who circulated the cartoons along with other, more offensive cartoons which were not published by the paper. Abboud claims she has been following the controversy since the original publication, and is aware of these other cartoons not being published by the Danish paper. Zuhdi Jasser, another prominent local Muslim (a politically conservative doctor who previously worked as a doctor at the U.S. Capitol and often writes op-ed pieces in the Arizona Republic) is described in the New Times piece as not trusting Abboud or the organizations she represents. Jasser organized a “Muslims Against Terrorism” rally at which CAIR representatives were not permitted to speak, because of what Jasser describes as their promotion of victimhood within the Muslim-American community.

ASU’s Secular Devils are sponsoring two showings this weekend of Neil Abramson’s documentary, “Bob Smith, USA”: Bob Smith, USA is a hilarious documentary film that provides a view into American culture through the eyes of seven men named Bob Smith. One of the seven Bob Smiths will be attending the screenings and will discuss the film afterwards. The filmmakers traveled across the United States documenting the lives of the Bob Smiths. Despite their common names, the men vary greatly - from septic tank repairman to yoga instructor; from twenty eight to eighty-eight years old; from Evangelical Christian to Evangelical Atheist. As each man’s story unfolds in their own words, intimate portraits are drawn; creating a poetic, non-judgmental and highly entertaining document of American life.The showings are on Friday, March 3 at 6 p.m. and Saturday, March 4 at 2 p.m. in ASU’s Life Sciences building, room 191. (Map here.) The screenings are free and open to the public, and there will be a party for Bob Smith on Saturday night, details to be provided at both showings. Since the Secular Devils’ event page says that “Normal Bob Smith and his Unholy Army of Catholic School Girls invade downtown Tempe” following the Friday night screening, it’s a safe bet that the Bob Smith who will be appearing to discuss the film is Normal Bob Smith, who has some entertaining games and pamphlets on his website. UPDATE (March 28, 2007): Normal Bob Smith’s ASU visit happened to coincide with a Brother Jed preaching tour…

Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of the New Republic, has written an strongly negative review of Daniel Dennett’s new book, Breaking the Spell. Wieseltier maintains that religion is beyond the scope of scientific examination, and so takes issue with a key aspect of Dennett’s project. Wieseltier’s review has been critiqued by Brian Leiter (at Leiter Reports, here), P.Z. Myers (at Pharyngula, here), Taner Edis (at the Secular Outpost, here), and Michael Bains (at Silly Humans, here). I disagree with Bains about the term “scientism,” even though I am quite sympathetic to “naturalized epistemology” and giving science a major role in philosophical questions. There is clearly quite a lot of room for disagreement about the idea that science should be the primary mechanism of inquiry in all domains–most scientists regularly argue that science draws no moral or ethical conclusions, which means they leave that area to philosophy or (a mistake, in my opinion) religion. There is a key passage of Wieseltier’s review that I partly agree with: It will be plain that Dennett’s approach to religion is contrived to evade religion’s substance. He thinks that an inquiry into belief is made superfluous by an inquiry into the belief in belief. This is a very revealing mistake. You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason.In general, the origin of a belief is irrelevant to its truth or falsity. However, if Dennett’s mission is like Pascal Boyer’s, to give an account of why people believe in religion in general, rather than to prove that religion is false, then this is not an objection to what Dennett is doing. Further, if the explanation produced is the best explanation around, then that is good reason to believe that explanation (over an explanation that says religion is divinely inspired). The fact is that there are lots of different religious beliefs that people hold, and they contradict each other. We know from the outset that all religions cannot be true–in fact, the mere existence of the contradictions is sufficient to show that much of the content of most religions must be false. Why people continue to believe it is something that requires explanation. If the best such explanation is a naturalistic one, and that explanation fits the evidence for all religious belief better than supernatural explanations, then that is good reason to favor the naturalistic explanation over the supernatural explanations. Wieseltier seems to reject “inference to the best explanation” as a form of reason. UPDATE: Dennett has responded with a letter to the New York Times, and Wieseltier responds immediately following.

