Truth is a matter, not of what we believe or feel; of what can be proven without falsehood being allowed to stand on it’s slate. This applies to religion and, as will become apparent, Christmas Quizzes. For example some will claim the bible as truth for being god’s word. Without considering that there is no proof supporting that latter claim as a foundation for the former, for faith alone does not make a text divine. Nor devout assertion make a piece of text sacred. That is left to the imagination of scribblers and critics.

We may yet hope to agree on what the text says. Though there are arguments over the rendering of passages we may at least consult the text to what it says. Rather than rely on songs or common knowledge.

Which brings me to the Christmas Quiz at work, attended by Jews, Muslims, Christians and an infidel. The question was how did the animals go into Noah’s Ark?

For the song it is 2 by 2. Hurrah! Hurrah! I claimed that was half true. For Genesis 7 has god instructing Noah on entering the ark with his family:

2take with you seven pairs of each kind of ritually clean animal, but only one pair of each unclean animal.3Take also seven pairs of each kind of bird. Do this so that every kind of animal and bird will be kept alive to reproduce again on earth.

I was the only one to point this out. The non believer sticking to biblical text. As we had done on the question of how many ghosts visited Mr Scrooge – 4 when you count Jacob Marley warning him of the other three.

Religious friends tell me that atheists assume that they should be fundementalists with regards their faith. Perhaps one reason why people claim faith is that they do not grapple with fundementals. For if you think animals went in two by two, then examining the tennents of your faith is not the rock upon which you base it.

Rather common knowledge suggests that they so marched. Common knowledge should not be confused with a sense of things as they are. The latter allows us to find out about things by inquiry and empirical objectivity. The former allows what is held by tradition or acclaim, by appeal to populaism to be true.

Let us not limit ourselves to common knowledge when there are better fruits to pluck and feast upon. No matter who tells you not too.

If what I now write has atheists and devout belivers criticising this blog then I will have achieved what I set out to do. Which is to take both viewpoints outside the comfort zones of the holders.

That how right you believe your view to be is not a reason to hold others to your belief.

Even though atheism is not based on fantasy, or at least on super natural power, this does not mean that we can enforce those views on others.

What we can do is assess the actions that are a consequence of the thought. We need more than a correlation – we need causation, that the belief leads to the act.

As much as we may not wish to phrase it otherwise, atheism is a belief. We may argue that we have better data leading to the conclusion. However we cannot claim it as a fact – otherwise we do exactly what creationists do when they say evolution is only a theory. We cannot debase language by our emotion or force of conviction.

The belief that Jesus was born on 25 December does not hurt me. That it may be celebrated with a tree and tacky decorations is none of my business. The consequence of the belief does not cause harm.

Howver, when I ask you to look at the evidence that the early Christians focused on Jesus’ death not birth. Save for Matthew whose writings appealed to the Greek epic of omens fortelling deity. That the date chosen for commeration is more about pagan significance and convience than historical accuracy.

Faith is not a free ride. You may tell me that your partner is beautiful and your children smart. You are entitled to that view, however I shall choose the opinion that is independent of yours. Do not hold me to your view publicly – it may get ugly.

The above analogy is appropiate because people may feel comforted in their belief of their family as they do about their faith. I suspect though that we all know a family whose belief in their virtues is liable to loose it’s gloss with the disinfectant of scrutiny.

Maybe hands off would be polite. Certainly well mannered if we do not want an argument. Thing is that in the world of competiting faiths is like drunken husbands fighting over whose wife is most virtuous, while the wives prepare their children to dominate the future.

We cannot argue that if Dawkins and co would only shut up then an uneasy ceasefire may exist. Such is the power of thought and to silence is to deny who we are. Thinking animals moved to action based on thought. Not necessarily rationally based but the pack should be allowed to rip the bad ones to pieces for the survival of the best ideas.

So trump card – tolerance of thought. The limits are where the actions of those thoughts lead to consequences against the thoughts of others. Censorship being one, styfling debate another.

The more I see Hitchens debate Rabbis and others makes me think of Douglas Adams and the philosophers arguing about the computer giving answers to philosohical debates. Deep Thought responds that the wait for such answers can set them on the gravy train for life as long as they could vemenently disagree with each other.

The truth is the undiscovered country, but while some become rich on the journey we all benefit from the experience. The sparring, and the friction may lead to ugly moments.

