I think this is an article that everyone can disagree with whether or not you love Obama, love democracy, or love anti-constitutional Libertarianism (joke! joke!)
Just read this article and then comment on all the blatantly incorrect things that Ted Rall says.
In my last post I gave a horrifying end of the world scenario and noted that it was the same as what atheists believe is going to happen to all life during the heat death of the universe. This had been prompted by this quote from Christopher Hitchens:
…to the old theistic question, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ we can… counterpose the findings of Professor Lawrence Krauss and others, about the forseeable heat death of the universe…. So, the question can and must be rephrased: ‘Why will our brief ‘something’ so soon be replaced with nothing?’ It’s only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design. (Christopher Hitchens as quoted by Skeptic Michael Shemer in Scientific American, Nov 2010)
Skeptic Michael Shemer (who quoted Hitchens) then goes on to say, with nary a hint of irony.
The dialectical usefulness of clear logic, coupled to elegant prose (layered on top of the usual dollop of data), cannot be overstated and should be considered by scientists as another instrument of persuasion in the battle for ideas. (Michael Shemer in Scientific American, Nov 2010)
Why would anyone in their right mind fight for this idea given it’s logical conclusions? (In my last post.)
They are literally arguing that Theists are being irrational because they believe in “linear progression” (apparently eternal progress) rather than the (in their view) more rational belief that life is pointless and will end in very bad ways and that nothing we do matters in the long run.
How could they make such an argument?
But we know why, don’t we? Because the human brain isn’t capable of thinking in terms of millions or billions of years! This future is no more real to them than it is to a Theist.
But wait! Doesn’t that mean Shemer’s call for greater rationality was based on a failure of rationality?
I recently completed listening to the Dalai Lama’s book How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life. This is a pretty good little introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. A few interesting quotes jumped out at me that I wanted to share and, perhaps, reference in future posts.
Tibetan Buddhism is Merit Based
I’ve always argued that the Evangelical claim that Mormonism is merit based is a misrepresentation. Buddhism really is a merit based religion according to the following quotes: Continue reading
Another reprint from Mormon Matters. I never did finish this series on history and narrative fallacy.
In my past posts I discussed the impossibility of knowing what really happened in history as well as the problem that, believe or disbelieve, we all have much riding on how Mormon history is interpreted. Either way, it’s your personal religion at stake.
The problem with me saying that is that, well, we all know it’s true — for other people. But due to the narrative fallacy, we think we’re the exception not the rule.
To prove that, at times, we’re all the rule, I am forced to start with a fake example because it is the only way to not derail the conversation immediately. Continue reading
In my previous post, I discussed my introduction to the science behind the rationality problems all humans suffer from. I later found another book, this one called Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend, that introduced me to the biology behind our emotional – and sometimes irrational — thinking.
This time, I’m going to mostly just go with quotes from the book, as they say it all:
The Limbic System’s Role in “Emotional Thinking”
The role of emotion in shaping “rational” thinking is tremendously underrated. Strong evidence shows that human behavior is the product of both the rational deliberation that takes place in the front areas of the cerebral cortex and the “emote control” — emotional reasoning – that originates in the limbic system. …As Princeton sociologist Douglass Massey writes: ‘Emotionality clearly preceded rationality in evolutionary sequence, and as rationality developed it did not replace emotionality as a basis for human interaction. Rather, rational abilities were gradually added to preexisting and simultaneously developing emotional capacities….’
Human behavior…is not under the sole control of either affect or deliberation but results from the interaction of these two qualitatively different processes… Emote control is fast but is largely limited to operating according to evolved patterns. Deliberation is far more flexible… but is comparatively slow and laborious. (p. 187) Continue reading