Namu Amida Butsu

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190801-tomorrows-gods-what-is-the-future-of-religion?ocid=ww.social.link.facebook

I remember criticizing the Star Trek universe for having no room for organized religion, except of course in alien cultures. Starships had counselors, but they never had any chaplains. I do see that organized religion will probably continue to fade, perhaps even inevitably so, and I believe we will become more and more like Europe which looks very much like the Star Trek universe. (With the exception of France, which is actively anti-religious, yet still has a small and devout Catholic population.)

I do think the article is correct in that we will find more and more people who are not members of an organized hierarchical religion with important doctrine dominating members’ belief system. Instead, they will select the beliefs they find satisfying and comforting as if at a buffet. I think not only of Europe but also Japan, where Buddhism lives not merely side-by-side but thoroughly integrated with Shintoism. It is not at all unusual in Japan for a couple to live a very secular life following their Shinto marriage and which ends in their Buddhist funeral. During those lives, it will not be surprising if within their home an important part of family ritual and even daily life is a Buddhist shrine, sometimes next to a Shinto shrine.

There are, naturally, still some severe doctrinal differences in branches of Buddhism; yet these are of importance more to the priests than to the people.

For example, in Pure Land Buddhism the declaration  ”Namu Amida Butsu” is of great importance. Essentially it means , “I take refuge in Buddha.)”. For some it is a mantra similar to the use of the rosary by Catholics, for other branches, if it is said sincerely and one experiences the transcendence which accompanies it, it guarantees one’s salvation. Others say it only does so if you are still in that state of grace upon death (very similar to the orthodox Catholics dedication to the purity of the soul immediately after sincere confession) and so the declaration and accompanying commitment to spirituality must be made many times in your life as you achieve the moment of purity and then slip back.

These differences are of incredible importance to the priests, but generally are not highly regarded among the population in general. That is to say an individual believes what he wishes to believe and that is considered perfectly fine, at least in Japan.

Perhaps the biggest difference, then, would be lack of the desperate need to pressure others to believe exactly as you believe and the need to feel threatened if anyone dares believe something else.  While part of me sees the decline of traditional religious structure as something of a cultural loss (mostly due to nostalgia), on the whole I believe that the accompanying growth of tolerance would be a most beneficial thing for humanity in general.

So much more to say on the subject, but this is a good start.. I look forward to your insights.

I really forgot to say, and I must add now, that Japanese family will absolutely adore Christmas. The Japanese love Christmas more than any other nation on earth. Of course, almost no Japanese are Christian since the great martyrdom at Nagasaki in 1692, but who cares? Christmas is so much fun! Merry Chrisamasu!

The Church Of The Numinous

Saturday

What fine visit I had with my friend Bobby. As always, he brightened my day and made me feel so much better. We lunched at one of our favorite spots, the Ono Hawaiian Barbecue.

On the way back home, Bobby and I were talking. He pointed out that it seemed as if something, a sense of community, a sense of belonging to something greater, was difficult to find in the skeptical world. I noted that the Church of Satan presents itself as a church for atheists but it’s really more about being an in-your-face answer to Christian fanatics. That’s not a bad reason to have a church, but it’s not what I would consider the best reason.

I said atheists should have a church, and he and I should found one. We talked about it for a while, partly joking and partly serious. I observed that Einstein loved the numinous, though he certainly didn’t believe in any kind of God to whom you could pray or who was an actual person with a personality. Wouldn’t it be possible, I asked, for humanists and skeptics to identify and revere such concepts as morality, a sense of purpose, the numinous, and our mutual humanity?

Bobby noted that Nietzsche was identifying our loss of God as a symptom he was describing, not as a desirable thing. In fact, the philosopher felt that this loss had seriously harmed humanity. I noted that was something that Christian extremists simply do not understand about Nietzsche. They think he wanted to kill God when he was actually mourning His loss. Bobby went on to note that we humans endow things with sacredness. I liked that, and asked him why we couldn’t endow things with sacredness without God necessarily being part of the process? Isn’t that what humanism is about? Can’t we control that as we control so much of our spiritual, emotional, and personal lives?

