Or at least, a few of them. More to follow.<\/p>\n
Slate: It\u2019s All Connected: What links creativity, conspiracy theories, and delusions? A phenomenon called apophenia.<\/a><\/p>\n About why credulous folks see Jesus in a tortilla, or Mary in a tree stump, or historic events as conspiracies.<\/p>\n With the events in the Middle East concerning ISIS (or its variant names) and its barbaric acts, and the apologists insisting that these folks are not “true Islam” — well, this just another example of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. I mean, ISIS calls itself the *Islamic State*. What more evidence does anyone need to take them at their word, that their motivations are based on their religion? Just as the Westboro Baptist Church claims its motivations are based on their interpretation of Christianity [which, therefore, should be dismissed as primitive and barbaric].<\/p>\n Because politicians, including President Obama, kowtow to religious sentiment. No politicians who do not do that could win elections, in the US. Jerry Coyne<\/a>: <\/p>\n \nEveryone who is religious picks and chooses their morals from\u00a0scripture. \u00a0And so, too, do religious apologists pick and choose the \u201ctrue\u201d religions using identical\u00a0criteria: what appeals to them as \u201cgood\u201d ways to behave. The Qur\u2019an, like the Bible, is full of vile moral statements supposedly emanating from God. We cherry-pick them depending on our disposition, our politics, and our upbringing.<\/p>\n In\u00a0the end, there is no \u201ctrue\u201d religion in the factual sense, for there is no good evidence supporting their truth claims. Neither are there \u201ctrue\u201d religions in the moral sense. Every faith justifies itself and its practices by appeal to authority, revelation, and dogma. There are just some religions we like better than others because of their practical consequences. If\u00a0that\u2019s what we mean by \u201ctrue,\u201d we should just admit it. There\u2019s no shame in that, for it\u2019s certainly\u00a0the case that societies based on some religions\u00a0are more dysfunctional\u00a0than others.\u00a0Morality itself is\u00a0neither objectively \u201ctrue\u201d nor \u201cfalse,\u201d but at bottom rests on subjective preferences: the \u201coughts\u201d that come from what we see as\u00a0the consequences\u00a0of behaving one way versus\u00a0another. By all means let us say that ISIS is a strain of Islam\u00a0that is barbaric and dysfunctional, but let us not hear any nonsense that it\u2019s a \u201cfalse religion\u201d. ISIS, like all religious movements, is based on faith; and faith, which is belief in the absence of convincing evidence, isn\u2019t true or false, but simply irrational.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Spelling out why the Ten Commandments are not the inspiration for US law and government (despite the blinkered, wishful thinking of the religious right).<\/p>\n 5 Things the Religious Right Needs to Learn About the 10 Commandments<\/a><\/p>\n Including the religious right\u2019s argument based on a phony quote from James Madison. And including, \u201cMany of the precepts found in the Ten Commandments are common-sense rules that have existed for centuries.\u201d<\/p>\n Ed Brayton ridicules David Barton: Barton\u2019s God is Going to Beat Us Up. Again.<\/a><\/p>\n Sean Carroll: Should Scientific Progress Affect Religious Beliefs?<\/a><\/p>\n \nIf God exists but has no effect on the world whatsoever \u2014 the actual world we experience could be precisely the same even without God \u2014 then there is no reason to believe in it, and indeed one can draw no conclusions whatsoever (about right and wrong, the meaning of life, etc.) from positing it. Many people recognize this, and fall back on the idea that God is in some sense necessary<\/a>; there is no possible world in which he doesn\u2019t exist. To which the answer is: \u201cNo he\u2019s not.\u201d Defenses of God\u2019s status as necessary ultimately come down to some other assertion of a purportedly-inviolable metaphysical principle, which can always simply be denied. (The theist could win such an argument by demonstrating that the naturalist\u2019s beliefs are incoherent in the absence of such principles, but that never actually happens.)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The question itself is curious, because those who pay attention to scientific progress, and those who persist religious beliefs, seem to be entirely separately groups.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Or at least, a few of them. More to follow. Slate: It\u2019s All Connected: What links creativity, conspiracy theories, and delusions? A phenomenon called apophenia. About why credulous folks see Jesus in a tortilla, or Mary in a tree stump, … Continue reading
\n
\n
\n
\n