Porn Causes divorce, Religion causes confusion between causation and correlation

Two posts in one day! I just read an article in HuffPo that contained this lovely nugget of misinformation:

"According to research by Patrick F. Fagan, senior fellow and director of the conservative Center for Research on Marriage and Religion, pornography is a "quiet family killer." No only does watching porn contribute to infidelity, but a spouse's porn obsession was a factor in 56 percent of divorces, Fagan says."

Logic has always been the religionist's Achilles heal, and that's perfectly represented here. This "senior fellow" does not hesitate to assume causation where there is obviously only correlation. Might the explanation be that lack of sexual attraction to their spouse is the unmentioned cause of all these? After all, if someone no longer is sexually attracted to their spouse then wouldn't we expect them to A. watch more porn B. cheat, and C. get divorced? Assuming that A. causes B. and C. is just as logically unsound as assuming that cheating causes people to watch porn or that getting divorced causes people to cheat! How about this statistic: most divorced people believe in god. I guess belief in god causes divorce ... and "porn obsession."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-larson/porn-and-divorce_b_861987.html

Investigating officers tells Pat Tillman's parents, "Shut up atheists," ... proverbially speaking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP4h4WwX0NI

In this video Lt. Col Kauzlarich, the officer investigating fallen soldier and former football player Pat Tillman's death, says that Tillman's parents would never be satisfied with the investigation "because they weren't Christian." Of course it's now known that they're dissatisfaction was justified, considering the cover-up that surrounded his death.

If he had said the reverse, that they would never be satisfied because they were Christian, or even Muslim, would the officer still be a battalion commander in Iraq? It also serves as an unpleasant reminder of why religion and the military are so closely knit, and in fact, may give some insight into the very origin of religion as a means of protecting and spreading a culture. If the soldier believes that they're fighting and risking their life for God (and not merely as a pawn in the oil-game) and that even if they were to die, they would go to heaven, one would expect them to: 1. be more willing to fight, 2. be less afraid of death, 3. be less concerned with the people they're killing (after all, god hates them), 4. be less concerned with the death of their comrades (they're going to heaven), 5. in the event they do die it won't hurt their recruiting efforts because they've gone to heaven, and they shouldn't have to worry about anyone butting their nose into any of the deaths because to do so would be on par with muddling in god's affairs. Unless of course you're dealing with an atheist which, as we've seen, just screws everything up.

This actually raises an interesting question: can a major military exist without integrating a religious ideology? The obvious counters to this theory are Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Pol Pot, but the ideologies of these regimes were atheistic only from a judeo-christian perspective. Objectively they were as mythological as any religion, they merely replaced god with the head of the state. There is little difference between them and the government of North Korea, except that Kim Jong Il and his father are explicitly referred to as gods.

Can nonreligious people peacefully coexist with religious people?

This is a response to an e-mail I recently received from a reader:

Hi, my name is A******. I live in ********. I am 25 and have been non-religious for close to twelve years. I have always questioned religion on my own, but never had the courage to voice my opinion like I should. I believe that one should always see the other side and respect others views in order to move towards peace in the world. I am told this is very naive. It may be, but I continue to believe that we can unite, religious and non-religious. My question is, is it really that naive? I would want to start a peace movement, but I would need support. I don't know where to go or what to do. What do you think? I am sure many will turn away at the idea that we can all accept and be accepted, but I do not want to be led astray from this view. I thank you and appreciate your viewing and feedback.

Do I think it's naive to think that the religious and non-religious can unite peacefully? Naive? No. Irrationally optimistic? Yes. Of course there's nothing intrinsic in "non-religiousness" that precludes peaceful coexistence, but that's only half of the equation. Most religious ideologies do intrinsically and explicitly preclude peaceful coexistence. Therefore, if:

non-religious = open to peaceful coexistence

and

religious = not open to peaceful coexistence

Then the question can be rephrased as, "Can those open to peaceful coexistence, peacefully coexist with those not open to peaceful coexistence." Obviously the answer to this is "no." Now someone will inevitably respond by saying, "Well not all religious people are unwilling to peacefully coexist with other ideologies." If a religious person is truly willing to peacefully coexist with others, then obviously it would be a possibility. The problem, however, is that determining whether or not a religious group or person is open to peaceful coexistence is difficult, if not impossible to determine, depending of course on their beliefs.

