How Can You Tell When your Religious Liberties are being Violated?

I caught this from one of my favorite blogs, Exploring Our Matrix, by James F. McGrath.  It's a topic I have been mulling over, especially this time of year when I keep hearing about this 'War on Christmas' and the constant 'War on Christians'.  Apparently many theists can't seem to grasp when their religious liberties are actually being violated, as opposed to when they CLAIM they are being violated.

So as a public service, I'm going to help them out and re-blog this bit and maybe some might actually learn the difference.  First up, the graphic, which sums it up perfectly:

The originator article, references by Dr. McGrath, is from the Huffington Post, "How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions".  They make a very telling point.  If you believe that anything from the right side of the graphic is a violation of your religious liberties, then you are most likely trying to use your religious liberties to violate the religious liberties, or even the civil rights, of other folks.

So, to be clear, what Kim Davis did last year was NOT a violation of her religious liberties.  It is a perfect example of her attempting to use her religion to violated the civil rights of other people.  No one was trying to stop her from practicing her religion, but they were trying to stop her from inflicting her religion on other people!

I posting this a while ago, but it bears repeating:

"Back in the mid-to-late 80's two young airmen assigned to Nellis AFB refused to salute the flag or to salute and obey the orders of female officers (The Spokesman-Review) claiming a religious objection.  They were held responsible for their actions."

This isn't a far-fetched example, but something that actually occurred when I was stationed there!  I was teaching Professional Military Education (PME) at the time, and the case was something we discussed in many Leadership and Management classes at the time.

Any law that will permit businesses to discriminate based on the owner's religious beliefs should never be passed or signed into law!  I know that's a false hope because politicians will pander to anyone they can for votes, but that doesn't make it right!  There are laws being considered in many states for this express purpose.  I hate to see it, but I am waiting for the first lawsuit against a business for discrimination citing religious grounds.  Don't I recall many issues claiming religion as the reason for denying African-Americans their civil rights?  For denying women the right to vote?  Go back a while and wasn't religion also used to prevent women from owning property?

Are we really heading back to those days?

Let's expand a little beyond Religious Liberties.  I have a question for you.  Is not teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in public school science classes a violation of Free Speech?  Think about it?  And yet that was one of the defenses used by John Freshwater when he was fired by the Mount Vernon school system.  It's also one of the tactics used by the conservative religious Discovery Institute in pushing for the replacement of actual science with religious dogma.

Psuedo-Scholarship

Caught an interesting post from Dr. James F. McGrath's 'Exploring Our Matrix' blog, "Defining Pseudoscholarship".  We've discussed Pseudoscience many times, but I thought the perspective here was interesting.  He quotes a commenter, Peter Regnier, on one of his other blog posts.  Paul defines Pseudo-scholarship like this:

Pseudo-scholarship tends to

1. Denigrate entire scholarly fields
2. Largely ignore established academic channels
3. Largely ignore or parody academic conventions
4. Reflect a narrow range of ideological perspectives
5. Reject entire meta-narratives, not points within them
6. Make sensationalist claims
7. Appeal to dubious methodological privilege BUT
8. In reality employ flawed methods
9. Rely on supernatural over natural explanations
10. Be developed and supported disproportionately by non-specialists.

Let's see how well any of these apply to the whole idea of Creationism/Intelligent Design.  Since we have to narrow the field a bit, let's be a little more specific and consider the Creationism/Intelligent Design outflow from the Discovery Institute:

1.  Denigrate entire scholarly fields.  How often have I, and many others, asked that the Discovery Institute support their own ideas rather than denigrate biology and evolution?  Often in their meanderings, you cannot find a single item of substance supporting their own ideas, but only attack after attack on biology and history.  Yes, remember their Nazi and Darwin conspiracy ideas are laughed at by biologists and historians. 
   
2.  Largely ignore established academic channels.  While the Discovery Institute whines and complains about not being able to get published in established academic channels, the issue isn't they do not, the real issue is that they don't seem to be trying.  They don't seem to make any effort for a very simple reason, they refuse to follow the same rules and guidelines for submitting their work as actual scientists.  To quote Dr. Mark Chancey again (Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU) " . . . When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day." 
   