Now that Howard Stern has gone to Sirius Satellite Radio and been replaced in the Phoenix market by Adam Carolla, the station has changed its name from “The Zone” to “Free FM” (apparently intended to distinguish itself from pay satellite radio–the result is that it makes me think of Howard Stern every time I hear the name). I don’t have satellite radio in my car, so I occasionally listen to “Free FM,” though I believe I’ll discontinue that habit. Today on the way to lunch I heard an incredibly obnoxious and offensive commercial–the most blatant Christian evangelizing I have ever heard on a non-Christian radio station. The spot began by saying something like “Have you ever seen a dead animal in the road and wondered what it was thinking?” (No, as a matter of fact, I haven’t.) It went on to say that being in the “middle of the road” is not where God wants you to be, and you need to choose to be on one side or the other, that God has a plan for you, etc. Listeners were directed to Groundwire.net for more information. The spot I heard was apparently a 30-second variant of this spot called “The Squirrel.” It was offensive on multiple levels–the evangelizing, the horrible attempt at being cool, and the implication that animals get hit by cars out of their own stupidity (as opposed to ignorance) or inability to make decisions. Groundwire.net is an apparently new ministry of Sean Dunn of Champion Ministries, based in Castle Rock, CO. I don’t know anything about his theology, but his marketing is apparently supposed to be hip and edgy. His website has a bogus story about Albert Einstein which falsely portrays him as a theist (and suggests with its close, “IT IS TIME FOR THE CHRISTIANS TO BE HEARD,” that he was an advocate of Christianity). This story is a piece of nonsense that has been circulating the Internet–so Dunn’s not only incapable of discerning truth from falsehood, he’s presenting an email legend as though it’s his own material. Einstein, by the way, was an atheist or agnostic. UPDATE (May 12, 2008): A 1954 letter from Einstein to philosopher Eric Gutkind says: 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. … 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. ...

While we’re legislating what abortion facilities must tell patients about fetal pain, how about also requiring them to tell them that fetuses aborted before the “age of accountability” are guaranteed entry to heaven, while those which are born who grow up to reach such an age may end up spending eternity in hell (not to mention that such unwanted children may be more likely to become criminals)?

From your cousin Vito by way of jwz. Solan (2006-12-09): Some relevant linx:http://forum.newspaperindex.comhttp://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060204http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=21654http://www.muslimrefusenik.comhttp://www.iranian.com/Azizi/2006/February/Cartoons/index.htmlhttp://tinyurl.com/dl2dmhttp://suralikeit.comhttp://www.apostatesofislam.com/http://www.faithfreedom.org/http://www.secularislam.orghttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/http://islamreview.org/http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/islam.html Lippard (2006-12-09): Nice set of links--thanks, Solan!

The Danish cartoons of Mohammed have been reprinted in both Norway and France (and may be seen at the link at left). These cartoons have led to hostages being taken, death threats against the cartoonists, and the withdrawal of ambassadors to Denmark by Libya and Saudi Arabia. The reprinting has led to further Muslim outrage, apologies from the publishers, and some firings. Norway has given a state apology and made noises about restricting freedom of speech regarding anti-religious statements. France and Denmark have refused to make state apologies and have defended freedom of speech. The EU and UN have come out against freedom of speech, which are good reasons to oppose UN control of the Internet. By the way, here are some other cartoons about Mohammed and Islam (thanks to Einzige for the reference). UPDATE: A magazine in Lebanon, Shihan, has reprinted the cartoons, and in an article with the subheading “World’s Muslims, be logical,” Jihad Momani (a pseudonym?) asks, “Which one do you think damages Islam more? These cartoons or the scene of a suicide bomber who blows himself up outside a wedding ceremony in Amman, or the kidnappers that slaughters their victims before the cameras?” (Hat tip: Catallarchy, which I inexplicably failed to credit for their posting which first led me to this subject.) ...

The Discovery Institute has lately taken the position (argued by law student Michael Francisco) that Judge Jones was wrong to even consider ruling on the question of whether Intelligent Design is science. This position has been refuted in detail by Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, by John Pieret at Thoughts in a Haystack, and by Mike Dunford at The Questionable Authority. I have one critique of Dunford’s argument–I believe he is conflating two positions in order to create a contradiction on the part of the Discovery Institute when he points out that they argued that he should rule on the constitutionality of Intelligent Design, but should not have ruled on whether Intelligent Design is science. These are distinguishable issues and one could hold both simultaneously without contradiction (though not necessarily without error). Where the Discovery Institute contradicted the recent argument from Michael Francisco is that its expert witnesses and its amicus brief did argue for the scientific status of ID, as Brayton and Pieret point out.

