h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Damn! The blog doesn't work in my browser for some reason. Otherwise I'd be sure and post the blasphemous ones. It's a victimless crime, after all.

I agree abou 33. It's an issue I like to raise awareness of.

But you gotta admit...26 is funny.

Aha! Got it to work.

Now now, Vicky. She's quoting a list of slogans sent to her that have been seen on t-shirts or bumpers. She didn't invent them.

I liked No. 1:
"Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers".

Which reminds me of an apt collective noun I came across recently in a newspaper report about a priest who was convicted for child molestation:
"A litany of sex offences"

It would be funny, if it weren't that she is so out-of-proportion angry!

Who does she think is claiming science doesn't work? I confess, I've just read Michael Behe's book. (After years of people here damning me as a Creationist, and calling ID the same thing, I decided to find out what ID is all about. )

Point 1 is that Behe *is* a scientist, very bit as much as Angry gurl there.
2. He never mentions God at all, in the book. Never.
3. I have no scientific training, none. My education since high school has all been in the field of - well, education. Also language.

But I am an *intelligent* layperson. And Behe's arguments are nowhere near as empty and vacuous as Dawkins claims.

Also, I am reasonably certain that neither Dawkins, nor anyone in this thread, has ever read Behe.

<<"Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers". >>

You know Ed, for some time I was concerned that the high profile of the sex offenses committed by Catholic priests might be creating a misapprehension that clergymen are more apt to commit sex crimes than people of other professions. I did a little research and found that the data are pretty murky.

On the whole, though, it does seem as though there is, in fact, a higher incidence of criminal sexual perversion of men of the cloth. I wonder though, whether a cause and effect relationship between abstinence and sexual perversion can be established. It seems to make sense intuitively; there might be other causes, however.

The priesthood may have attracted the pederasts in the first place because it gave them access to their victims in ways no other paedophiles could dream of. The priestly robes (at one time) gave them an authority and respectability they craved in light of the self-loathing they must have had. They knew they would be protected by their superiors. etc. etc.

But the fact is that the criminal sexual behaviour of priests isn't limited to the Catholic church. Even clergymen without vows of celibacy are routinely guilty of it.

I think much of the criminal behaviour, and not just the molestation of children, can be explained by the fact that christianity encourages immoral behaviour. The doctrine permits one to select any course of action and find it sanctioned in the user's manual. Get on your knees and say you'r sorry (not to your victim, but to your imaginary friend) and you're forgiven and guiltless once again. The list goes on.

But one of the strongest influences that may be at work here is the very fact that leaders like Bush and, to a lesser extent Blair, espouse devotion to the cult while they are are excellent examples of what any sane person would call immorality. This bestows a sort of respectability on hypocrisy and makes lying, cheating, raping, and even killing a little more acceptable to those who are already so inclined.

<>

Well, I just knew you'd love that! But it's interesting that towards the end of his massive tome, Dawkins puts in a word about that - pointing out that (for what he of course thinks are very good reasons) a tonne of lies and exaggerations have been issued, calling all priests child abusers. Whilst Dawkins thinks the motives of those who've bent the truth so that the average Joe and Josephine reflexively when they hear priest think paedophile, are good, that it's nevertheless a bad thing that this lie is being told.

The all priests are paedophiles, actual or potential, is accepted by the same kind of lazy mind that's saying "Oh, that Heath Ledger must have died of a drug overdose, it's what actors do" despite the complete lack of any evidence.

Both examples of laziness and cupidity make me very angry.

Welll...perhaps.

But that doesn't excuse the church's disgraceful record on protecting abusers, often allowing them to go on to abuse elsewhere. Not that this is particularly the reason for my antipathy towards religion, of course, as I hope I've made clear by now.

BUT:

>>Whilst Dawkins thinks the motives of those who've bent the truth so that the average Joe and Josephine reflexively when they hear priest think paedophile, are good, that it's nevertheless a bad thing that this lie is being told.

That's another bit I honestly don't recall from TGD. Could you perhaps retrieve your copy of his 'massive' paperback from the library and quote me chapter and verse on that?



I'm intrigued by the 'She's so angry' dismissal, od Grrl Scientisy though. I don't see any evidence of anger there. Is this maybe reading too much in? I'm tempted to put it in the category of the 'Why are Atheists so strident/ shrill/ etc? claim that I've refered to previously.

Perhaps, though, shrillness is in the ears of the beholder. Maybe *I* come across a shrill without realising it!!! I wonder, then, if there's such a thing as a shrill-free argument against religion?

Suggestions?

btw...I know an excellent limerick about a bishop and some choirboys...only last time I posted it, it got modded.

Applications in writing...

Post 6871: "I think that's a fair description of the use most faith-based people put their chosen deity(ies) to.

Create a god (or select one off the peg...there are plenty), make sure the scriptures, gospels, doctrine, and writings are voluminous and ambiguous enough to support pretty much any interpretation, then use that religion as a convenience for a multitude of intellectual and moral faux pas."