3.  Largely ignore or parody academic conventions.  I think they parody more than ignore.  Isn't their pet lab, the wholly owned Biologics Institute, whose contact information and address is the Discovery Institute, a parody of a real lab?  Isn't their own journal and publishing house set-up as a parody of an actual scientific journal and publisher?  They comply with none of the standards such professional journals and publishers have for vetting and supporting the work they publish, yet they claim things self-published are peer-reviewed.  Sounds like a parody to me.  As for ignoring, how about any aspect of scientific methodology?  Dressing up in a lab coat does not make you a doctor.  Dressing up ideas in one doesn't make your idea a scientific theory.
   
4. Reflect a narrow range of ideological perspectives.  Regardless of how often the Discovery Institute, and their various mouthpieces, claim that Intelligent Design is not a religious proposition, each and every examination shows it's religious underpinnings.  It was found to be religious by a Federal Judge.  They constantly give presentations to religious audiences and at the invitation of religious groups and organizations.  Their own strategy document, the Wedge Strategy, makes the connection quite clear.  Yet they continue to verbally deny while their actions support a very narrow range of ideological perspectives.
   
5. Reject entire meta-narratives, not points within them.  Now this one I am not sure how to address, exactly what is a meta-narrative?  I checked a few definitions and see that it's a 'narrative about other narratives', or a comprehensive explanation overarching other more narrow explanations.  OK, that works because isn't the modern theory of evolution an overarching explanation consisting of many other much more specific theories?  Doesn't the DI make sweeping characterizations to reject the majority of evolutionary theory?  Even the whole idea of micro-evolution v. macro-evolution is nothing more than a way to try and reject a large portion of evolutionary theory.
   
6. Make sensationalist claims.  How many can we name?  Dembski's 'Design Filter' which is supposed to be able to detect intelligent design in nature, but doesn't seem to do much of anything?  How about the constant claim of the demise of evolution?  That's been going on for decades, and the DI keeps harping on it.  I think it was Dembski (again) who predicted a 5 year period that would spell the end of evolution and I think we are a decade past that.  Or the annual Paul Nelson Day as we still wait for his detailed exposition of “ontogenetic depth" as a way of measuring complexity.  I think we are about the decade past the due date on that one as well.
7. Appeal to dubious methodological privilege BUT
8. In reality employ flawed methods.  I have to tie these two together because I'm not sure they mean much apart.  The key here is their flawed methodology.  A lack of falsifiability, the use of straw-man arguments, inability to test, reliance on testimonials, the assumption that if science hasn't addressed something it must be a deity's action, refusing the consider conflicting data, the list goes on.  Yet for all their methodical errors, they insist their pet idea is the equal to a real, valid, viable scientific theory and they demand a spot on the science lectern, a privilege they have yet to earn!
   
9. Rely on supernatural over natural explanations.  That's all they rely on!  They try and cover their supernatural explanations with more innocuous words like 'Designer', but they are talking about a deity.  Their own words and actions reveal more than their official denials.  They are desperate to deny their dressed-up version of Creationism, but they never can separate themselves from it and they never will.  Once their efforts fail, they'll find another lab coat.  Creationism in school changed to Creation Science which became Intelligent Design.  They'll be something else once this one is realized to be futile.  But at the core of all of the comments, tactics, and strategies lies their supernatural ideas and desires. 
   
10. Be developed and supported disproportionately by non-specialists.  When you look at the Discovery Institute and their popular authors, posters, and bloggers.  You find lawyers, philosophy majors, historians, but very few biologists of any sort.  Do they do the science to persuade other biologists?  No, they target politicians, school boards, and every Christian group they can find.
    Hmm, let's bring up something we haven't discussed in a while, their 'list' of 700+ 'scientists who 'dissent from Darwinism'.  Remember that list?  I think they finally topped 800.  If I recall the last check, less than 20% of the list were people in biology-related fields and none were in any field that related in any way to evolutionary biology.  There were chemical engineers, self-taught rocket scientists, a guy who writes books on butterflies,  . . . you get the idea?  Sure didn't take aim at scientists and biologists, did they?

Well, it certainly looks like the pseudo-science promulgated by the Discovery Institute is certainly an excellent example of pseudo-scholarship!

Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist

Dr. James McGrath ("Exploring our Matrix") also linked to "Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist" and a particular post I just have to share: "A few cartoons to brighten your day" My personal favorite was:

It illustrates a question I have asked a number of times. If an ID proponent is so worked up about teaching ID in the classroom, why are they also not pushing just as hard for Alchemy, Phrenology, Magic, Astrology, Feng Shui, Numerology, or Tarot Cards? I mean each of these have just as much scientific evidence as Intelligent Design! Didn't Michael Behe make that point during the Dover Trial? That in order for Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be expanded to a point where astrology and the like would also be considered science. I am paraphrasing here because I really don't feel like wading through the transcript. I'm sure if I got it wrong someone will tell me. And unlike Creationists and ID proponents, when they correct me, I will thanks them and learn from it. Defensiveness works well when you are driving, but not very good for an education!