In the end we decided we just had to found a genuine, actual church for atheists. It would be up to members of the church to endow it and its principles (no room for infallibility or doctrine, sorry) with sacredness. Then the question became, what should we name it? I proposed that he and I should both become the Prophets of Probability, since the universe is probablistic from the humanist-athheist view point. He liked that idea and then added that we should be the Non-prophets of Probability. I think Bobby and I make a great team.

In all seriousness, I think atheists and humanists should do exactly this. We humans can and should endow certain principles with sacredness. Traditionally that term is utilized for that which is created by or dedicated to a god or gods, but the humanist in me doesn’t see why we humans can’t take Bobby’s advice and endow sacredness by ourselves.

During the conversation I did say to Bobby that such a church should be able to include theists like me; one who was always a born skeptic and a dyed in the wool believer, one who dislikes the rigidity of doctrine and the tendency toward fanaticism and mindless faith inherent in organized religion, yet who finds himself divided between rationality and mysticism

That’s a church I could believe in completely. Among the principles which I would endow with sacredness are tolerance, the unity of all mankind, the sense of the numinous as we gaze upon the world and universe about us, and a deep dedication to seeking rational solutions to the problems of the world.

Everyone would welcome to join If they adhere to these principles, but because of the sacredness of those principles; the intolerant, the irrational, the angry, and the arrogant would be excluded, not because we think of ourselves as superior, but because we see our principles as genuinely sacred and they do not.

Also: Our church symbol could be the lazy eight or symbol for infinity, but made with a Mobius strip.
Without the Mobius element, the symbol has been used since ancient times. It symbolizes infinity, of course. It also means something everlasting, the worm Ouroboros with its head biting its own tail, enduring love, and more. The Internet adds that, >Arabic artists used it to represent eternity, wholeness, and completion.<
The United States Department of Veterans Affairs authorizes the symbol as one which is acceptable on veterans headstones, but does not identify it as associated with any particular religion, merely stating that it represents “infinity”.

A few suggestions as to the “structure“ of the church:

The Framework

Doctrine: None
Hierarchy: None
Sacred Items: Our Principles
Diety: Optional
Authority: The Self
Philosophy: Skeptical Rationalism
Inspiration: The Numinous
Beliefs: Personal and subjective

The Sacred Principles

* Tolerance
* The unity of all mankind
* The sense of the numinous as we contemplate the world and universe about us
* A deep dedication to seeking rational solutions to the problems of the world
* Non evangelicalism
* We are part of the universe, seeking to know itself
* Sentient beings should not be made or allowed to suffer
* Each sapient being’s experience is personal and subjective within the framework of the objective universe

Another principle of the church (though unofficial and perhaps even a personal addendum of my own) which I suggest we should endow with sacredness is one of my top five most favorite quotes of all time. The original quote referred to what happens when humans attempt to understand the nature of God, but one could easily extend it to what happens when one tries to understand this vast universe of which we are a part. “A dog might as well contemplate the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.” —Charles Darwin

Finally, I decree (with approximate infallibility) that I shall be the non-Pope in the West and Bobby the non-Patriarch of the Eastern Church.
Sounds good to me. Is that O.K., Your All non-Holiness?
(Remember, I only get to be His non-Holiness. You also get the All.)

More coming?

The Source Of The Nile

On Facebook, I posted a pic indicating the need to check facts before reposting.  Sorry, I can't figure out how to paste it here.

A friend reponded with the insightful query, why should my sources be trusted and his not?  I responded:

My friend, and you are my friend, you have a good heart and I need you to keep me informed of other opinions.  But when I repost, I first check multiple sources, including nonpartisan.  Don't get upset, but your sources are all partisan, right wing party organs which have been caught in factual errors again and again.  From my point of view, you are trusting the right wing equivalent of Pravda and the Daily Worker.  When a left wing source says something, I check it with nonpartisan sources. I don't trust liberals any more than those of conservatives, I only repost their claims when they are confirmed.

You might be surprised to learn that my liberal friends sometimes are upset by my stances.  Sometimes I am opposed to left wing democratic positions.  I am apalled, for example at the silliness of many university leaders in pandering to the childish urge to make the world look pretty.  We have a right to free speech, not to prettiness. I oppose hate crime legislation.  While some feminists are reasonable, some are hate mongering bigots. I have dear friends who are tolerant atheists, but I can't stand arrogant extremist New Atheists.  I could go on, but honestly, I am neither consistently liberal or conservative.  I try to use facts to make a fair judgement in each case.  

