No Comments Allowed

One thing really bothers me about newspaper sites. And that is how the choose to enable comments for some stories but not others. Looking at some recent stories on the Sydney Morning Herald website there does seem to be some very strong religious bias here.

Contentions stories about Islam almost always have comments enabled. But ever time Cardinal George Pell goes and says something stupid, this feature is conspicuous by its absence. Take this resent article for example Faithless are coarse uncaring and without purpose

What Amazes me the most is the utter ignorance behind the Cardinal on every single point, which has been rgurgatated again and again, even though all of them have been addressed and debunked by Atheists.

THE lives of people without faith have ''nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss''

Um sorry, who is confecting myths to cover up the abyss? Is it rally skeptics who insist on evidence before they will elevate a hypothesis to the status of theory. Or is it those who say that the one truth is contained in a book written thousands of years ago. A book, which is true, ulike all the other books written thousands of years ago.

''A minority of people, usually people without religion, are frightened by the future,''

As far as I can see most of the impending doom, moral degeneration and end of civilization senarios are perpetuated by theists, not atheists. This is inverably followed by a call to renew faith, which will somehow solve all the worlds problems. Yes there are real problems, that require real action, and real solutions. But Faith will not solve them.

''It's almost as though they've … nothing but fear to distract themselves from the fact that without God the universe has no objective purpose or meaning.

No Cardinal I don't accept that your blind acceptance of a particular creation myth makes you objective. Heck even your scriptures don't actually bother to explain why your God created the universe, only that He did, and Liked what he created. Which as far as I can see makes it an experiment or some kind of art project.

An evolutionary perspective might instead say that the purpose of life is to propagate itself, beyond that we, as self aware beings, make our own purpose. What could be grander then realing that their that the question of Life the universe and everything will not be answer by searching, but by invention?

Cardinal Pell said education was not enough to create a civilised society, that faith was necessary too. He cited the example of 20th century Germany

How Ironic. That he would site a movement steeped in religious language, Lead by a baptized Catholic, who if anything saw himself as a new Messiah. A regime that rose at a time when antisemitism was the normal position of the catholic church, who prayed that the Treacherous Jews would see the light. This Particular prayer was removed at Vatican II, but has now been reinstated (admittedly the new version drops the word Treacherous).

''Australian society will become increasingly coarse and uncaring … if Christian principles are excluded from public discussion.

Yet another absurdity to claim that Christianity has some kind of exlusive claim on emotions that we are all capable of merely for the fact that we are humans, evolved from primates that lived in social groups.

The most glorious statements of the rights of Man we have did not come from any religion. But from secularists who knew what it was like to live under boot heels of religion. I am of course referring to the US deceleration of independence. It was secular society that first said we are all equal, and none will be placed in power by right of birth. It was secular society that said that slavery was wrong. Now that secular society is here all of these things seem obvious to us. SO my question to the good cardinal would by, why didn't your God reveal these ideas thousands of years ago, when your church had control of the Roman Empire, and in essence control of Europe?

But no the truth is that the Church has fought tooth and nail against every single step of the march to the modern world. Denouncing every idea to the last possible moment. Favoring despotism over democracy and censorship over freedom of expression at every single turn. How Ironic that now that they have lost their power to oppress they want to claim that they are all that s stands between civil society and chaos.

Despite the repeated claims of conservative theists the world few of New Atheists is a positive one, not a negative one. New Atheists do not lie and claim to have all the answers, but rather admit that they do not, and that much work needs to be done. And go on to invite every indidual to join them on the quest to find better answers.

Thank God For Evolution - book review

In case you didn't know its a book by Michael Dowd. I have to say that I admire the goal of this book. The Eco aware and inclusive theology that Dowd is trying to build is an admirable thing. However I fear that is has some rather serious problems as its based on a combination of bad science and misappropriated theology.

Firstly the Science. Dowd is a fan of evolution. However he tries to make the leap from Darwinian evolution, an established biological process, to evolution as the underlying principle of the universe. And here we have made the error that Creationists love to see. Because quite frankly Evolution as a paradigm of everything is not a scientific theory, and can be easily blown out of the water. Doing so does nothing to biological evolution,despite what Creationists would like you to believe.

