Month: July 2009

by Patrick Appel

I'm doing my best to round-up reader responses, but the influx of e-mail has temporarily overwhelmed me. Please do not feel slighted if your e-mail doesn't make it into the mix. Thanks to everyone for their candor. A reader writes:

Your reader claims that a "particular class of atheists state rather reflexively that [religion] is not [useful], and get annoyed when asked to back that up." This particular class, being of course the class that compares religion to other imaginary beings. Instead of saying why this is unreasonable, he asserts it without evidence and then continues to argue that there is a reasonable middle ground that can be had without challenging the core beliefs of either side. While politic, this belies a certain willingness to forgo the search for truth in the interest of being "sensible."

Such atheists (those that compare belief in god to belief in faeries or Santa Claus) absolutely make arguments about the pragmatic value of religion! Bertrand Russel, in Why I am Not A Christian, argues that religion, by compelling people to come to church during the plagues, inadvertently resulted in the deaths of many more people. Sam Harris, in Letter to a Christian Nation, explains that by creating an environment in which faith is seen as laudable, moderate and otherwise inoffensive religious practice cultivates fertile ground for extremism. Richard Dawkins argues throughout his writings that any benefits that can be claimed by religion are non-unique, and that framing the debate solely in terms of pragmatic value overlooks other mechanisms from which we might derive the same benefits without the harm of submitting ourselves to personal delusion.

Count me among the atheists that are sick of being marginalized as "unthinking," "extreme," or "angry" strawmen merely because we speak our minds. This is a tactic designed to avoid debate and prop up the theists' position by tying argumentative legitimacy to a subjective notion of respect (which really just means demanding that certain questions not be asked, that certain comparisons not be made). American society is completely saturated with Christian imagery, social rules, and politicking. Excuse me for offending someone by not taking their belief in the supernatural seriously, and raising legitimate questions about what truth means if we embrace an unscientific epistemology which heavily relies on assertions of pragmatism rather than evidence. Santa Claus can be lots of fun. But when we become adults we put childish things away, I might assert, because we become more interested in truth than in writing wish lists to the North Pole.

Another atheist:

Santa Claus is a special case, I suppose, as it is a purposeful fiction that we all are "in on", and thus is particularly insulting to someone who has given a lot of thought to his/her faith.  I agree that whether religious belief and/or practice are good or bad is a difficult question and is really not answerable in a knee-jerk fashion, by athiests or believers. I would encourage believers to actually read Dawkins, Dennett, and other so-called "New Athiests" – I think the aggressiveness and arrogance often attributed to them is unfounded if we start at a point where criticism of religion is not granted some special status as somehow offensive on its face as compared to criticism of single payer healthcare or gay marriage or the musical skills of Dylan versus McCartney.

Yet another:

If the reader wants to debate the benefits of religion rather than the existence of god then that should be fully explored. What are the benefits and can a non-believer get these same benefits from an organization without having to believe? Most believers tend to feel that the benefits received from religion could not be fully received from something other than religion. It is at this point in the discussion the believer will usually say that faith in god is essential to receive the full benefits of the religion and the debate is not back to the existence of god. So I find it hypocritical that the reader thinks atheists only want to discuss faith in god.

I think a full analysis of the benefits received from religion is in order because just because something has some positive benefits does make it proper. I can think of many drugs that appear to offer short term benefits but used incorrectly or for too long can cause harm. Does the benefit to one individual impact another in a negative way? I think anytime religion steps into politics this occurs.What are the mental benefits to organized religion and is there a better way to receive those benefits?

Another:

Frankly, most of the atheist and agnostics I know couldn’t really care less if other people want to wallow in delusion.  It gives us someone to laugh at.  What concerns us is the concerted attempts by the religious to hijack our secular State.    Whether it’s using belief in god as a basis for denying gays the right to marry, fighting against allowing non-Abrahamic insignia on dead soldiers headstones, or haranguing a sitting president for not making a public spectacle of his faith during the ‘National Day of Prayer’ (which is yet another example of unnecessary encroachment…), these ‘believers’ force us into arguing the existence of God.  Not because we CARE about it, but because THEY use his existence to justify their actions.