Some, probably some. But very many religious people put themselves through a lot of otherwise unnecessary pain and suffering because of their religious beliefs. Maybe this does feed some martyr complex in some people, and in some convoluted way they enjoy the sometimes very real persecution they endure.

But I think few religious people are as straightforwardly cynical as you imply.

TRiG.

<>

No. It took me trouble to get it in the first place. Surely you have a copy, and can check for yourself? Also, do you really expect him to have used the exact words, I used in stating what his opinion is? I am not falling into that trap, and allowing the Canadian person to google it, fail to find the *exact words* and starting obsessively screaming "liar, liar pants on fire"at me! You people, no subtlety, and a shocking lack of understanding of langauge use!



<>

Of course she's angry - many of the slogans she quotes show that - and fearful... That's the most psychologically interesting part - the fear. If she's so 100% sure she is right, why is she (in common with many other angry-atheists) so unable to deal with opposing views?

<>

You're *much* less shrill than most...

Something really funny here, Edward... you may appreciate this (or you may not)... I've just come across the "Indonesian" person's assertion that this reply to *you* was aimed at him and his logorrehoeic post, which I hadn't even had the honour of seeing, because I was in fact, replying to you!

(Well, I think it's dashed funny in the sense of "rum" - as Colonels used to say in Agatha Christie novels of the 1950s... That person seems to think that I am much more aware of his actions that I in fact am..)

paranoia

noun

A mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.

• suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.

<>

Well, why not? That's what people do anyhow. But I've never understood why they like to fight over who made the best choice.

"We say that if a temple, or a symbol, or an image helps you realize the divine within, you are welcome to it. Have two hundred images if you like. If certain forms and formulas help you to realize the divine, have, by all means, whatever forms, temples, whatever ceremonies you want to bring you nearer to God. But do not quarrel about them: the moment you quarrel, you are not going Godward; you are going backward toward the brutes."
– Swami Vivekananda

az

@ post 6883:

"I have no scientific training, none. My education since high school has all been in the field of - well, education. Also language."

then: "Behe's arguments are nowhere near as empty and vacuous as Dawkins claims."



"I am reasonably certain that neither Dawkins, nor anyone in this thread, has ever read Behe."

sorry if i wasn't clear

you are, i quote, 'reasonably certain', that the world's most famous debunker of intelligent design has never read the world's most famous book on intelligent design?

people who don't like having their beliefs laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

I'm not convinced about Orang Utan's psychological explanation for the misbehaviour of the Clerisy. (And I'm afraid, Vicky - they *do* have a problem). I think the explanation is more (with apologies to FA ) sociological.

Closed, authoritative hierarchies create spaces within which bad behaviour can be hidden away from the world. Even if the whole hiearchy is not corrupt, sub-groups of wrongdoers can rely on the others to close ranks around them. Problems are compounded when maintenance of the hierarchy is reliant on the preservation of the authority of its members. Whistleblowers can be reluctant to speak out for reasons ranging from keeping their jobs to maintaining the reputation of their profession. We can see the effects in many organisations, from the embezzlers of Enron to the torturers of Abu Ghraib to the cover-up medical malpractice. In the case of non-clerical child abuse, in the UK we have seen nuclei of child rape thriving in the closed societies of boarding schools and local authority homes.

The other signal factor in child rape is that it is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. (Although there are exceptions). In fact...I'd stick my neck out and say that *on the whole* women are te most effective guardians of children against rape: they won't stand for it.

So we can see that a toxic environment for child rape might be established when men establish a closed hierarchy in which the members have unquestioned authority.

A difficult situation to change, when every element of the environment is held to be divinely ordained.

I take Trig's point that some religious people genuinely struggle with the demands of their faith. It's not always as simple as putting on a suit that fits one's moral disposition.

The only explanation I can think of for why some people apparently choose to put themselves through agonies is the psychological need to belong to an in-group. Sometimes this can take the form of seeking the approval of authority figures.

Freud was wrong about many things...but there does seem to be a nugget of plausibility in his explanations of religion.

Vicky - I'm not sure what your'e suggesting in your apparent championing of Behe?

Do you (as you've frequently stated) accept Evolution? Or do you lean towards Intelligent Design?

If the former...do you think there's a gap in the arguments put forward in (eg) 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' which suggest strongly the absence of a need for a creator or designer at any stage of the process? Or if not...where are the gaps in the argument?

I've said before that I don't think it's sufficient for Christians to simply say 'Of course we're not like those mad creationists! We believe in evolution!' They also have to demonstrate that they understand evolution sufficiently to trace it to its logical conclusion.

Behe, of course, does not even accept evolution.

Edward the Bonobo

In much the same way that wives in abusive marriages remain with the abusive husband: a belonging, a need for company and security. Even if there is a substantial amount of detrimental events and effects - and they some how are able to rationalise that staying with the person is OK.

one other thing. if the writer of post 6883, unqualified as they admit they are to judge any argument about biochemistry, rejects dawkins criticism as biased, what about judge john jones. are behe's arguments as empty and vacuous as jones claims?

all these are quotes from john jones:

*Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.

*Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

*lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology.

*"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."

*Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur.

*Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

empty and vacuous