ID Body Art

Body art is an interesting subject in today's society. Many of the people I know and work with have some type of body art. Usually it's rather artistic and reflects the tastes of the person. One of my daughters has a couple, one of my best friends also is subtly adorned. I do enjoy many of the pieces of body art that I have seen -- not all, but many. After all, it's art and art is a matter of taste.

One thought I sometimes have is 'what will that tattoo look like in 10, 20, or 30 years'. The tattoo on the small of the back looks incredible at 21, but what will it look like after a couple of kids or maybe that barbed wire around the arm looks good on a muscular 20=something arm -- but at 40 after a shoulder surgery or two and more focus on 12 oz curls to free weights? Well like I said it's one of the occasional thoughts I have when I see some body art.

Dr. James McGrath brings to mind a new thought. He has a very interesting blog called "Exploring our Matrix", I've posted about it before, it is a great blog to follow. Well this article "Intelligent Design Can Leave You Scarred For Life" eventually links to William Dembski's web site (I refuse to call it a blog because they 'mediate' comments and dissenting ones, like mine, tend to disappear without ever seeing the light of day). Here is the picture:Supposedly this is a representation of Irreducible Complexity. Dr. McGrath had this to say:

"Many of us know that movements like intelligent design, and even more so young-earth creationism, can leave their adherents scarred for life if they eventually discover the extent to which they have been lied to and misled by proponents of these ideologies."

Certainly should make one think!. This is a bit more excessive than getting your girlfriends name on your chest just before she breaks up with you. Of even the saga of Kat Von D, a popular tattoo artist and canvas herself who just recently aired an episode of her TV show "LA Ink" where she had a childhood picture of Jesse James tattooed on what looks like the last clear area on her body-- at least the skin visible on TV. The episode aired shortly after the news announcing their break up. How does something like that make you feel?

But the receiver of this piece of artwork is going to be doubly surprised. The first will be when the Discovery Institute and their ID proponents abandon Intelligent Design. The reason this will happen depends on ID's success or failure. If it does succeed, it was only seen as a temporary answer to open the door for Creationism anyway(Check out the Wedge Strategy). So it never was going to be a real answer, just a foot-in-the-door alternative.

Now if it fails, which it has certainly done to-date, history says they will abandon it and latch onto the next possible philosophy that they can use to pander to politicians, lie to school boards, and collect money from folks like this tattooed adherent. Sooner or later ID will be left in the dust by the side of the road, like Creationism and Creation Science has faded from their marketing efforts.

The second surprise is less certain, but certainly possible. The receiver of this little bit of fantasy art might actually learn why intelligent design has been failing so miserably. I mean there is only so much marketing can do without any viable science behind it. One day he will look at his own arm and realize that it is just a little fantasy art that never did make any sense. He may never get there, but there is always hope.

I have to also give props to the blog "I Think, I Believe". Dr. McGrath linked through that site. I think I have a new one to add to my list! Thanks Arni, and thanks to Dr. McGrath for pointing out your site.

Mythicism == Intelligent Design

Over on Dr. James McGrath's blog, "Exploring The Matrix" he brought up an interesting point and related it to both scientific and historical investigations. I liked his point and the way he expressed it:

" . . . that mythicism is very much like intelligent design in at least one
important regard. It wishes to redefine the methods of a scholarly discipline in
order to accomplish an ideological agenda. What criteria should be used in
historical study? What should the standard of evidence be?"

While I fully expect Luskin, or someone else at the Discovery Institute pool of knee-jerk responders, to complain about his characterization of Intelligent Design, but isn't this exactly what we have been seeing? It came out clearly 5 years ago [has it been that long already?] at the Dover Trial when Behe agreed that in order for Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be expanded to include supernatural causation. Is the reason they [ID proponents] have had so much trouble producing evidence simply because the current scientific methodology cannot be applied? It would certainly explain why anything that comes out of them is long on philosophy and short on science.

