Monthly Archives: November 2006

Something’s happening here

Posted on by

Interesting. Both Time magazine and Newsweek have cover stories this week featuring articles by or about prominent atheists.

Time offered a debate between atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins. I’m biased of course, but I believe Dawkins came out the winner. It’s hard to believe that the best defense that someone such as Collins can summon are statements such as “I don’t think that it is God’s purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us.”

Anyway, Newsweek’s cover story featured an article by Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith). He argues effectively about the dangers of injecting religion into politics.

Regardless of what either of them say, the critical point for me is that they are saying it at all — and getting it published in mainstream media such as these national magazines. We may be at the start of a major shift in our national attitude towards atheism. Even if we don’t see a significant shift in people’s beliefs, I am hopeful for at least a shift in tolerance and acceptance towards those that profess atheism. One day, we might even live in a country where saying you are an atheist does not automatically preclude you from being president (making atheists one of the few remaining minorities that are included in this category!). At least I can hope so.

I have already commented on my personal views regarding atheism in previous postings here. However, I recently posted some comments on Amazon.com as a reader review of Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. In re-reading my posting, I find it to be an excellent summary of my position. So I am reposting it here. On Amazon, the review provoked an informative exchange between myself and another reviewer. If you are interested, you can read the exchange here.

Here’s the original posting:

“One of the key arguments Dawkins makes in his book is (and I am paraphrasing here) that the assertion that God is an explanation for the complexity of our universe does not really explain much…because it does not explain the origin of the complexity that is God.

Several of the negative reviews posted here attack this as flawed logic, on various grounds. The essence of the protest is that (again paraphrasing) that something may exist that is “outside” of our universe or “outside” of our concept of time. And it could be more complex than we are, even if we can’t understand how this is so.

I am still left to wonder how this helps much. I mean it is all well and good to answer the question: “How did the universe get created?” by saying it was created by something more complex than ourselves. But, to me, that still leaves the question of how the creator of our universe was created. Figuring out how to get out of this potentially endless chain is a bit like trying to understand infinity itself. Still, I am more than willing to concede that my wonderment is not tantamount to evidence one way or the other.

I believe Dawkins is on stronger grounds when he points out that, just because you can’t disprove something, does not mean that it is just as likely to be true as any alternative. That is, just because one can’t disprove that there are invisible aliens walking secretly among us, it does not mean that it is equally likely that there are aliens as there are not. In science, in such cases, the onus of responsibility is on the person making the positive assertion. That is, before the scientific community would accept the idea of aliens on our planet as reasonable, there would need to be solid evidence supporting it. Simply saying that you cannot disprove the existence of aliens is not sufficient evidence. Dawkins wants this same standard to be applied to the existence of God. Again, however, I understand how other people may argue that God is somehow outside of science and thus immune from this standard.

However, even if one were to concede that there are flaws in Dawkins’ logic, or at least viable alternative viewpoints, this would in no way support the notion that a “creator of the universe” is anything like what many religious people regard as God. Just because the origin of the universe remains a mystery is no reason to assume that there must therefore be a God that provides our moral compass, that takes an interest in our actions, that has created an afterlife (heaven, hell or whatever), that may answer our prayers or punish us for our sins. And so on. There is similarly no reason to believe that the Bible or the Koran or any other religious document is anything other than a collection of stories created by humans, with no divine intervention. There isn’t even any reason to believe that there is an anthropomorphic God that set the mechanisms of our universe in motion and then left it to run on its own thereafter. At best, all that can be said is that the creative force of our universe is something we can’t yet explain.

Too often, it seems to me, this distinction is muddied. That is, pointing out potential flaws in arguments for atheism is not even close to the same thing as providing evidence for a traditional view of God.”

Party time

Posted on by

Democrats take control of the House…and likely the Senate as well.

Donald Rumsfeld resigns.

Rick Santurum is gone from the Senate.

The majority of governers are now Democrats.

In my home state of California, MacNerny beat 7-time incumbent Pombo for a House seat from a district specifically gerrymandered to keep Pombo in office.

I could go on. But you get the picture.

For progressives, this is the most glorious election in recent memory.

The only concern is whether or not Democrats can truly take advantage of this moment instead of messing it up. Their track record has not been great. I worry they could be dealt a straight flush in poker and lose by folding.

But now is not a time for carping. Whatever happens, today’s news is better than any conceivable alternative.

So pardon me while I take a moment to celebrate! Whoopeeeeee!

Saving democracy in the midterm elections

Posted on by

It’s the day before the midterm elections and all polls point to a significant gain by Democrats. Control of the House is almost conceded as a certainty. Control of the Senate remains a real possibility.

Still, some doubt lingers. Some of this doubt is due to the fact that the Democrats have seemed on the verge of victory twice before, in 2000 and 2004, only to see it evaporate at the last minute. Of course, many contend that the Democratic presidential candidates did not really lose these elections. Rather, the election was “stolen” by miscounts or outright fraud in key states such as Florida (in 2000) and Ohio (in 2004). WIth the rise of electronic voting machines, that are easily tampered and leave no paper trail, many are worried whether another election may get stolen tomorrow.

Even if the election is 100% legitimate, however, there are still problems for the Democrats to overcome. In particular, there is the gerrymandering of district lines as wel as the various forms of voter intimidation, as nicely summarized in an editorial and a column in today’s New York Times.

This led me to wonder: “What’s going on here? Is all of this vote manipulation really a larger and more serious problem than ever before?”

My answer is: “Yes.” Sure, many of this problems have existed for decades. Indeed, the origin of the term “gerrymander” dates back to the year 1812, as described here. But two things have changed in recent years:

• Technology. Years ago, politicians may have wanted to create the perfect shaped district for ensuring the re-election of the incumbent, but it was hard to figure out exactly what the district should look like. Now, with computers to generate hypothetical results and easily try out different scenarios, it’s as easy as pressing a few keys. Similarly, with email and the Internet, it is much easier to target very large numbers of voters to receive your message than it was years ago.

• Republicans. In the past, there was a line that (at least most) politicians would not cross when deciding how far they could go in carrying out these tactics. To some extent, I imagine the line was determined by a sense of ethics. At least I would like to think so. More realistically, it was also affected by the specter of revenge. That is, whatever you did to your opponent today, your opponent would do to you tomorrow, if and when the tables got turned, as they inevitably would be.

Today’s Republicans seem unfazed by either of these constraints. And this is something new. First, there seems no line they are unwilling to cross. There is no campaign tactic or Congressional action or whatever, that is deemed so extreme as to be avoided. If they believe they can get away with it (and these days, they often can), they do it. Second, the fear of revenge appears tempered by a belief that, if they are really as good at their tactics as they expect to be, the opportunity for retribution will never come — because they will never lose power again.

If this latter expectation were really to come to pass, it would mean the end of democracy as we know it. Without the possibility of meaningful opposition from another party, without the power of voters to remove those currently in office, without Congress acting as a branch of government independent of the executive, we have a dictatorship in fact, even if not in name.

More than any other reason, this is why I hope that the Democrats get back control of Congress tomorrow. If they do, I hope that the Democrats forgo their opportunity at retribution. It’s time to try to break this cycle of each side screwing the other whenever they get the chance. Instead, I hope the Democrats show the country there is a better way to conduct the nation’s business. It may happen. Or it may not. But one thing is certain: It won’t happen if the Republicans win.