One more:

Your "Bigger Question" reader is presenting his sober, rational and introspective version of religious belief  as "much more fertile for constructive discussion" and I could agree. It just doesn't happen to be the version of religious belief at which Dawkins and Dennett direct their intemperate ire. It is the rather common, "unsophisticated" version of religious belief that draws their scorn: Their loudest complaints are against things like a 6000 year old earth, creationism, religiously justified bigotry and oppression, and scientific ignorance encouraged by religious belief.

 The earth isn't 6000 years old nor was it created in 7 days: I think your reader and I would agree to that – but he only wants to permit atheists to argue about "more interesting arguments" which have the coincidental virtue of being both fairly innocuous and fairly vague. If the overwhelming majority of religious belief and religiously motivated behavior consisted of sober introspection about the limits and foundations of knowledge, then Dawkins et al would have very little to say. It is because a great many people do believe in God or Mohammed within the same kind of childish framework that they once accepted Tooth Fairies, and that these people then base their social and political behavior on such beliefs, that "new athiests" have a chronic target for their vitriol.

  And finally, I must address the reader's parting comment concerning the "century of rigorous, lively philosophical debate and criticism on ontology and epistemology" that he claims new atheists ignore. I'm well read in this area and I agree than strident atheist arguments are usually not directed at these lines of thought – but the reason is that an honest epistemology of religious belief has little charity for the claims of specific religions that agitate atheists most. That century of religious philosophy takes for granted that 7-day creations, immaculate conceptions, and bodily resurrections (with open wounds left intact!) do not lend themselves to serious consideration anymore than do Aztec feathered dragons nor Thors Hammer. Instead, modern philosophy of religion (when not simply Christian apology), leads at most to a measured reassurance than some kind of vague conception of the divine cannot be dismissed as simply irrational – but it is cold comfort for anyone who values such things as eternal life, a God who is knowable, or a universe in which good deeds are ultimately rewarded.

by Conor Friedersdorf

Ezra Klein writes:

In 2006, Massachusetts passed a big health-care reform bill. The structure of it was actually pretty similar to what we're seeing nationally. And, like what we're seeing nationally, it didn't have much in the way of cost controls. But nor did it promise to. The short-term priority, officials said, was getting coverage to everyone. The long-term priority was cost control. And the two would work together.

After all, without cost controls, subsidizing health-care coverage would become unaffordable, and Massachusetts would have to abandon the reforms it had worked so hard to pass. Without cost control, there could be no universal health-care system. That would focus the mind, they predicted. That would help them make the hard decisions.

This theory made some sense, but it was never clear if it would actually amount to anything. But now Massachusetts is trying to move away from fee-for-service medicine, and towards a payment system that doesn't push doctors to maximize their income by maximizing their treatments.

That's a huge reform. Much bigger than anything we're considering nationally. It's a direct attempt to change the behavior of politically powerful providers to preserve the coverage that the reforms gave to individuals. It will be difficult. The doctors' lobby is already giving angry quotes to the press. But the vote on the commission was unanimous. And the members of the commission felt it was necessary. After all, the only choices before them were going forward on reform and going backward. The status quo was no longer an option. That wasn't been true before reform. But it's true now.

So if we pass health care reform on the national level, it'll start out as something that passes muster with voters, but will eventually morph into a system where technocrats can subvert the popular will by reaching consensus opinions that are insulated from political accountability? Or am I misunderstanding Ezra's point?

by Chris Bodenner

In the wake of Rafsanjani's call to release demonstrators, Mousavi ratchets up the rhetoric:

"Who believes these people, many of them prominent figures, would work with the foreigners and to endanger their country's interests?" he was quoted as saying. "They should be immediately released."

Meanwhile, Khamenei clamps down:

"Anyone, no matter their rank or title, will be detested by the people if they lead our society towards insecurity," he said in a speech carried on state television. "Our leaders must be vigilant. Any word or action which helps [the enemies] will be contrary to the interests of our people."