I admit to being an old conservative, insofar as I am a conservative.  I did, and still do, like Ike.  The new conservatives strike me as similar to the New Atheists.  Smug, self satisfied, and uninterested in facts.

In short, the liberal organizations who generate the posts I repost are not my source. I fact check them because I don't trust them to be accurate and only repost what is confirmed, the rest I ignore.

Let me end by noting that lately I have seen a number of individuals posting demands that either the reader agree with them or defriend them.  This appalls me.  You and I disagree and we discuss those disagreements.  You keep me thinking and make me defend my positions with thoughtfulness and care.  This is a good thing.  Keep the dialogue flowing.  Keep talking.  Shutting someone up by shutting them out just makes you isolated and rigid.  Above all, let us remain friends.

Burka Busters!

A new internet post which has been very popular and become a rather powerful meme in short order states that Illinois law has been changed to accommodate the demands of extreme Muslim fundamentalists. From now on, according to the meme, Muslims are we allowed to wear full burkas with only the eyes showing on their photo IDs, including drivers' licenses.

As you can expect, a great deal of outrage has been generated by this. In fairness to those individuals who posted it, it should be noted that this post is widely sourced from a variety of conservative "news" sites.

A couple minutes of Google checking uncovered the facts. I responded to the post:

  This would be truly awful if it were true.  Thankfully, it isn't.

1.  The complaint was filed by Sikhs, not by Muslims.

2.  Long-standing Illinois law, not Sharia law, was the basis of the complaint.

3.  One of the foundations of the Sikh religion is tolerance. 

Radical fundamentalist extremism had nothing to do with this issue.

4.  The face must be exposed on any photo ID under Illinois law. A Muslim woman is permitted to wear a head covering for her photograph, but not a face covering.

Please check things out before posting. Don't be gullible. The more awful, terrible and shocking something sounds, the less likely it is to be true.  And I can't help but wonder before I end this brief post, who's the fundamentalist extremist bigot?

Speaker for the Gays

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9909314/ender-game-controversial-author-very-personal-history



Comments on a friend's post regarding the movie Ender's Game and the author of the original book.

Excellent article. And I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with Jordan. I suspect that Jordan has not read Speaker for the Dead, which completes the picture. You need to remember that in terms of Enders Game, we believed an alien species has decided to exterminate us! In our terror we strike out against them, not to commit genocide, but to save ourselves. This is made clear in Speaker for the Dead, which also adds an historical perspective to the events of Ender's Game.

Let me add that unlike Hitler's fantasy that the Jews had to be exterminated because they were a threat to humanity, the "Buggers" had brutally attacked us without provocation.

Final note: I like Ender's Game, but Speaker for the Dead is a vastly superior book.

Idle Thoughts -- Multiple Identities

Another slice off the top of my head.

Can one have both a national and an ethnic identity?  Strange question in my opinion.  From my point of view, this is like asking can a person own a bicycle and a car? They're both modes of transportation, but they are not mutually exclusive.  

Let's make up an imaginary case. Well, partly imaginary. This individual is based on a dear friend who died some years ago. Was he American? You better believe it! I wonder if I need say any more than, he carried a badge. If there's any group that has a strong tendency to be firmly and devotedly patriotic, it's men in uniform, and this is even more true of those who carry a badge.

After all, these individuals are entrusted with the police power of the state.  They are charged with representing the government in a one-to-one contact with a sometimes hostile public. If they don't regard themselves as thoroughly American, it's a surprise. In a very real and practical sense they are the government for most Americans.

Congress and the president are far away. We don't end up in court very often. And we only deal taxman once year, unless we've been naughty or careless.  But unless we are stuck in the house all day, we are very likely to at least see one policeman drive by on a daily basis, which usually causes us to quickly buckle our seatbelt or get off the cell phone. Maybe both.

So there was no doubt that he was a loyal and patriotic American, which did not stop him from being a wild-hearted Irishman.  Irish poetry or Irish whiskey, pretty much Irish anything, was part of his definition of himself. If you wore a kiss me I'm Irish button on St. Patrick's Day, he laughed and said, "Nah, you're not Irish.  But I'll allow it, just for today."

He made it clear that he was very tolerant but that there was no race that could equal the Irish race. If you tried to call him on racial profiling he would only say, "Of course we're a separate race!  Isn't that obvious?"