I think the problem in such a redefinition of science is not that it would make current scientists uncomfortable or threaten their livelihood -- as stated by those same less-than-honest fellows at the DI -- but that it would take a methodology that produces understandable and usable results replaced by one that doesn't seem capable of either. Seriously, after years of trying neither Meyer, Behe, nor Demski has been able to put any of their ideas within any framework in such a way that can withstand the scrutiny of anyone who doesn't already subscribe to their idea. Look at both the praises and criticisms of their work. The praises come from people who already subscribe to their ideological agenda and the criticisms come from everyone else. In my Post "Intelligent Design Sh** of get off the pot" I remember Stephen C. Meyer saying that ID was receiving support from scientists who were not ID advocates. Instead of leaving such a comment unsupported, which is the norm, he named chemist Philip Skell and geneticist Norman Nevin -- yet when we looked a tiny bit closer, which took all of 10 seconds, we discover that both Skell and Nevin are longtime ID advocates. So even when claiming external success the reality is only someone who already supports them does so.

I also liked Dr. McGrath's closing analogy:

"So (to use a sports analogy) mythicists are welcome to propose new rules that
they believe are better. But that will never be accomplished by standing on the
sidelines and criticizing those who play the game by the rules. Couches and
stadiums are full of such fans who know better than the players."

I will re-state what I think the DI, and any ID advocate, should do. They need to get out of the public view and go into the lab and do the legwork and use the methodologies according to current standards. They should open their work for scrutiny and criticism and work on developing repeatable, and usable concepts. If they cannot or even will not then they belong on the same fringes as tarot card readers, phrenologists, mystics and mythics.

His closing line "Few of them could do a better job if given an opportunity to take the field" is telling as well. How biologists are anti-evolution or pro-intelligent design (which are not the same thing no matter what Luskin seems to claim)? Damn few! Yet this is the organization bent on erasing evolution from the face of biological science? Sidelines indeed!

Thanks Dr. McGrath for another very interesting perspective!

Arguments XXII -- Religion

I normally don't address religious arguments and try and stay on the science side of things, but an editorial/commentary by Leonard Pitts caught my eye this weekend. "Leonard Pitts: I believe that religion is driving people away from God"

While his commentary wasn't directed towards Evolution, it certainly relates to the subject. The point, as I see it, is that religious organizations, particularly the more fundamentalist ones, tend to drive people away, not just form their religion, but from any religion! Just look at this paragraph:

" . . .What is the cumulative effect upon outside observers of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker living like lords on the largesse of the poor, multiplied by Jimmy Swaggart's pornography addiction, plus Eric Rudolph bombing Olympians and gays in the name of God, plus Muslims hijacking airplanes in the name of God, multiplied by the church that kicked out some members because they voted Democrat, divided by people caterwauling on courthouse steps as a rock bearing the Ten Commandments was removed, multiplied by the square root of Catholic priests preying on little boys while the church looked on and did nothing, multiplied by Muslims rioting over cartoons, plus the ongoing demonization of gay men and lesbians, divided by all those "traditional values" coalitions and "family values" councils that try to bully public schools into becoming worship houses, with morning prayers and science lessons from the book of Genesis? . . ."

Of course you know I had to highlight the part about the science lessons, but look at the rest of it. The extremism, the fundamentalist thinking, the belief that no matter what I do, God is on my side is doing more damage than good, and not just to the organized religion!

He also made a telling point with

"God is, for the faithful at least, the sovereign creator of all creation. Religion is what men and women put in place, ostensibly to worship and serve Him. Too often, though, religion worships and serves that which has nothing to do with Him, worships money and serves politics, worships charisma and serves ego, worships intolerance and serves self. "

I think Dr. James McGrath made that same point several times on his blog "Exploring Our Matrix" and discussed, among other things what happens when the 'symbol becomes more important than what it symbolizes, and 'inerrancy'. I know I have talked about it several times under "Biblical Literalism", "Biblical Literalism Continued" and "More on Biblical Literalism"

No, I am not plugging for Religion, but hoping that people of Faith can take a brief step backwards and view their actions in light of the intentions of their faith. I'm not saying toss the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran aside, but I am asking that you take the intentions of those documents to heart when dealing with issues.

Exploring Our Matrix: Partial Knowledge, Totally Dangerous

Exploring Our Matrix: Partial Knowlege, Totally Dangerous
I've been wrestling with a post on representations and misrepresentations of Darwin's theory for a while now. I mean Darwin catches a ton of flack for things that he never did, said, or caused. For example the whole Darwin = Nazi connection little bennie stein turned into a very inaccurate mockumentary, or how quickly completely unsupportable arguments get passed around as if they were [pardon the pun] gospel. I mean how many times has someone asked about Evolution violating the laws of physics, tornadoes in junkyards, or the ridiculous 'odds' argument. While I have danced around the edges of it, Dr. James McGrath hit the nail on the head in his Exploring Our Matrix blog post "Partial Knowledge, Total Dangerous".