Richard Carrier and Tom Wanchick have begun a debate over at the Internet Infidels site. Wanchick gives six arguments for Christian theism, one of which is the following “moral argument”: But what makes us obliged not to mistreat humans? After all, if naturalism is true, “a human being is a biological animal,"[16] as naturalist Julian Baggini admits. But unless humans have unique moral worth not had by beasts, it seems objective moral truth wouldn’t exist. It wouldn’t, for instance, be immoral to rape or kill, for animals do so to each other regularly with no moral significance.[17]When somebody says “it seems,” that may be an indication that there isn’t a solid argument. Here, for instance, Wanchick says that unless humans have unique moral worth distinct from all animals, there is no objective moral truth. The conclusion clearly doesn’t follow without additional premises. The more obvious conclusion from the premise that humans are not the unique holders of moral worth is that animals also have moral worth, that mistreating and abusing them is wrong, and perhaps that it is immoral to kill animals for food–this is the conclusion drawn by many vegetarians and vegans. Moral worth is a distinct concept from moral responsibility, so the fact that animals don’t respect each others’ moral worth doesn’t make them morally blameworthy. One can have moral worth and rights that deserve to be respected without having the capacity for moral reasoning or responsibility. Paul Draper pinpoints the problem such properties would cause for naturalism: “every human being has a special sort of inherent value that no animal has, and every human has an equal amount of this value. Such equality is possible despite the great differences among humans, because the value in question does not supervene on any natural properties. It is a nonnatural property that all (and only) humans possess."[18] The great naturalist philosopher J.L. Mackie, and myriad others, agree.Mackie’s “queerness” argument certainly does carry some weight as an argument against the objectivity of moral properties. This argument about equality, however, I find less convincing. I would argue that the inherent value that is “equal” is that we recognize a set of individual rights for those who meet certain minimal criteria of personhood (or sentience, consciousness, capacity for pain, or whatever are the minimal features which give rise to such rights), and it is those rights which are equal, and are so for social and economic reasons. In fact, the actual value any one person has (for themselves and others) does vary from person to person based on natural properties. Unfortunately, to defend naturalism, Draper and Mackie (like Carrier) have to absurdly deny that humans have such unique inherent worth.[19] Carrier even says some animals are more morally valuable than certain humans in virtue of their superior intellect, rationality, etc.[20] But such positions are obviously false. Humans have moral worth not found in animals, regardless of their comparative capabilities, and the failure to recognize this is simply a lack of moral insight.There is no argument here except bare assertion: “such positions are obviously false.” Those who advocate animal rights would question Wanchick’s capacity for moral insight, and since Wanchick supplies no evidence or reasons to support his position on this issue, there is no reason to prefer his position to theirs. But since these moral properties obviously do exist in human beings and aren’t natural, they must have a supernatural source. And since moral properties exist only in persons, the source of moral properties must be a supernatural person.Again, Wanchick has proceeded by bare assertion–“these moral properties obviously do exist in human beings and aren’t natural”–that’s two assertions, neither of which he has offered any support for. He then asserts that “moral properties exist only in persons,” again without argument. I have some ideas about how such an argument could be constructed, though most of them involve non-objective meta-ethics, which would not support Wanchick’s view. I don’t think that Wanchick actually believes that “moral properties exist only in persons”–surely he would agree that there are particular actions that are objectively wrong, such as an axe murder. But an axe murder is not within a person, it is an action in the natural world, and for it to be objectively wrong is for that action to have moral properties. If Wanchick agrees with this, it undermines this entire argument. If he disagrees with it, then he owes an explanation for how his view is not a form of subjectivism. The moral order, then, is evidence of a supernatural person who grounds moral truth. Additionally, at least some moral truths are necessary, and thus their foundation must be a necessary being grounding moral facts in all possible worlds.[21]Wanchick finishes up with more bare assertion, throwing in his “additionally” remarks without any justification or argument. I’m not sure if this is the worst of Wanchick’s six arguments, but it’s quite feeble.

People are clearly terrified of death. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (New International Version, Red Letter Edition) I guess I can sorta see why this verse is so commonly quoted by Christians who are evangelizing—it is, after all, always best to appeal to your mark’s fear and greed—but on close inspection it really proves as empty as any snow job you can name. “For God so loved the world…” A loving God? The unmitigated level of sheer evil in the world belies this claim, but one doesn’t even have to look past the almost endless Biblical examples of God’s despicable behavior to conclude that, whatever God’s feelings toward the world, “love” doesn’t seem to count among them. “…that he gave his one and only Son…” Oh, look! Here’s a Biblical example right here! God loved the world so much, but really, He couldn’t be bothered, so he sent his son to do his dirty work? Come on! You expect me to believe that the best God could do, given that he loved the world so much was to send his “son,” in human form, to Earth to wander around, give speeches, and arrogantly tell people, over and over again, “Believe that I’m the Son of God or you’re going to burn in Hell!”? Yeah, so he supposedly cured the sick and made some alcohol, but given the Biblical account, even that wasn’t too terribly convincing, as not even all the witnesses were swayed to believe his claims of divinity. God supposedly really really really loved the world, so couldn’t he have done better than torturing and killing his own kid to “save” the world? I mean, if he wants us to be all worshipful and stuff… If he loves us so much, why not just “save” us all in the first place, and dispense with all the bother (and just who is it that God is “saving” us from, by the way, if not Him)? And what about that “sacrificing” thing, anyway? So Jesus “died” for us, to cleanse “us” of “our” original sins, and this was supposed to be God’s big “sacrifice” that makes Him all magnanimous and whatnot? What convolution of mind allows anyone to actually believe such an absurdity? Jesus was one third of the triune God, right? So in what sense did he really die? In what sense was this a “sacrifice” at all? The only answer I can come up with is, “It wasn’t,” so the entire edifice of Christian doctrine evaporates. It’s amazing what straws people will clutch at attempting to avoid facing that final curtain.