I don't think I have ever known anyone more American, and I'm absolutely sure I've never known anyone more Irish. Conflict? I never saw any.

The Big Bang Theory and Me

Quite some time ago, my friend Bobby started a discussion among those in his circle about whether they did or did not like the Big Bang Theory.  It was late when I noticed the long post, so I didn't read it at that moment, instead I went to bed thinking, "Great! Now I can discuss why I prefer ekpirosis. Also, why  think that the Big Bang Theory does not really require that the universe began as an infinitesimally small, infinitely dense, infinitely hot geometric point. And, finally, why that is not possible, anyway."

The next day I discovered that the post referred to my favorite television program.  That's okay. Also an interesting discussion.

Even more interesting, most of the responses from Bobby's notoriously geeky friends stated that they did not like the program.  It took me until now to finally get this post written, so I'm sorry it's so late, but if you know me, then it doesn't surprise you that it took me so long.

Why I Like Big Bang Theory

Short answer, 'cause it's funny.  Longer answer...I mean, much longer answer follows:

I understand the program can be interpreted as simply laughing at intelligence and what might be referred to as geekiness.  But when looked upon as a whole, I think a rather different picture emerges.  First, while the primary characters of the show are variations upon the absent-minded professor meme, supposedly normal Penny comes in for her share of humor at her expense. Second, the program goes out of its way to present a number of more normal, yet equally highly educated individuals as well.  They are only visitors to the show, it is true. However, it is clear that scientists can be motorcycle riding, girl attracting, socially confident members of society.  Third, it is important to remember that the history of building an atmosphere of acceptance demonstrates that the first stage is often one of self-deprecating humor.

Do you remember the movie La Cage aux Folles, or the play by the same name, or the inferior American movie version, The Bird Cage? It is true that all three presented homosexuals in very stereotyped imagery, but it is also true that they presented homosexuals as real, sympathetic human beings, a theme frequently utilized in those early attempts at attaining acceptance.

Perhaps even more germane is the case of Stepin Fetchit, aka, Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry.  Stepin Fetchit was his screen name. Lincoln Perry was his real world name.  His film persona was the absolute image of American prejudice against Blacks. He was lazy, he was stupid, he shuffled here and there, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum.  It's hard to imagine anyone alive today, even someone in my age group, not wincing at the mere thought of his performances.  It is hardly surprising to discover that those who are aware of his career still find much to criticize.

But he also has been praised very highly. Why? Strange as it sounds, his performance made him acceptable to White America at a level which was previously unknown.  For all the flaws of his performances, he was the first Black actor to become a millionaire. He was also the first Black actor to actually receive screen credit. The latter may not sound like much to those of us who are not involved in acting, but I am told that it is of the utmost importance to those who are.

At a certain level, self-deprecating humor may be the only way to make yourself acceptable the world around you.  Most importantly, it is a tool to humanize you to those who wish to deny you membership in the human race.  Even amidst their laughter, the realization steadily and slowly seeps in, these people are people. Down at the most basic level, they really are just like the rest of us. They share the the same fears, the same doubts, the same failures...well, I guess they're just another one of us.

One of the main reasons that geeks and intellectuals face such sharp and cruel bullying at school is because the people doing the bullying are so utterly terrified of them, and feel so inferior to them. After all, you may be stronger than they are but they're smarter than you are.  If they put forth the effort, they could build up their muscles. However, it is generally assumed that a very high level of intelligence is something you're born with, not something you can acquire.  It doesn't take a genius to realize that a better brain can beat brute strength.  No, this isn't the usual, "All of you are only saying that because..." self defense.  This is actually the primary basis of much antisocial activity.  If you talk to the people who hate "those  brainiacs", it doesn't take long to realize the sense of inferiority and even fear that leads people to strike back the only way they can, through violence, both verbal and physical.

If we find a way to laugh at all of our foibles, both those of the brainiacs and those of the normals, we begin to see ourselves as different elements of the same family. That's progress!

