Is thinking what the brain does in the way that walking is what the body does? Colin McGinn asks.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Defamation Bill intended to end libel tourism
The draft Defamation Bill will propose a new defence of “honest opinion.” It’s about time!
-
Pakistan: Xian convicted of “blasphemy” dies in prison
Qamar David was serving a life sentence for insulting the Koran and Muhammad.
-
Cairo: the army is above the nation, especially women
11 women arrested in Tahrir square were stripped and forcibly examined to determine whether they were virgins.
-
The Italian government swears the cross is neutral
A gathering place for Jew and Gentile, believer and non-believer. The most ecumenical goddamn thing you ever saw. How can you not just love it?
-
Thomas Nagel reviews David Brooks
Brooks seems willing to take seriously any claim by a cognitive scientist, however idiotic.
-
Senegal, Mali villages to ban female genital mutilation
Representatives of almost 90 villages in Senegal and Mali agreed to ban FGM at a ceremony in eastern Senegal, a local NGO said Monday.
-
More on “what is this god thing anyway?”
Jerry Coyne is discussing the “what would you consider evidence” question with Anthony Grayling. Anthony says what makes the whole enterprise nonsensical from the start:
on the standard definition of an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent etc being – on inspection such a concept collapses into contradiction and absurdity; as omnipotent, god can eat himself for breakfast…as omniscient it knows the world it created will cause immense suffering through tsunamis and earthquakes, and therefore has willed that suffering, which contradicts the benevolence claim…etc etc…
Which it seems to me is undeniable, and relevant. What could be evidence for the existence of the usual normal mainstream “God”? Given that the usual normal mainstream “God” is an absurdity, it’s not even possible to know what would be evidence that it existed.
It’s also not possible to know what would be evidence that human beings could even detect. What evidence could we detect that “God” is eternal, for instance? What could show that, to us?
There are quite a few different versions of God, and they don’t combine into a nice stew or pot pourri or tapestry; they fight with each other. Evidence for one would be evidence for not-another.
I can imagine evidence for a local earth-based god or gods, like the Greek gods. They paid visits now and then, and they were very recognizable people. The omni-being is a whole different category, and evidence for it strikes me as being impossible.
-
No freedom from religion for you
Marc Alan di Martino told me an Italian judge had been fired for refusing to work under a crucifix. Yes really. There’s no reporting on it in English; all I could find was a blog post by…well, a theology-fan. The blogger could be writing approvingly.
Italy’s highest court of appeal — the Cassation Court — confirmed today (March 14, 2011) the sacking of a judge who refused to hear cases with the crucifix in the courtroom, according to the Life In Italy website…
The CSM said in its ruling that Tosti – who is a Jew – was guilty of refusing to do his job in the Marche town of Camerino from May 2005 to January 2006, when he withdrew from 15 hearings to contest the presence of the cross displayed in the courtroom.
It’s arbitrary, but at least in English “a Jew” sounds different from “Jewish,” and not in a good way. The blogger may not have meant it that way – but it sounds…well, you probably know how it sounds.
In its ruling today, the Cassation Court said that CSM was wholly “correct” and rejected Tosti’s argument that the presence of crosses was a threat to freedom of religion and conscience.
Because…? Because it doesn’t stand for religion and thus, in a courtroom, for theocracy? Because it doesn’t stand for one particular religion, and thus, in a courtroom, cast the judge as an outsider at best? Because it’s entirely neutral and has no meaning for atheists and other non-Christians? Because it doesn’t claim to stand for “God” and thus, in a courtroom, make secular law subordinate?
I don’t know. I look forward to finding out. I think Marc will be telling us more.
Update: Terry Sanderson alerted us to background from the NSS.
-
MP wants “responsible neutrality” on honor killing
Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said the government should not call honour killings “barbaric” in a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens.
-
Ben Goldacre on science journalism
“Having a science degree” is partly just a proxy for “caring enough about science generally that you also care about not getting stuff completely wrong.”
-
Problems in science journalism
We ought to have a rule: if you can’t read the research and comprehend it, you shouldn’t be writing about it.
-
Grayling and Coyne discuss evidence for “God”
Could there be such a thing?
-
If it’s new and different, it’s god
Why would something new and astonishing and apparently a violation of what we know about nature be evidence of “God” or a god or the supernatural rather than…something new and astonishing and apparently a violation of what we know about nature?
I can easily imagine evidence of something new and astonishing and apparently a violation of what we know about nature. I have a harder time thinking of something that would convince me it was evidence of “God” or a god or the supernatural.
I’m not being stubborn or dogmatic in saying that. I’m saying I just don’t see why something new and the rest of it couldn’t point to A Big Unknown as opposed to the familiar though speculative category “God.”
Maybe a very big very powerful Person? But that could be a part of nature we hadn’t known about before. It could tell us “Hey I’m the one in the Bible” [but in which language?] but that could be what this part of nature does.
Maybe all kinds of spectacular magical events? But that could be astonishing and inexplicable without necessarily being non-natural. It could just mean that we’d never known what we hadn’t known – which is bound to be true anyway.
On the other hand, I can see saying “this is at least evidence of something like what people have been calling ‘God’ all this time.” I can see agreeing that this changes everything I thought I knew, and everything I thought other people knew, too.
But just plain “evidence of God”? Well which one, for a start?
-
A C Grayling on God and disaster
If he is powerful enough to stop an earthquake, but created a world that inflicts agonizing sufferings arbitrarily on sentient creatures, then he is vile.
-
Pastor Terry Jones is back
He enjoyed his taste of fame and he wants more.
-
Newsflash: wood smoke is toxic
Lots of chumps still think it’s “environmentally friendly,” but it’s actually as friendly as car exhaust.
-
Xian group launches petition against equality legislation
Is it true that “individuals who hold to mainstream Christian teaching” are “being barred from different areas of public life and employment”?
-
She’s 11 years old. It shouldn’t have happened.
Last week the New York Times reported that an 11-year-old girl was gang-raped in a Texas town. It also reported a bunch of people saying she dressed like an adult and that the rapists would have to live with this for the rest of their lives. It forgot to say that the girl might have some displeasure with the whole situation too. People were disgusted. The Public Editor (as they call him) said they had a point. But…
My assessment is that the outrage is understandable. The story dealt with a hideous crime but addressed concerns about the ruined lives of the perpetrators without acknowledging the obvious: concern for the victim.
Yes; good; but…..
The Associated Press handled the story more deftly, I think. Its piece on the crime also noted the community view that the girl dressed provocatively and even the view of some that the girl may have been culpable somehow. But the AP also quoted someone in the community saying: “She’s 11 years old. It shouldn’t have happened. That’s a child. Somebody should have said, ‘What we are doing is wrong.’”
Um…..so if it’s not a child it’s ok? If the raped girl or woman is 17 or 25 or 40 or 70 it’s ok?
It’s weird the way people think about rape. Still, after all this time, when we’ve gone over it and gone over it. Nobody thinks of murder or assault or robbery that way, but rape is still sort of kind of the raped woman’s fault.