I'd first like to point out that this line of questioning is generally just an attempt at obfuscation. The arguer is generally just trying to insert ambiguity into the argument in an attempt to confuse the arguer and the audience into a state of ambivalence. The fact remains that the religious texts of most religions explicitly state that nonbelievers should at least be punished, and usually killed in horrible and gruesome ways. Therefore, if people claim to adhere to the dictates of a book, the burden must shift to them to prove that they don't really believe certain parts of it. This is especially true of religious texts, where it is insufficient to simply say, "I believe everything in there that makes sense," since there is no good evidence for any of it. A further impediment is that most of these texts either implicitly or explicitly command their believers to lie in furtherance of their doctrines. One only need google, "Does Islam permit lying" to find countless references to text and religious figures extolling the virtues of lying to non-Muslims. Mohammed himself supposedly said, "Lying is wrong, *except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for **war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people." (Ahmad, 6.459) A more entertaining example of this belief can be found here. In that video a Muslim preacher tells a delightful anecdote about lying to a Jew and telling him that Muslims can drink alcohol, after the Jew is converted, he is told that if he drinks alcohol he will be punished, and if he leaves Islam he will be killed. A wonderful story told with an ear-to-ear smile. It's also highly telling of the preachers opinion of Jews that he believes that one's belief hinges solely on whether or not he's allowed to consume alcohol. I wonder how he'd feel I told an anecdote about a person who was Muslim just so he could have multiple wives. But the point is: if X says it's OK to lie, and B says he/she believes in X, then immediately everything B says becomes suspect, especially their claim that they're telling the truth.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm bashing Islam, it's just the easiest target owing to its explicit endorsement of deceit. But it's actually irrational to expect a religious person not to do whatever necessary to spread their beliefs. I am not saying that the religious belief itself can be rational, but once that belief exists, and it includes things like eternal damnation, it becomes totally rational to do whatever you can to save as many souls as possible. In the grand scheme of things lying is a minor transgression compared to allowing people to burn in hell. This is why most religions have not shied away from far more extreme measures like inquisitions or suicide bombings.

With respect to starting a peace movement, no you don't need to start one, because many more people are already involved in one right now. I don't know of a single non-peaceful atheistic movement. The most prominent nonreligious figures (people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayan Hirsi Ali and many more) have never advocated or even been associated with a single act of violence, at least that I know of. The most important part of any movement is associating with like minded people, and thanks to the internet that is a far easier task than it once was. http://www.the-brights.net/ is a good place to start. Also look at meetup.com for non-religious meetups that you might like to attend. If a group doesn't already exist in your area, start one yourself, I highly doubt you're alone, and you'll never know till you try. Online forums like http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ are also a good place to interact with like-minded people, and you might be able to find people who live in your area as well.

Lastly, on the issue of voicing your opinion, absolutely you should, though obviously you should do it in a way that is not obnoxious or inconsiderate, or in a way that endangers yourself. It might not make you the most popular person, but should you really care about the opinions of people who find your reasonable beliefs offensive? The people who aren't offended are not only good people, but they might just share your beliefs. The importance of understanding that you're not alone in your beliefs should not be understated. Just look at the recent turmoil in the Middle East. A lot of fuss has been made about the influence of the internet on these uprisings, but the internet itself was only a tool. Through open communication people were able to understand that they were not alone, that others shared their beliefs. Had they not known that, they probably would not have had the courage to stage a revolution. In this video, around 8:30, Steven Pinker discusses how any mass effort will only occur once "everyone knows that everyone else knows, that everyone knows," something. Otherwise dissenters can be picked off one at a time, which would, in addition, create a disincentive for anyone to dissent in the first place.

Are there questions science can't answer, and if so, what then?

I just watched a clip on BigThink featuring Dr. Francis Collins former director of the National Institutes of Health, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, and in 2009 Pope Benedict XVI appointee to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The following is a quote from it:

"But faith in its proper perspective is really asking a different set of questions, and that's why I don't think there needs to be a conflict here. The kinds of questions that faith can help address are more in the philosophical realm: "Why are we all here? Why is there something instead of nothing? Is there a god? Isn't it clear that those aren't scientific questions and that science doesn't have much to say about them? But you either have to say, "Well those are inappropriate questions and we can't discuss them." or you have to say, "We need something besides science to pursue some of the things that humans are curious about, for me that makes perfect sense." - link to the video

Collins' argument has won me over. There are some questions that science can't answer, and no, it's not an option to reply honestly with, "I don't know." The only possible response is to either make up an answer or adopt someone else's answer, preferably a person who has been talking to God. Which is perfect for me because I'm a big fan of owning child sex-slaves. You see, I used to think something like that was wrong, but science has nothing to say on this issue. You can't test whether it's "wrong" to own a child sex-slave. There is no "wrong" in science, only true or false, and I can tell you one thing is true for SURE: I love me some sweet, sweet non-consensual intercourse with infants. Since science has nothing to say on it, I guess I can believe whatever I want. I've heard that the Bible is OK with it (Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man") but people like Collins always refuse to say which God to believe in, so really whether the bible says it or not is largely irrelevant. It seems any opinion on a question for which we don't currently have the answer is an acceptable opinion, so I can just assume that the God I follow, is OK with infant sex-slaves regardless.

I've heard some say that whether something is true or not isn't necessarily the end of the story. That believing a thing has very real, very measurable consequences. That maybe you shouldn't believe something for which there is no evidence when the consequences of that belief are sufficiently terrible. That history is rife with such examples: that Jews are a scourge, the blacks are inferior, that a sufficient number of virgins await them in heaven to justify blowing themselves up. That science can render no verdict on these beliefs either. But that is obviously absurd. These beliefs are obviously monstrous! How dare my beliefs be compared to such horrible and obviously false beliefs. I'm insulted and offended at the comparison and expect an apology! The only thing my beliefs have in common with those is that there is no scientific evidence for them. If you understood what I do, that female children have no souls, that they are just automatons programmed only to feign feelings and emotions, then you would see that what I do is nothing like those other terrible beliefs. Prove me wrong.