So, while I identify with the brainiacs of the program, I feel a lot of empathy for Penny and the other normals.  How much do I identify with the gang?  Answer below:

OK, so Sheldon is extremely obsessive-compulsive. I wouldn't describe myself as extremely obsessive-compulsive, on the other hand, when I'm watching TV, it's not unusual for me to count the number of panes in the window or the number of spokes on the starburst effect from a bright light source, especially if it's the sun. I've even been known to rewind the DVR and hit pause so I can get an accurate count. It's not that I have to. I just like to.

Then there are the factors that point to Sheldon never quite getting the social milieu in which he is immersed. I wouldn't say that I never know what's going on around me. However, I would say that I often have a limited awareness of what's going on around me. I have had a most engaging and interesting talk with a pretty girl on more than one occasion only to have the person with me later say, "Wow, she was sure flirting with you, wasn't she?"

Which I would then brilliantly reply, "She was?  Wish I'd noticed!"

The reaction of the person accompanying me varies. If they know me well, they smile and shake their heads.  If they don't know me, they usually don't believe I had missed the obvious.

Does Sheldon drop into lecture mode at odd times? For example, at Christmas does he suddenly begin to lecturing everyone on the source of our customs?  I recall watching a program with my not yet prodigal daughter and son-in-law.  A character made a reference to Valentine's Day, causing the other character to mention the story of the martyr, St. Valentine, who died in about A.D. 300.  His response was the joke, so I assume he must have been a character rather like Sheldon, but of course, I added, "Yes.  His name was actually Valentinus…" And then I went on to tell the story of how he was arrested, fell in love with the jailers' blind daughter and… well, you get the idea.  We all laughed about it, but that's because we all knew me pretty well.

So, if you want an interesting lecture on the origins of Valentine's Day, including how the Victorians contributed; or would like to know the origins of Christmas customs; or are curious about how Halloween practices originated… I think you get the point. In such case, either I'm your man or Sheldon's your man. You get to choose.

Actually, all the characters on Big Bang theory are rather weird, each in their own way. Consider Penny, who is the epitome of normality within the program's structure.  But she obsesses about shoes and was stunned to discover that she had been a bully when in high school...etc.

Not convinced yet?  You must consider that there was a time when my fiancé was sleeping at about 12:45, since she had to get up get up for work the next morning.  I, being already medically retired, was up reading a popularization of physics,  when I woke her up and exclaimed in delight, "I finally understand Hawking radiation!". She was by that time sufficiently accustomed to me to simply sit up, look at me through droopy eyes and say, "That's really nice, Dear," and go back to sleep.  The next day, she wasn't even angry.  Although I did have to explain Hawking radiation.

So, although I'm no Sheldon, there is a certain resemblance in some areas.  In other words, when I laugh at Sheldon, Leonard, or any of the other cast characters, I'm laughing at myself.  

In summation:  If you call me, just call me Sheldon.

PS,  I just learned, through watching the Daily Show, that Kate Middleton is NOT an American celebrity.  Who'd have guessed it?  Not me.  And don't ask me to name any sports stars currently playing, cause I can't...and that's pretty funny!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

I'll do my running commentary routine, as usual. It makes me feel that I am part of a real time discussion. I'm sitting at Onna's computer watching the program, occasionally pausing it and dictating comments onto my iPad.

Krauss seems not to have a good grip on biology. His assertion, gently opposed by Dawkins, that life came from nothing is odd. He contends that life was not, then suddenly was, whereas it is far more likely that there was a continuum in which the self replicating molecules to which Dawkins refers became more and more life like. Consider the virus. It is not clearly alive, or is it? Ask different biologists and they will give differing answers as to how alive this unit is. Some will go so far as to insist that it is clearly a non living semi self replicating construction of chemicals, a structure, not a living thing. Others will state that is definitely alive, by their definition!

Dawkins is witty, as usual. I enjoyed his reference to the first gene as a John the Baptist molecule, that is, the precursor to DNA, probably an RNA variant. Recent studies has shown that RNA could have performed the basic genetic functions, though not as well as DNA.

God of the gaps is indeed careless thinking. I don't think it is
lazy, since evolution deniers will go to exhausting lengths to defend it.

Is life rare? Dawkins suggests it probably is not, In the light of all the planets we are now finding, including many around dwarf red stars and even binary systems (thought to have been impossible--Tatooine lives!) shows myriad "beachheads" exist. However, some astrobiologists wonder if life may be common, but that complex, multicellular life may be rare. Bacteria may be much more common than Tharks and Klingons So many factors limit the viability of complex forms...our own planet was occupied by only bacteria and, presumably, the viruses that preyed on them, for most of its history.

