"Synapostasy" is a portmanteau of "synapse" and "apostasy." Aaron is currently working as a lab technician at the Broad Institute of Harvard/MIT; Ben is earning his Master's degree in the anthropology of religion at the Harvard Divinity School. (The opinions on this blog are those of their respective authors, and do not represent the official views or opinions of the institutions with which they are affiliated.)
The Disco 'Tute just posted a press release issued by Biola University, a private evangelical Christian institution in Los Angeles, concerning Ben Stein. Honestly, I haven't a clue what it's about. I read the first sentence, and could read no further:
Ben Stein, known from his lead role in the film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and his Comedy Central show Win Ben Stein’s Money, believes in liberty and truth.
Now, granted, it's been a little while since I've seen Ferris Bueller, but I'm pretty sure Matthew Broderick had the lead role in the movie. And Jeffrey Jones, as principal Ed Rooney, was the lead antagonist. I'd hesitate to call Stein's role as "Economics Teacher" a supporting one, let alone a lead.
I knew cdesign proponentsists tend to be disconnected from reality, but Jesus Christ...
I think it may have been a mistake to subscribe to Dinesh D'Souza's blog (it's in the "christofascists" folder in my Google Reader). This can't be good for my heart blood pressure.
The blog is basically one big advertisement/masturbation session over his new book, What's So Great About Christianity. (Don't be misled by the title. From the looks of it, the book is much less about why Christianity is supposedly good and much more about why atheism is supposedly bad.) I was going to give D'Souza the benefit of the doubt and go buy a copy of his book (mostly so I could make angry notes in the margins), but there's no way I'm shelling out thirty dollars for that shitbrick. There's probably nothing in there I haven't heard before anyway... just the same tired old apologetics and smears of atheism, cobbled together by someone I hate who, to my embarrassment, happens to share my alma mater.
But that's okay, because I don't need to give any money to the Hindenburg (Blake, that one made my day!) to give his writing a thrashing... there's plenty of fodder on his blog, much of it excerpted from the book.
And sometimes, it's just too easy. Here's a quote from a recent post:
Yes, I know that some of today's leading atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have advanced degrees. By itself this proves nothing, since we all know people who are educated beyond their intelligence.
I'm pretty sure that has applied to D'Souza since his freshman fall at Dartmouth.
I seems to be a favorite theme with D'Lusional that atheists--especially contemporary atheists--are all stupid, which means poor li'l Dinesh doesn't have a worthy opponent. He has another post up today to that extent, wherein he writes:
He bought into the atheist canard that somehow theism is inconsistent with reason and science. Of course Boyle and Keppler [sic] and Copernicus and Newton didn't think so, but somehow biology major Sam Harris and literary essayist Christopher Hitchens think they know something that these great scientists didn't.
Here's the thing, Dinesh: Hitchens and Harris DO know something those scientists didn't. They know a hell of a lot more than those scientists did. So do I. And so, perhaps, do you.
The most modern of those four, Sir Isaac Newton, died in 1727. That means the four scientists D'Souza lists knew about neither general relativity nor quantum mechanics. They didn't know about atomic theory, and they didn't have the periodic table of elements. They didn't know about the expansion of the universe, cosmic microwave background radiation, cosmological redshift, the Big Bang. They didn't know about Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. Newton and maybe Boyle might have known about Hooke's and von Leeuwenhoek's observations of cells, but they knew nothing of cell theory as credited to Schwann, Schleiden, and Virchow. They didn't know about the role of DNA in the cell, much less its structure. They didn't know about evolution. They didn't know anything about the science of psychology. They didn't know jack.
Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, and Newton are recognized as having been great minds NOT because they were prophets with magical Knowledge of All. We remember them because they were great puzzlers who drew strong conclusions from what evidence they had. Nowadays, we have a vastly expanded reservoir of data from which to draw new conclusions. I'm not going to say Newton would be an atheist if he were alive today, because some people prefer to blind themselves to certain evidences (especially when it comes to religion) and for all I know Newton might have done the same. Newton was kind of a dick. But the data available does not support the truth of Christianity as a conclusion.
So fuck you, Dinesh.
Here now, to help me blow off a little more steam, are Tony Montana and friends:
I just stumbled across an ad for the Personal Promise Bible, a sort of vanity publication where you give them your name and they print a bible that makes specific references to you. For example, if your name is Betty Lou:
Even when Betty Lou was dead in her trespasses, God made her alive together with Christ (by grace Betty Lou has been saved), and raised Betty Lou up with Him and made Betty Lou to sit with Him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 2:5-6)
Now imagine a whole bible like that. I'm not sure what's creepier, a personalized bible or the fact that there's apparently a demand out there for personalized bibles.
Not that I'd want to give these freaks any money, but I have to say, the opportunity for mischief is sacrilicious. I wonder if they screen for pranksters. Just imagine...
Toilet, believing in Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved Toilet, that He gave His one and only Son, that Toilet, believing in Him, should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:15-16)
Blah. Work threw off my bloggin' groove. Here are the rest of the asshats from last Thursday, plus a couple extra that have cropped up in the meantime.
First, Jena 6 prosecutor DA Reed Walters, who during a press conference said that the only reason the peaceful protests of the previous week didn't turn violent was because of the "direct intervention of Jesus." The demonization of the out-group is sickening. It's an age-old tactic... If your enemy does something good, take the credit; if you do something bad, blame it on your enemy.