In any case Dowd's evolution seems to be a synonym for emergence and the argument that the Ultimate Reality which is God and the universe simultaneously (Dowd is a pantheist), is evolving. This seems flawed as by definition Ultimate reality is a closed system, and being closed is subject to the second law of thermodynamics. For me that really is the end of that one. Note this same, creationist argument is wrong when applied to Biological evolution as the Earths biosphere is not a closed system, it receives energy from the sun, and emits waste energy back into space constantly.

Dowd then spends a lot of time on the ideas of Evolutionary Psychology, which is a relatively young approach and does have its detractors. But simply we have the old nature vs nurture debate and the fact that we are not certain how our behavior is shaped by our genes and experiences.

Despite this, his view of self growth is quite a compelling one. The basic idea is to look at places where you had the wrong reaction (in hind sight) and ask why, then answer along the lines of, I had this reaction because of my evolutionary legacy, and the fact that this same pattern of behavior allowed my distant ancestors to survive. Its an interesting way of accepting the past without assigning blame to yourself or others, and in some cases might by just what you need to do.

The danger here for Dowd is that he has pinned his argument on contentious science. And if Psychology decides that the evolutionary approach is not useful, then Dowd's entire argument will become irrelevant. All in all I really feel this is pseudoscience pretending to be the real thing. And in this regard is not any better then Scientific Creationism.

This is followed by a number of practices, including generic meditation and self honesty aimed at self improvement. They seem like good solid things to do, and I have to say I lack the courage to attempt some of them. I haven't however read enough self help literature to know if there is anything new here or not.

Finally we come to Dowd's theology. And here I do not think he is being intellectually honest. The problem being that Dowd desperately wants to cling to the conviction that his pantheistic, miracle free, uncommitted about any afterlife theology is still a Christian Theology. So we have several chapters on how selected stories from the bible can be interpreted as metaphors for the evolutionary emergence of human being and human morality. Granted Maybe my personal reactions against the Christian myths is causing me to be overly bias, but I just cant see this working.

The problem for Dowd I believe is that every Christian authority I can think of has, at some stage or other, denounced pantheism. Most recently they did so in response to the move Avatar. Yes it had pretty pictures but there was no plot people, let alone a theological message worth mentioning. So he is trying to take Christianity that it has already looked at and rejected.

And in the end I would have to agree that when you take the Christian message, then take away all literalism. When you argue that the virgin birth and resurrection where just put in because 1st century people would not take the message seriously with out it, what you have left is a great idea but its not what it was.

Dowd's theology is not bad. It is in my opinion quite good but it needs its own myths and stories. Indeed his website tries to provide several. And if your going to do this shackling yourself to a two thousand year old book is really more trouble then its worth.

So to sum up. I like the theology Dowd is trying to build. His practices for personal development are great. However the over reliance on evolution as a model of everything makes it scientifically questionable. And the attempt to dress it up in Christian language seems redundant, and possibly counter productive.

Obama Snubs the Dalai Lama

I read this morning that President Obama has avoided meeting the Dalai Lama. I can't help thinking that he has done the correct thing here. Like many Westerns I have for a long time tacitly supported the notion that China invaded and is a hostile occupying power in Tibet.

However this may have been very much a case of I don't like Communism as a form of government and therefore the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The thing to ask is what the office of the Dalai Lama actually represented. The answer is that the office represents a brutal feudal theocracy.

As this article details up until the communist takeover Tibet was a feudal society which still practiced serfdom and mutilation as criminal punishment. Now the Chinese propaganda machine clearly has an agenda in perpetuating this view of history. I have no doubt that the do everything they can to exaggerate it. However I'm also certain that this position does have a factual base and should not be swept under the rug for convince. After all the west has an established history in supporting Dictatorships as a means of slowing the spread of communism.

Now here lies an interesting conundrum. If you accept the official of Tibetan Buddhism then the current Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of his predecessors, which would make him directly responsible for all of the actions of the regime through the ages. If this is true then no matter how benign and peaceful an individual he appears to be he does not deserve any support form modern democracies.

I just found this related story. Personally The position of the independce spokesperson sounds rather stupid to me. It was only the ruling class in Tibet, which was not elected, that lost its ability to determine Tibet's future. I doubt that without an extrnal push the regime would have changed significantly.