So does Ahmadi:

Iran’s deputy interior minister, Ali Reza Afshar, announced that the president has demanded laws that would toughen prison conditions for “professional criminals, hooligans and thugs.” The deputy interior minister claimed that people have “welcomed” the armed forces “project to collect hooligans and thugs,” which “should continue and professional criminals must always feel unsafe.”

by Conor Friedersdorf

The New Yorker correspondent writes:

The piece proceeds to examine cocksure decision-makers, asserting similarities in the folks at 2008 financial firms and British military planners during the ill-fated invasion of Gallipoli. Both groups were overconfident to disastrous effect, Mr. Gladwell argues.

Perhaps so. But that hardly justifies his argument that the financial crisis is owed to psychological rather than structural failures!

Financial firms that systematically hires hubristic assholes are plagued by a structural failure in personnel. When a perfectly predictable, eminently human failing like overconfidence is enough to throw a whole financial regime into crisis, that is a structural flaw — a system that only works absent the very human failings most prevalent in the industry it governs is rather worthless.

Or take the British invasion of Gallipoli. In Mr. Gladwell's telling:

A properly structured military planning regime always draws up a formal plan of operations — it's built into the system! Yes, failing to do so was a psychological failure, perhaps perpetrated by irrationally overconfident commanders. But we design structures partly to guard against, mitigate and prevent psychological failures.

Mr. Gladwell wants to argue that "the roots of Wall Street’s crisis were not structural or cognitive so much as they were psychological." But these things aren't mutually exclusive explanations — they are mutually reinforcing.

by Patrick Appel

MSNBC reports on the HIV travel ban. The article fear mongers about the financial cost of overturning the ban, a point which Andrew has debunked in the past. From the article:

If you haven't already, you can go here to lodge a public comment and help overturn the ban. It takes less than a minute.

New York artist Suzi Sadler's "Blonded"

(Hat tip: The Daily What)

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Since Andrew's been very outspoken against circumcision, it might be nice for the Dish to highlight this NYT article showing another side to the procedure.  According to the article, male circumcision reduced female-to-male H.I.V. transmission by about 60% in several African countries. The argument for circumcision as a public health measure in HIV-plagued Africa is pretty compelling.

I can't speak for Andrew, of course, but his writings on the subject – what he calls "male genital mutilation" – center on this fundamental point: since newborns cannot choose to get circumcised or not, to impose the irreversible procedure is immoral. (He has been open to an HIV exception, but he's also aired compelling counter-evidence against the procedure's effectiveness in preventing the disease.) However, the NYT article only talks about grown men getting the procedure – voluntarily – so there really is no tension with Andrew's stated views. Nevertheless, the piece is worth a read, and I found the willingness of men to undergo the procedure both surprising and encouraging. But this motivating factor makes sense:

They had heard from recently circumcised friends that it makes for better sex. You last longer, they said. Your lovers think you’re cleaner and more exciting in bed.

Sounds like the start of an effective ad campaign.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I was watching clips of this concert on YouTube and was reminded of your "Outing Iran" series. Bijan Mortazavi is both a popular singer and one of the masters of violin (with his signature white violin).

From a recent press release:

Musically gifted since he was three years old, Bijan mastered the Violin, Piano, Guitar, Percussion and folk string instruments including the Oud, Tar and Santur by the age of seven. At fourteen, the Iranian native was composing arrangements for thirty piece orchestras in his home country, and by his twenties he was doing the same in the United States. […] But with the rising popularity of pop music and globalization, Persian teens have become disconnected from the rich cultural music of their ancestors, preferring to listen to modern pop instead of folk. Seeing this unfortunate disconnect, Bijan set out to pioneer songs that would fuse traditional Persian music with new age pop to keep the roots of Persian culture alive in younger generations.

by Patrick Appel

The e-mails keep pouring in. I'll keep posting them so long as the discussion remains engaging. A reader writes:

I take issue with the word 'atheist' itself. I do not identify myself as an atheist, because it is an entirely negative word — it doesn't really say anything about what I do believe, only what I don't. And it continues to frame the discourse in the terms of the believer. I understand that for believers (or many believers, anyway) questions about the existence and nature of God are very important. But they are not important to me. I think the question of God's existence is just not very interesting, and my lack of belief in God is not a foundation of my moral or philosophical identity (however much believers want it to be). How could it be a foundation? How could I build a moral and philosophical view of the universe predicated on what I don't believe?