Freedom of thought, the plurality of ideas is important if we want to discover answers. You have to accept that, as in Deep Thoughts words, you are not going to like it. Always.

Not that a bus has meta physical or no belief. If you thought buses and railway stations displayed a little too much in the way of religious advertising here is the free thought remedy:

Richard Dawkins, who is matching all contributions given towards the advertising commented:

“Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride – automatic tax breaks, unearned ‘respect’ and the right not to be ‘offended’, the right to brainwash children. Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side.

“This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion.” [Daily Telegraph]

The advertising will only go ahead from January if the money is there. The British Humanist Association is handling the fund raising – but in ten hours of launching they had reached the target.

Already making an impression not just on Radio 4 Thought for the Day and newspapers but also on the satirical news quiz Have I Got News For You (the line at the end a particularly good one):

Now if we could get some on the bill board at train stations, or perhaps just some quotes to raise human spirits rather than artificial ones …

Ariane Sherine is the brains behind the campaign and you can learn more at her site here.

The free thought tag police are coming!

Splendid Elles (right) tagged me to answer these series of questions.

Can You Remember The Day That You Officially Became An Atheist?

Officially is a redundant word in the question. I neither am a card carrying atheist, nor had a party where people celebrated my non belief. If you want an action that publicly made that, it would be in front of the White House when to a TV crew I spoke about atheists being treated as equal citizens with everyone else – that it was no reflection on your character or ability to be a moral person.

There is no one moment, where you rid yourself of the blood of the lamb. While at University it was a nagging feeling that there was no evidence for a supernatural being that communicated directly with us. Reading philosophy, and in particular Bertrand Russell, and reading politics just meant that god slipped away as I realised we humans have to take responsibility as the only conscious species in making the world a better place – rather than hoping with death we make it to a better one.

Do you remember the day you officially became an agnostic?

Fairly soon after leaving the study of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It occurred to me that their religion was the work of man and that prophecies claimed in the bible were allegories or concerned with actual events that had already happened. The human yearning though for a spiritual side to existence was one that completed the human experience, but religion was only an answer to that expression rather than the answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything.

Some people think the politically correct thing is to term yourself a skeptical agnostic. Yet becoming an atheist just means that you hold out there being no evidence that there is a god; and refuse to accept any argument by a person as being divinely inspired. They will need rationality, logic, empirical evidence, and the welfare of life to consider.

How about the last time you spoke or prayed to God with actual thought that someone was listening?

When I read Watchtower publications and realised that these were the works of men, with false prophecy and changed dogma. I prayed for realisation of what his will was, and that I may come to an understanding of the ultimate truth of things. The answer to those things is in the living.

Did anger towards God or religion help cause you to be an atheist or agnostic?

No. My anger was directed at the Watchtower organisation. That new editions of books did not highlight changes interpretations. It was almost doublespeak of Orwellian descriptions. My anger was directed at the real possibility of dying from refusing a blood transfusion – one that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed their mind about since 1956 when they first decided it was against god’s will.

Here is a good one: Were you agnostic towards ghosts, even after you became an atheist?

I never believed in ghosts. However nothing wrong with science trying to rationally explain the paranormal experience people have. Everyone has to make a living.

Do you want to be wrong?

If there is a god I think belief in him is the last yardstick by which he will measure your life on earth. The notion of freedom and autonomy for me goes against wishing for a celestial all powerful being to exist. There is no guarantee such a being would be benign – with 99% of all living things now extinct, and the way entities in nature try to survive pointing to life as a reflection of god’s attitude is one that would terrify me.

I do not fear death, just as I do not fear life. My ancestors went through it. People around me do it. You just have to figure out what you want to do in the time you have.

So to spread these ideas around, and keep the meme alive, I better tag some people:

Gary William Murning Online

Copland III

Lambda Delta: Tony Sidaway’s science blog

The newly formed Conservative Humanist Association means that now all three main political parties have a humanist society for members to be part of. Though that did not go down completely well with everyone; John Gummer MP, former Agriculture Minister, on seeing them at the party conference denounced them saying the Conservative Party was God’s party. Still, I did not like the man when he fed his infant child beef in front of the press when we had our first BSE scare, and this does nothing to mend his image. The irony is that on Gummer’s website he talks about representing people in his constituency irrespective of party. It seems when it comes to his own party, God is a dividing line.