I know I tend to get a bit verbose, I mean why use one word when 10 will do. Call it my Brooklyn upbringing, or the fact they sent me to 4 years of HS English which is just to get us able to communicate with the rest of the country. But whatever the reason I stand in awe of folks who can take a very complex idea and boil it down to its barest essentials and present it in an easy to understand post. Needless to say I am impressed! You have to click over and read his post. Here are just a few teasers to whet your appetite:

Darwin is rightly getting a lot of attention at the present, but we should not neglect the legacy of misuse of Darwin's theory.

. . . people have appealed to Darwin's powerful insight to justify all sorts of contrasting viewpoints: Communism and unbridled Capitalism, abandonment of religion and belief in our spiritual evolution, racism and the inevitability of progress.

Such views don't require Darwin's theory of evolution, and if they appeal to it as justification, it is but another sign of the ignorance of those making the appeal.

The only force that seems to be universally corrosive is to appeal to scientific theories in illegitimate ways to justify our instinctive and emotional responses, our ideologies, biases and bigotries, and to give them a veneer of certainty and objectivity.

OK, if those snippets don't drive you over there I have no idea what will! I've linked over to his blog a number of times, and even if this is your first time, I think you will understand why I do! Clear, concise, not only easy to understand, but intelligently written. You never walk away from one of his posts scratching your head on where he stands!

If you don't know who the Professor is, he is an Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana. His blog should be on your regular reading list, as it certainly is on mine. Remember the name, "Exploring Our Matrix".

Very cool Quote of the Day

From one of my favorite Blogs, Exploring Our Matrix comes this gem:

"We should not expect the Bible to answer the questions that arise from our own time and culture. Genesis was written to Israelites and addressed human origins in light of the questions they would have had. We should not try to make modern science out of the information that we are given, but should try to understand the affirmations that the text is making in its own context."

-- John H. Walton, "The Creation of Humankind in the Ancient Near East"

This certainly aligns with St. Augustine and many of the folks who do not try and treat the Bible like it was just a science textbook. I repeat one of my earlier posts -- "The Bible is a good book, it might even be a great book, but it is certainly not the ONLY book, nor should it be treated as such. In doing so you demean the purpose of such a book and do more damage to your position than good." Thanks Professor McGrath for posting this quote!

Humor IV - Gnostic Flow Chart

Another great post over at "Exploring Our Matrix", a Gnostic Flow Chart, and the tee-short idea is great!


Imagine the flow chart of the front of the shirt and on the back "And you thought organic chemistry was hard!"

Arguments XVI - Biblical Literalism

Now I plan on talking more on this in the future, but I couldn't resist posting this from Exploring our Matrix, a pretty interesting blog. It's a recipe for Biblical Literalism

"Take one part overly-familiar Bible verses. Repeat these verses over and over again until a thick, opaque layer is formed. Use this layer to cover the remaining 39 parts consisting of Bible verses that do not talk about the same subject as those more familiar verses, verses which seem to disagree with them, as well as verses you don't understand, verses you understand but do not put into practice, and any other verses you could happily live without. Bake until the lower verses are obscured from view.

Avoid stirring and serve."

I would really love to disagree with this, but I cannot. I do not see how anyone with a functioning brain can accept the Bible as the absolutely inerrant Word of God exactly as written. Don't get me wrong, the Bible is a wonderful and fascinating book, but inerrant? That's the part I have issues with. How many inconsistencies are contained in every version of the Bible? Hundreds, thousands? There are whole courses of study of such things. Do you know how many Commandments the Bibles lists? There are certainly more than 10! There are even three different sets of Commandments to just confuse the issue. The Bible has been translated, re-translated, the translations translated themselves. It has been re-written and made more 'politically-correct' in it's day, like the King James versions. It has been translated into more every-day language, like the "New Revised Standard Version".

Yes, it is a wildly popular books and says a great many things in it that are worth reading, understanding and some of them are even worth living up to. But it is not without it's flaws! But Biblical Literalists seem to be able to ignore all of that and take very select parts and declare the whole to be perfect and without change.