The rare earth hypothesis is interesting in this regard.

Why are there still monkeys? Answer: they fill the monkey niche. Darwin's wedges are the answer. I'll look that up and add it as a footnote. The best answer to this came from a female biologist who replies that this query is like asking, "Since I'm here, why do I still have cousins?"

Why isn't evolution happening now? Answer: bird flu, HIV, hemorrhagic fever, seaweed tolerance in some Japanese, etc.

I find it interesting that both men referred to Einstein's question, "Did God have a choice in forming the universe?" And then so quickly hurried to point out that Einstein was wrong to use the word God, that they practically fell over each other in their hasty urge to correct that terrible error on the part of the great scientist.

I haven't studied this particular issue in any depth. However, it seems to me that Einstein knew exactly what he was saying. And yes, he did mean God. Of course, he did not mean a personal god to whom one could pray, but God as first cause. The prime mover. The god of Aristotle.

I am reminded of the famous tale in which Neil's Bohr, irritated at Einstein's continual declarations that, "God does not play dice with the universe!"; snapped back, "Albert, will you PLEASE stop telling God what to do!"

In the same spirit, I say to Dr. Krauss and Dr. Dawkins, Will you boys PLEASE stop telling Einstein what to believe!

The multiverse. There's a concept that I love! It provides for permanence and a sense of enduring reality. Admittedly, things change within that multiverse, and it is less stable than Hoyle's steady-state universe, nevertheless it provides a sense of security.

The anthropic principle. In the multiverse, it makes sense. However, it does sound disturbingly like the arguments made by creationists. That is to say, things must have been designed. The multiverse answers that reintroducing evolution and therefore natural selection into the formation and survival of bubble universes.

I can not agree with Krauss' typicaIty argument. I do not see why we must be typical in order for theanthropic principle to make sense. All that is required is that we exist because the laws of the universe allow us to exist. Even if our existence is utterly unique in the entire universe or multiverse, the principle still applies.

There may be fundamental physical laws which may be beyond our reach. A disturbing thought, fundamentally different from the limitations demonstrated by Godel. but one which may all too real. I am unwilling, however, to concede that science may not advance to such a level that we will be able to accomplish that which is that now seen as beyond our comprehension. Indeed, which ARE now beyond our comprehension.

Wineburg, "Science doesn't make it impossible to believe In God. It just makes it possible to not believe in God"
Love the tolerance and balance of this quote. Now, how will the fundamentalist, evangelical atheist, Dawkins, respond to what is an inherent attack on his extremism? I'm hitting " play" to find out.

Krause is going on to other issues, Dawkins may just let it go.

Krause, "theologians and philosophers are experts in nothing."
So much for tolerance. It was clever, if shallow. In that regard, how is is possible that scientists do not recognize that every scientist IS a philosopher? A philosopher who adheres to empiricism? Is the education of science students so poor that they know nothing of the history of their own field? Apparently so.

Such a level of ignorance, in those who claim to revere the facts, is appalling and should be embarrassing. But, like their creationist foes, it seems that many scientists revel in their ignorance.

Krauss decries those call him shrill and dogmatic for making scientific statements with which they do not agree. This is beautifully ironic considering how shrill and dogmatic he becomes when he discusses religion.

"You know to be falsehoods." No sir, you mean what you believe to be falsehoods. In fact, even many atheists are not fundamentalist evangelicals like you. Remember the earlier quote from Weinberg! Dawkins needs a 6th grade lesson in the difference between opinion and fact.

And here we go! Mr. Super Genius, Only I Am Right. I understand everything. I know all! I tell all! All who dare to disagree with me are fools or monsters! is at it again. "They are fools! All fools! I'll show them!". Maniacal laughter. How can so brilliant a biologist who is dedicated to rational discourse, be so bigoted and blinded by his hate? Answer, he is only one of us. A poor naked ape struggling to overcome his evolutionary heritage, and sometimes failing.

Atheism is an interesting phenomenon. Bigotry derived from a utopian vision of everyone being just like me is not.

Finally, back to Wineburg! Tolerance is too weak for Dawkins. I am not surprised.