Richard Dawkins spoke at the launch event (YouTube video) in Birmingham during the party conference. Secular values cross party lines, so while I may not trust that the Conservatives on social justice and free markets benefiting all and not the few, this is something that can only help in making the case for Britain to be more secular when it comes to faith schools, Sharia Law or Bishops in the House of Lords.

Mind you I am in good company – Richard Dawkins has not voted Tory in his life.

At the Council of Ex Muslims of Britain (CEMB) I met up with two people (far right of photo) involved with the Conservative Humanist Association, and we went to a nearby pub to talk about the association. They also referred to the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group – which hopefully will grow; a number of atheist MPs (especially Conservative) tend to keep a low profile. However, a number of prospective parliamentary candidates from the Conservatives are humanist – so if the polls are anything to go by their number on the benches of the Commons will increase.

Left to right: Adrian (thanks for the photo), John aka Homo economicus (pint in hand - lubrication of the mind), Pedram, Oliver

OTHER BLOGS:

International Conference Council of Ex Muslims of Britain (CEMB)

Humanist and Secular Liberal Democrats - UK

Click the photo for a Ken Ham talk I went to

Perhaps sometimes it really is not worth it. Because you may find that the mud slinging offers itself up as a dirty fight, one that you do not want to wage because you do not want to wallow in the filth. Facts, evidence and keeping to the point should be enough for a rational conversation. Otherwise avoid.

Using the good old tag surfer on WordPress I came across this blog which mentioned that a loved one’s ashes could now be turned into a diamond. The only thing was that the person claimed that the technological process that allows this was proof that the earth had been designed in a short period of time. That this was another part of the jigsaw to prove a global flood and the earth being created in 6 days. This also apparently proved evolution wrong though the discussion was about geology.

Yep a Young Earth Creationinst. Got to love these guys, and the way they make an argument.

So I commented:

Human technology in the creation of diamonds does not prove there was a designer for the natural processes that create them, let alone a global flood. Nor does it have any bearing on evolutionary biology.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557986/diamond.html

Synthetic diamonds have been around since the 1950s. However, rumours that all you need is peanut butter, a microwave and some coal are hugely exaggerated.

The blogger responded:

I know it doesn’t prove anything as a stand alone contribution. It simply adds to the pre-existing mountain of evidence confirming a young earth.

You can drag someone to the fountain of knowledge but you cannot make them drink.

However, the person came over to my blog and made some comments – which I thought I would share (free speech) but decided not to give the person a free reign to post without moderation:

On reading About Me:

You left one cult (J.W.) To join another (atheism)??

“Atheism is the religion of the deranged and evolution is their creation story”.

Well there is a difference between the Jehovah’s Witnesses which are a cult and atheism. For one the hours are better. I do not have to ask myself whether my inner thoughts confirm to the wishes of a supreme being that has the ability to mind read. Nor am I kept in line by images that the majority of people are going to be destroyed in a forth coming war, with only door bell ringers of the good news that you will die in Armageddon being saved. Though not as soon as The Society (governing body of J.Ws) assumed in the past.

I do not have to worry whether my clothing confirms to a designated style. No fellow atheist will demand that I get a hair cut or else I am letting down atheism. Nor does my status in the pecking order depend on towing certain tenants. Among the fellowship of atheists there is ammo shot at the four horsemen as with plenty reserved for those that would trounce on hard won freedoms from religious bigotry and refuse the evidence of science. I am encouraged to think things through and to look at the evidence, rather than relying on someones authority to tell me what is true.

I also accepted the theory of evolution before I was an atheist. It helped when I could actually find out about the theory when I read beyond the books published by The Society. My atheism is not based on evolution theory. It is more based on the reasons that Bertrand Russell articulated.

On reading Labelling yourself:

You are the personification of deranged. You are in favor of keeping the scum of the earth alive and yet also in favor of killing unborn children who have never done wrong to anyone.
“Atheism is the religion of the deranged and evolution is their creation story” – Michael D. Shoesmith

Funnily enough the blog was not about abortion or the death penalty. As a European it is not really a surprise that I do not favour the death penalty. That is because there can be no appeal from the grave, and there have been too many instances where miscarriages of justice would have led to people being put to death though the evidence was not conclusive, and those found guilty were on later review released.