Next, Senator Sam Brownback, who (according to *shudder* One News Now) has introduced legislation that would force women considering abortion to get an ultrasound. Brownback is trying to sell it as a way of providing information to the woman so she can make an informed decision... but there's no information value to this. We aren't talking about ultrasound to determine fetus health, or any medical condition. Furthermore, the bill doesn't require that the woman look at the ultrasound--only that one be taken. And since there's nothing stopping women now from getting ultrasounds taken if they so choose, that means there's no practical difference in "information available" to the woman. It's purely about scare tactics, a legal way of accumulating blackmail photos. "If you get that abortion, we'll show yer fam'ly the pitchure and tell 'em you killed a baaaay-bee!"
Next in line: John McCain says America is a Christian nation and doesn't want a president who believes in "the Islam." So, so wrong. I'll say this, though: a lot of the people ragging on McCain are invoking the "no religious test" clause in the Constitution. It's a great clause and all, but it's not really relevant. McCain isn't saying a non-Christian couldn't theoretically be allowed to take office; he's just of the opinion that such a candidate wouldn't be good for the job. His position of only voting for Christians is his perogative; it isn't un-Constitutional, it's just fucked up. I can't believe I almost liked McCain once upon a time... in the past year or two, he has done nothing but pander to the fundie nutjobs of the Religious Right.
Our final asshats (for now), WaPo's On Faith series asked about Christopher Hitchens last week:
Best-selling atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote: 'Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.' Why is he right or wrong?
The question itelf was fairly tame. But it opened the floodgates for accusations of "fundamentalist atheism" (or "secular fundamentalism," or other variations). The question du jour for On Faith has since changed (to discuss John McCain, in fact), but you can see an example of the former here. Apparently it bears repeating: passion is not the same thing as fundamentalism or militancy. Just... no.
Time and again, abstinence-only sex education has been shown to reduce neither unwanted pregnancy nor spread of STDs. But Jane Jimenez at One News Now wouldn't have you believe any of that:
Opponents of abstinence education have spent the past ten years denouncing these important health education programs. Their attacks are relentless and ignore the fact that abstinence education works.
Funny, she doesn't give any evidence that it works. Lucky for her, commenter Barbara Ferraro came through with critical evidence:
As a member of CWA, I too have been working to promote the fact, that Abstinence Education is working. I have talked to at least one person who has actually used abstinence in her personal life along with her fiance before they married; she also knows of many others that have done the same.
Ah. Anecdotal evidence. Of "at least one person." I don't know about you, but I'm instantly convinced.
It can't be said often enough: Yes, it's important to inform teens that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy/STDs, but that's not enough. They're going to engage in sex anyway, and we need to make sure they're prepared to deal with it intelligently and maturely. Abstinence-only sex education is ignorance-only sex education. And ignorance will screw us over.
I never cease to be amazed by this degree of fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-I-can't-hear-you denial of reality. How can you reason with people who have built up such a strong resistance to reason?
Okay, I'll admit it, this post is little more than an excuse to post some pictures I've taken recently. But... bees! All up-close-like!
Aw, it's shy.
Okay, okay, I'll try to make this slightly relevant. Ever hear that old wives' tale that the laws of aerodynamics make bumblebee flight impossible? Ever hear someone use that as an argument for God's existence? As if bumblebees, out of all the animals in the world, were exempt by the grace of God from the laws of physics. Yes, humble Bombus gets to be buoyed about by the hand of the Almighty himself, while every other flying insect has to get itself off the ground the old-fashioned way. So silly.
Silly fundies.
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." --Douglas Adams
(And while we're posting pictures, why should Bombus get all the fun? Let's throw some Apis mellifera in there, and a touch of Agapostemon for good measure:)
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing... having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists."
The blagosphere is in a tizzy over this post in a blog supporting Senator Sam Brownback for President. It says heliocentrism is atheist doctrine, even worse than "Darwinism." Not everyone is convinced that this guy is serious. I'll let you decide for yourself. Personally, I'm not seeing a whole lot of reason to think it's a joke. He cites Answers in Genesis at length, for one thing... crazy as it is to insist the universe pivots upon the Earth based on some old fairy tales, it's a real fundamentalist belief, so we can't dismiss it as a joke based solely on the absurdity of it. Furthermore, the rest of the blog seems too much in earnest. If this is a joke, it has one hell of a setup.
So I say it's real. The ideas are, anyway, even if this particular collection of them turn out to be a farce. But if it IS a joke, then it's an elegant example of Poe's Law in action. (Well, either that, or an example of a really poorly executed joke.)
Jerry Falwellpassed away today at the age of 73. According to his physicians, Falwell had a history of heart problems. You'll find no argument from me.
From CNN.com (via Pharyngula), a Netherlands creationist has built a one-fifth scale model of Noah's Ark. Presumably (this is my guess anyway), God warned him of a coming flood and told him to save one-fifth of the animals on Earth.
What I get a kick out of most is this quote form the article:
Under sunny skies Saturday, Huibers said he wasn't worried about another biblical flood, since according to Genesis, the rainbow is the sign of God's promise never to flood the world again. But he does worry that recent events such as the flooding of New Orleans could be seen as a portent of the end of time.
I wish these people would make up their minds as to whether God is going to send floods or not. Because, you know, floods can't just happen naturally.
Also somewhat amusing (and also aggravating) is this line:
A contractor by trade, Huibers built the ark of cedar and pine -- biblical scholars debate exactly what the wood used by Noah would have been.
The answer is, the ark would have been built out of whatever wood happened to grow in the area where the story was told. It's like asking what kind of metal Thor's hammer is made of. The technical details of a myth are incidental to how, where, and when it's being told. And since myths like these are told and retold for generations before being written down, there's no one right answer.
