Kyle Mcallister writes: > 1. Margaret Sanger was responsible for some good, yes. > She was also crazy. Not the kind of person I would > want to spend much time with.
That's true. She was strange and difficult, but geniuses who are driven to do things against the will of society are often like that. Many CF researchers are annoying for the same reason. > 2. I am not pro-abortion for a few reasons. Me neither. But I can't have a baby, so I defer to those who can. > 3. A religious person really really must have made you > mad once, Jed? Nope, never. > It is fine by me if you are > anti-religion, do what you want to. I am not, actually. That is a bit like saying I am against South Pacific witch doctoring, or against traditional Japanese folk beliefs and shamanistic rituals. I have seen them performed in person. I find these beliefs fascinating. They tell us much about human nature and our wishes fears and desires. But they are part of the dead past. I could no more believe in them than I could bring myself to believe in Santa Claus. And I feel exactly the same way about all Western religion. I suppose that is one of the risks you take when you spend your youth in a distant foreign culture. It gives you perspective and makes you question your own background and beliefs. > But if you want to > try and say you and the anti-religionists are better > than anyone who has a religion . . . Science is the best belief system by far judging by actual results: prosperity, freedom and happiness. Inasmuch as it conflicts with religion or shamanism, I am sure it is right and they are wrong. Of course that is *my* culture, and I cannot escape it. > . . . or worse force your > views on them via legislature, well, kindly knock the > hell off. I can't imagine doing that, except in a few very narrow contexts. For example, I would insist that science be taught in public school biology classes. If private schools want to teach creationism instead, that is their business and I would not dream of interfering. > You know, if we are supposed to be so > pro-women-liberation in other countries, so > pro-freedom, so pro-lets-all-get-along-as-equals, so > pro-<insert theme of day here> then why the HELL is it > ok and dandy to hate religion? When religion causes harm, I hate it. Ditto science, of course! When the Catholic Church campaigns against condoms that kills millions of people. When it causes no harm and does not bother me, I could not care less what people do in churches. When they build houses for the poor and do other good things, I am happy to join them, and contribute money. After all, science is derived from Christianity via enlightenment philosophy. It is based on individualism, democracy, love of truth, academic freedom and much else that was developed by the church. It is an improved version of religion, without the supernatural nonsense. Thomas Jefferson cut out all of the miraculous and supernatural parts of the bible with scissors to develop this line of thinking. He was on the right track. > If you think I am > overreacting, then re-read your posts. They were > pretty damned irritating to me at least, and I am sure > others. I am sorry about that, but after all, I find it irritating when people prattle on about religion beliefs that have no logical or experimental basis. It is all bunk -- no better than Japanese village shamanism -- and it doesn't hurt you people to hear that from time to time. > 4. Contraception? Sure, why not. I have no problem > with this. Unfortunately, many churches do have a problem, and the Pope did. > But please, if anyone out there wants to > force the use of them on people who do NOT want to use > them, kindly take a hike. When I have suggested doing such a thing?!? > 6. You know, the Pope just died. He meant alot to many > people. I know. I have been reading the editorials. I thought I should provide a minority viewpoint, since only one editorial in the Washington Post, pointed out that his policies led to the death by AIDS and starvation of millions of innocent people. He did much that was good, but you cannot ignore the harm that he caused. > (I am not catholic, by the way, but I damn > sure respect them and am not going to say they are 400 > years behind!) I say they are. I get an overwhelming sense of that, whenever I hear someone claiming supernatural events occurred, or talking about miracles or the power of faith. In science, faith is the enemy of truth. It is fine for children or holding your marriage together, but as a basis for healthcare decisions or population control, it can kill a million people for no reason. > 7. If this continued anti-religious bias is to be > embraced and accepted, then do not EVER ask me to show > compassion towards some special interest group of to > feel sorry for Muslims who might have been > discriminated against . . . Why not feel sorry for them? They beliefs are nonsense, but they are still nice people. Most people believe in nonsense, including me. I can't tell which of my beliefs are wrong, but I am sure many are. > If there is someone who feels that the need for > population control is so severe that we need to force > people to go against their religious and/or moral > views . . . Why would I say that? Why would anyone? Believing in things that are not true is the human condition. It causes little harm, in most cases. As long as you are not in charge of population policy or teaching biology, what difference does it make what you believe? Look, I presume that if you watched a Japanese shaman (as I have done), you would be respectful and reasonable (as I was, and always would be). You would not feel angry at him. You would not try to pass a law making shamanism illegal. But on the other hand, you would not take his ritual seriously. You would not expect that his words and waving paper and so on might actually cure anything, except a psychosomatic illness. Right? Well, I feel exactly the same way watching people in a Western church, or watching the Pope. It is charming folk belief, but the human race outgrew that sort of thing when we learned the laws of physics, biology and evolution. I have worked with an unreformed, unapologetic member of the Japanese Imperial Navy who thought Pearl Harbor was entirely justified. I found that a little upsetting, and I certainly feel he was wrong (and a little crazy), but I would never attack him or try to pass a law against such beliefs, or try to limit his freedom of speech. I was reasonably respectful and polite, but I never hestated to tell him that I am delighted our side won the war, and they got what was coming to them at Midway. You have to live with people who have weird ideas, and you have to be civil, but you don't have to agree! > There are more, but for the moment I am too pissed off > to handle them clearly. I am sorry if the tone is > extremely abrasive, I am very angry. I expect that is cognitive dissonance. It does not happen to me when the situation is reversed. I get a little miffed when people make religious claims, and I think it is a bad idea to teach children creationism instead of science, but I never get "very angry" about harmless nonsense that many people happen to believe. That would be like getting upset over horescopes in the newspapers, a dance craze, or a football tournament. > Jed, you believe science and religion cannot coexist. > This isn't a belief, you are stating something as > fact. Well of course that is my belief. I can't prove it. But they generally do not coexist, since as I said, all studies have shown that the majority of scientists are atheists. Of course there are exceptions. For that matter, there are superstitious scientists, and ones who gamble money at casino slot machines. > You are wrong in one case, at least. Naturally! There are bound to be exceptions. This is biology and sociology, not physics. No general statement about people is ever completely right or wrong. > They coexist just fine in the reality of my mind . . . You are a little unusual for a scientist. Not too unusual; I have know several others, such as Chris Tinsley and Gene Mallove. Chris and I used to joke about this subject. > Sorry if this offended anyone. But maybe it is time > those people who quietly keep getting offended > themselves say something. That is how I feel about religion! - Jed