The other argument is to try and understand what makes people criminals so we can better protect the law abiding. Whether that takes you on a voyage like Marilynn Rosenthal who used her experience in academia to find out about the 9/11 killer of her son who died in the south tower or Richard Dawkins calling for us to learn about genocidal murderers so we can stop people like Saddam Hussein getting to power rather then put them summarily to death and squander that opportunity. The death penalty is about revenge, as an ultimate punishment. It does not cancel out the evil done, nor bring loved ones back. What it does do is add to the body count in the fight against crime. The death penalty is opposed by religious groups too.

As to abortion – well I do not favour abortion. I see women being able to have legal, professional medical access preferable to backstreet abortions. McCain was of the same opinion before realising he needed the religious right that now controlled his party. I do not want the legal system to be used to enforce a personal view that a fertilized egg has equal rights with a fully grown woman. This stance does not mean that I take pleasure in how many women have abortions. Reproductive issues are a matter for the individual not the state. I would hope every conception brings a healthy, loved, and wanted child that can be provided for. Society needs to see how to address that. I want women empowered to make a real choice. Banning abortion will not solve the social ills that belay our countries. Some religious groups feel that too:

“The directorate of the [United Church of Christ]’s social action office first addressed the abortion issue in 1970, affirming freedom of choice for women, calling for church action supporting the repeal of overly restrictive abortion legislation and encouraging the expansion of sex education programs.  Freedom of choice in reproductive matters was first affirmed by the General Synod in 1971 and has been reaffirmed in one way or another by several General Synods since.”

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Unitarian Universalists in the United States be urged to promote passage of federal legislation to:

guarantee the fundamental right of individual choice in reproductive matters [source]

As for a delusion well the definition is:

A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts; The state of being deluded or misled; That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief. [source]

On that score, Young Earth Creationism fits perfectly. Below is Eugenie Scott on YEC:

Part One:

Part Two:

OTHER BLOGS:

Atheist at Ken Ham talk in Leicester

Secularist, humanist, Rawlsian, liberal, vegetarian, cyclist environmentalist, economist, free thinker.

Plenty of labels that come across when talking about public policy, a way of life or moral issues.

As Sam Harris has said, there is not always a need to wear your atheism on your sleeve to win an argument rationally. As a tactic, not falling into the atheist/theist trap is a winning one for public policy.

Thing is, it is not clear to a large number of people that religion is an antiquated and bizarre way of looking at the world – one that may be counter productive when facing humanity’s problems.

When you go beyond atheism then it descends into trying to herd cats. It is not enough of an idea for mass political mobilization.

But if there is one thing that may make more sense it is pushing secularism and it’s benefits to a free and equal society of liberty. That is one that can include more than atheists. Where numbers matter that could be the winning approach.

OTHER BLOGS:

Sam Harris – do not cast the first stone his speech at Atheist Alliance International Conference, Washington DC, 2007 where he articulated his ideas on not using atheism in public debate.

A question was posed on “Ask the Atheists” and I thought I would include my answer to that question here.

Are most secularists atheists?

Only with free and equal people doing so; the fault lines are religion but the cause of war and violence is more rooted in what makes us human.

I suspect that most atheists are secularists, but are most secularists atheists?

Is atheism the ‘lavender menace’ of the secularist movement?

Well, at the risk of sounding like “some of my best friends are …”, I know theologians who are more passionate about the secularist state than the second coming.

Atheism does not undermine secularism; the issue is really whether you think religion needs to disappear for a golden age of humanity or that any one that offers a magic bullet for humanity’s ills is more likely to shoot themselves in the foot.

If people want to believe that manna rained down from heaven and that god spoke from a burning bush fine. That to me is no different to Greek myths, or tribal stories that unite a community with a common culture.

When religion starts to be enforced on me as a basis for how to live my life, or affect my status as a citizen then a line is crossed. Your belief has become threats to my liberty, of person and thought.

The secular state is the only one that can give justice and freedom to citizens, whatever religion is yours or if you have none. That is a much more powerful argument than the irrationality of anyone believing their particular faith is true for everyone.

OTHER BLOGS:

Secularism – why it is good for us all

With regards Palin on the Bush doctrine, that Sam Harris mentions see blog here. The tactic of winning over Hillary Democrats seems to be working with Lynette Long. Also, considering Sam Harris mentioned that we should consider not using the term Atheist when there is a more central goal to be won (in Palin’s case lack of experience) I wonder why he agreed to the title.