Obviously this is tongue-and-cheek, but I wanted to point out a simple fact that people who support this view ignore that's kind of a big deal. The conversation doesn't end when an atheist says, "Science doesn't know." The conversation merely shifts to, "Since we don't know, what should we allow?" Since we don't know whether homosexuals are going to hell or not, how about we don't punish them their whole lives for something we do know they have no control over? I'd be happy to allow everyone to believe whatever unverified nonsense they desire if their belief or non-belief had no impact whatsoever on other people, but that's not how the world works, and implying it is is patently delude. If you don't believe in evolution obviously you wouldn't want your kids to be taught it in school. If you think homosexuality is a mental disorder than obviously you wouldn't want your child to "contract" it, and if they did you would be an irresponsible parent for not doing all that you could to get them the treatment they needed. If you believe that every resource on Earth, such as oil or cattle (which produce more greenhouse gases than cars), was put on this Earth for our consumption, and that God wouldn't put something here for us to use that could hurt us, then obviously you would oppose any kind of restrictions on the production of greenhouse gases

Quote of the day

"The point here is that you want your mind open enough to accept radical new ideas, but not so open that your brains fall out." - Michael Shermer

Said on RDF TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

Mother Theresa or Hitler?

Mother Teresa: I am now as before a Catholic and will always be ... My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.

Hitler: Where is my faith? even deep down right in there is nothing. I have no faith. I dare not utter the words and thoughts that crowd in my heart ... I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.

Can you believe that each person said the above? Does it sound sincere? Then why should you believe it any less when I tell you that the speakers should actually be reversed? In fact, it was Mother Teresa who revealed in her letters (released after her death) that she had long persistent doubts about the existence of God virtually from the beginning of her famous career. She said, "The smile, is a mask or a cloak that covers everything. I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God, a tender personal love. If you were there you would have said, 'What hypocrisy'."

How then are religious people still permitted to use the example of Hitler to condemn Atheism, and hold up Mother Teresa as an example of the benefits of religiosity? I hope the above example helps reveal that at the very least, Hitler was no less Christian than Mother Teresa, once we peel away the propaganda.

Why Ayn Rand would love Elon Musk

A recent wired article on the electric automaker, Tesla, ended with, "And there was Musk, looking like a kid on Christmas morning, outside 'the factory we wanted but never thought we could get.'” This fusion of wide-eyed innocence and industrial genius is something Rand portrayed often in her books, but is so rarely seen in the real world. Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, John Galt, Howard Roark, etc. were all people who stood in awe of their own creations. People who thought the world of themselves, but who never really believed their own hype until they saw it take form before them. These were people for whom the biggest pile of cash in the world would have meant nothing if it wasn't contained within one of their creations, and if it was between the pile and their creation, the choice was obvious. In fact, there was no choice at all, though they did expect to get paid for their creations. To Rand's characters, the act of creation was all there is, and the bolder the better. The largely invisible hero in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, created a revolutionary motor that was powered by ambient static electricity. It was the ultimate green engine that needed no fuel whatsoever.

Which brings us Musk. The man who, many forget, did the impossible by bringing us (well anyone with well over $100k in the bank) the ultimate green machine. Now it seems like every day a new company is coming out with an electric car. But none have yet to deliver, and Tesla has been delivering for years. Not only that, but he delivered a car that many thought was a fantasy. If you came out today and said you could build an all electric car that could do 0-60 in under 4 seconds (faster than many Ferrari's, Lamborghini's and Porsches) that could go over 200 miles on a charge (more than twice the range of Nissan's upcoming Leaf and around 5 times the all-electric of the Chevy Vol) you would be mocked as vaporware; someone who was more likely trying cheat investors out of their money than actually deliver a product. And that's today.

But bring it to market he did, not only that, but in the meantime he had started a company that built spaceships, a task no prior private individual had even considered. These accomplishments certainly didn't come easy or cheap. Investors weren't always willing to fund his vision, so he just put basically all of his, not inconsiderable, money into them. If this doesn't seem too impressive to you, can you imagine Steve Jobs personally funding the R&D of the iPad, or former GM CEO Bob Lutz putting the money in to save GM instead of the government?

Ayn Rand would love Musk's wholehearted devotion to his vision and his disdain for frivolous luxuries (he doesn't even own a house, certainly not multiple dwellings in exotic locations), and his office in SpaceX (his space exploration company) is a cubicle along side everyone else's. Which is why I love him, and you should too. I'm not saying he's the greatest man ever, but in a world filled with people who either want to be famous for nothing or rich for nothing, seeing someone who just wants to make amazing things is not just refreshing, it's priceless.

Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/10/teslas-got-the-factory-now-it-needs-to-fill-it/#ixzz13jfhvrBP