God is an excrescence, a carbuncle on the face of science.
I suggest bigotry is an excrescence, a carbuncle on the face of society.
I suggest intolerance is an excrescence, a carbuncle on the face of Dawkins' otherwise honorable character.

Krause then attacks all religion for what some believe. All atheists are not enemies of religion. All religious are not Jerry Falwell. This is the very definition of prejudice, to declare that all of THEM are...fill in the blank.


And now the ugly truth begins come into focus. An astronomer who teaches accurately, correctly, and factually should not be allowed to teach if his beliefs -- his personal and private beliefs -- are not in line with what is acceptable to Dawkins and Krauss. The same for a medical doctor.

Enter the thought police! Dawkins and Krauss are in favor of creating an atheist inquisition, in which those who dare to disagree with them on a personal, private basis will be forbidden to practice their professions matter how professionally they do so! Do these men ever listen to what they themselves saying? Do they ever think about the consequences of their utopian dreams?

I think they do not. Both appear to be sincere in their desire to do good, but then, so was Torquemada.

"You are an excellent physician, but we think you are a secret Jew. You are no longer allowed to practice medicine." -- Torquemada 1482

"You are an excellent physician, but we think you are a secret theist. You are no longer allowed to practice medicine." -- Dawkins and Krauss 2012

Dawkins on Mormonism:

At the risk of offending a Mormon who might someday read this, I will speak frankly. I have had Mormon colleagues. I have supervised Mormons. I found them to be reliable employees. I found them to be pleasant, enjoyable people. However, I find their theology to be one of the most obviously made up and frankly silly religions ever concocted by a lonely, horny teenage boy. I concede that Scientology is even sillier, but that's not saying much, is it?

But Krauss and Dawkins are prepared to create a religious test for employment! Need I say more? This is shocking! Frankly, this is disgusting! It is also very, very threatening to the existence of a democracy.

Dawkins knows an amazing secret! It seems that every politician he approves, and presumably everyone else that he respects or likes, is a secret atheist! His, and please forgive the use of this term, logic appears to be as follows: All religion is evil and/or stupid. All believers are evil and/or stupid. I know some believers who are neither evil or stupid. Therefore, they are really not believers, after all. They are secret atheists. They're only pretending. Just like every good intelligent person in the world. Yes, just like me.

How can a trained and expert scientist be so irrational and delusional? Asked and answered.

Note: This argument is identical to that used by believers who contend that all morality comes from God. Atheists therefore can't be good or moral. Know a good or moral atheist? He's a secret believer.

This taking and adopting the very arguments he rightly condemns in his opponents is typical of Dawkins and other irrational, sanctimonious True Believers. It is straight from the Radical Republicans' play book.

Krauss..."so that just questioning the existence of God doesn't become akin, in our society, to being evil.". No, you just want the opposite. It is stunning that that you cannot see your own hypocrisy, while being so sensitive to its identical twin in your opponents.

Remember, there are scientists, good scientists, who believe in God.

Bizarrely, the two ended their festival of attacking the intelligence and morality of religious individuas by bitterly complaining about the intolerance of religious audiences toward them! This after THEIR audience displayed intolerance toward those who questioned them.

Krauss says the faithful should understand science isn't about atheism, after having declared repeatedly that science is the implacable enemy of religion. Again, don't these two ever listen to themselves? They flatly and bitterly attacked religion at every possible opportunity, declared it their hated enemy, then they look bewildered and say, "Why don't the religious like us?". Yeah, who doesn't like people who insult and degrade you at every opportunity?

They are at the self pity thing again, so I will repeat... They spend many minutes insulting, sneering at, and very nearly dehumanizing believers, then they wonder why atheists are thought to be enemies of religion. Yeah, how could they think you don't like them?

Women are oppressed because of region. You just attacked the pigeons' delusion in a stimulus response experiment. Look at your delusion. It is the same. Post hoc ego prompter hoc. Religion is the excuse, not the cause.

As promised:

Darwin expressed this view in a metaphor even more central to his general vision than the concept of struggle – the metaphor of the wedge. Nature, Darwin writes, is like a surface with 10,000 wedges hammered tightly in and filling all available space. A new species (represented as a wedge) can only gain entry into a community by driving itself into a tiny chink and forcing another wedge out. Success, in this vision, can only be achieved by direct takeover in overt competition.