When Atheists Attack

by Sam Harris in Newsweek

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin’s performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin’s speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones “God and country.” If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin’s first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin’s luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady’s misfortune—and, above all, upon the “liberal elites” with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth’s surface (she didn’t have a passport until last year), or that she’s never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska’s geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin’s lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. “They think they’re better than you!” is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. “Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!” Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter’s microphone, saying things like, “I’m voting for Sarah because she’s a mom. She knows what it’s like to be a mom.” Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin’s most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn’t much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase “Bush doctrine.” And I am quite sure that her supporters didn’t care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain’s advisers. What doesn’t she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin’s ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn’t: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn’t be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn’t ready for? He wouldn’t. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray “that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.” When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response “absurd.” It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations. Every detail that has emerged about Palin’s life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the “end times.” Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves. Otherwise, what could she have meant when declaring to her congregation that “God’s going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you”?

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps. In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” “miraculous healings” and “the gift of tongues.” Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin’s spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of “the final generation,” engaged in “spiritual warfare” to purge the earth of “demonic strongholds.” Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: “All options remain on the table”?

It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin’s impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin’s daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who “intends” to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of “the dysfunction in the black community”?

Teen pregnancy is a misfortune, plain and simple. At best, it represents bad luck (both for the mother and for the child); at worst, as in the Palins’ case, it is a symptom of religious dogmatism. Governor Palin opposes sex education in schools on religious grounds. She has also fought vigorously for a “parental consent law” in the state of Alaska, seeking full parental dominion over the reproductive decisions of minors. We know, therefore, that Palin believes that she should be the one to decide whether her daughter carries her baby to term. Based on her stated position, we know that she would deny her daughter an abortion even if she had been raped. One can be forgiven for doubting whether Bristol Palin had all the advantages of 21st-century family planning—or, indeed, of the 21st century.

We have endured eight years of an administration that seemed touched by religious ideology. Bush’s claim to Bob Woodward that he consulted a “higher Father” before going to war in Iraq got many of us sitting upright, before our attention wandered again to less ethereal signs of his incompetence. For all my concern about Bush’s religious beliefs, and about his merely average grasp of terrestrial reality, I have never once thought that he was an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy. With the McCain team leading her around like a pet pony between now and Election Day, she can be expected to conceal her religious extremism until it is too late to do anything about it. Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to “talk the talk” between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to “walk the walk” until the Day of Judgment.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world’s only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

“Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child’s brain?”

“Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I’m an avid hunter.”

“But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind.”

“That’s just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink.”

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has “elitism” become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn’t seem too intelligent or well educated.

I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. “You can’t blink,” she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.

Harris is a founder of The Reason Project and author of The New York Times best sellers “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.” His Web site is samharris.org.

OTHER BLOGS:

Christopher Hitchens on Palin

Mother Nature is Not Our Friend – by Sam Harris

Spore - it's just a game

As I predicted in an earlier blog, the analysis over the game Spore has begun in earnest with a thread on the official Richard Dawkins site here.

It has shocked some posters that Wright (the game designer) is a Republican supporter. As if accepting evolution as a scientific theory influences your political philosophy. It may shock them to know that there are people who voted for George W Bush involved with the Dawkins website. The point is that atheism, and science do not mean that you have a predestined political outlook on life. Hence the fact that though atheists have the numbers, the political organization of them has been like herding cats.

I may well have said about Wright’s game SimCity that it dismissed the invisible hand idea of economics in the game play suggesting a central planner was needed for a successful economy. Naturally to make a game interesting the player is involved in key decisions, interactions in the game having consequences which effect gameplay and results. If Spore was really about evolution and natural selection you would start a game and just watch – the only question then would be when you start a new game from the beginning would the evolution happen in the same way? A question Dawkins himself ponders the answer to.

I am tempted to say that it is all just a game, and what matters is whether the game is fun or not. From the makers perspective what matters is will enough units be shifted to cover costs, and if there are future revenue streams to be made with added extras, and internet downloads/access to main site content.

Yet people are trying to spin the game so that it favours intelligent design – with the argument that you need a designer (the player) for the creatures to survive and develop. We should not worry too much. This is the finding a watch on a walk argument which Dawkins dealt with in The Blind Watchmaker.

I am more with the opinion that it may make some kids take an interest in evolutionary biology. But the fact is that it will be more or less neutral on that score. For most it will just be a game they played.