What's important to me is what I do believe — and that's what I'd rather talk about. The mysteries of science and philosophy — particle physics, genetics, phenomenology, neurology, astronomy, Camus' struggle with absurdity. There is so much there to talk about that is fascinating and unknown and worthy of study and speculation, that to be constantly dragged back to this obsession with "God" is really just kind of dull. That's one problem people who don't believe in God run into — all anyone wants to talk about is their non-believing. It keeps the ball entirely in the believers' court, and the discussion entirely on their terms. (When non-believers are allowed into the discussion at all, of course.)

I understand and to some degree appreciate what people like Dennett and Dawkins and Hitchens are doing. They are trying to open up room in the public discourse for non-believers, and to do that without being shouted down takes a lot of huffing and puffing and sharp elbows. I just hope that eventually we can move past the simple acknowledgment that there are non-believers among us (Obama's nod in his inauguration address wasn't much, but it was something), and start talking about what we do believe rather than what we don't. In the meantime, I refuse to define myself in terms of whether or not I reject somebody else's view of the universe. That's way too limiting.

by Conor Friedersdorf

Even for a news junkie like me, the most enjoyable part of the newspaper growing up was the sports section. The Los Angeles Times fluctuated wildly in quality over the years, but it always covered the Los Angeles Lakers well. It's no wonder. That team is the closest thing Metro LA has to a unifying presence. Doesn't matter if you're black, white, or Latino, rich or poor, a San Fernando Valley porn producer or an Orange County Young Republican. The Lakers are your team. A newspaper in that town would be foolish not to cover them well, along with the Dodgers, UCLA, USC and the soccer squads. Thus I got to read the estimable Mark Heisler, who covers the NBA generally, Tim Brown, a former Lakers beat writer who did a great job, TJ Simmers, an acerbic misanthrope who did good reporting and analysis, the awful, saccharine columnist Bill Plaschke — imagine Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd combining as a sportswriter — and JA Adande, who recently left the LA Times for ESPN.com.

This latest championship run, the ninth in my lifetime (not including sundry other trips to The Finals), the LA Times Lakers coverage was weaker than I've ever seen it. Often as not, I just went to ESPN.com, where Mr. Adande and Marc Stein, among others, wrote often on my favorite team — and it looks as though that's what lots of Southern Californians will be doing exclusively in the future:

ESPN has long dominated the coverage of national athletics, pumping out news and commentary on every major sport (and some not-so-major ones) via an expanding network of cable channels, Web sites and mobile services.

Obviously this is more bad news for newspapers that are already struggling financially — and insofar as they're going to lose subscribers and thus resources, it's bad news for anyone who cares about the more meaty kinds of reporting done by those newspapers. And it's good news for sports fans. I suppose a lot of folks who care about Los Angeles journalism, as I most certainly do, are going to lament this move by ESPN, but I won't be among them.

The disaggregation of newspaper content is an inevitability. Was there civic utility in the fact that a guy going for the sports page happened to see what his local mayor was up to by virtue of flipping through the sections? Sure, but that is a rather small matter. As I see it, "important" news is going to have to stand on its own going forward, and the challenge for those who care about journalism is to nudge the culture toward valuing it properly once the "subsidies" — the advertising and the sports section and style coverage and all the rest — aren't available anymore. Will citizens appropriately value journalism that adds civic utility? I'm a pessimist, but one who thinks that time is best spent making the case that undervalued journalism is important, rather than trying to preserve a bundle that isn't going to last much longer.