I just added a twitter widget to the sidebar of the blog.  I’ve been largely undecided about twitter, but have recently seen some great uses of it and have come around to see the handiness of the idea.  While in SoCal, I saw people using it to get together.  It went something like this:  Alice is bored at home on Friday night.  She looks at twitter and sees that Bob is out at wine bar with some mutual friends from work.  Alice can then call Bob or just show up.  I remember that in college people used to leave situational outgoing messages on their voice mail/answering machines.  They’d say things like, “Hey, we’re out at the High Dive tonight.  Hope to see you there.”

Additionally, I agree with Clive Thompson in How Twitter Creates a Social Sixth Sense.  I think it gives one a real sense of the lives of friends.  I have friends I don’t see or talk to often, but it’s nice to have an easy means to keep up with them.  I find twitter has a much lower barrier to entry than blogging.  Check out my twitter, if you like.

This morning I caught Edward R. Murrow on NPR’s This I Believe, a series of short essays on personal beliefs and values.  Apropros of my earlier post, On Faith, Murrow had this to say about the human intellect: “The human intellect is the closest we can come to the divine.” Indeed.

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality€”judiciously, as you will€”we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

“Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush” October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush.

I do indeed believe that “solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality” and wish beyond hope that the politicians theocrats in this country also believed it to be true. As Point of Inquiry is fond of saying, “Who ever thought that reality needed defending?”

I find the topic of religious faith incredibly interesting. I was reading
Religion Beat Became a Test of Faith and was reminded of something by the following paragraph.

Clearly, I saw now that belief in God, no matter how grounded, requires at some point a leap of faith. Either you have the gift of faith or you don’t. It’s not a choice. It can’t be willed into existence. And there’s no faking it if you’re honest about the state of your soul.

I’ve had the great fortune to have been befriended by some wonderfully intelligent priests in my life and our conversations invariable touch on faith as conscious act. My mother often speaks of her faith as an enterprise of great effort as I suspect many faithful feel. If I recall correctly, Dawkins has described faith as requiring a critical suspension of intellectual faculties. In fact, I recall being told that the attempt to apply the human intellect to understanding faith, god, etc., is an ultimately futile endeavor as the human intellect was designed specifically to not understand these things. I personally would be profoundly disappointed if the whole story were true- if god created man is his own image, required man to worship god, but did not provide man with the faculties to understand god. I believe that conversation ended with some explanation of intellect being a tool of the devil or some such.

The point, though, is that faith is extremely interesting. I’ve watched some seem to draw from a bottomless well while others believe it to not exist. I’m particularly interested in the point that Dawkins et al. make about the inherent dangers of faith. Specifically, as the argument goes, uncritical thinking and denial of evidence which contradicts the message of the faithful, often in willful ignorance, are extremely dangerous. Certainly, many would argue that the faith of fundamentalist Islamic martyrs angling for a boatload of virgins in heaven is dangerous. The relationship between poverty, education, and faith is a fascinating topic, too.

A friend and I were at lunch yesterday and the conversation turned to progressive atheism.  He proposed this question: Why do progressive atheists support causes, such as universal health care, that have no or little impact on them?  This question also applies to greenhouse gas emissions and many currently relevant topics.  I found it a very thought provoking question.  There are some implicit assumptions in the question that I found troublesome, but it was a worthwhile topic.  I’ll share my answer.I suspect many progressive atheists are humanists a la William James.  Disbelieving divine retribution but desiring a better world, progressive atheists value life and, not believing in afterlives, work to improve the quality of this life not only for themselves but for all.  I described environmentalism as a moral decision, which led us to discuss the source of morals in the absence of religion.

I related an NPR piece I recently heard featuring  Joshua D. Greene discussing his research into morality using neuroimaging.  My friend suggested that perhaps religion is a justification and codification of morality rather than the source.  This fits with Greene’s experience showing that people of all and no religions make the same moral decisions.  It was Greene’s theory, if I recall correctly, that morality is an evolutionary adaptation to social interaction.

My mother and I once had a conversation in which she said that she would expect atheists to all be murders as a result of not fearing god.  In fact, I hear this a lot in the media.  I suspect that if those people, my mother included, lost faith they would not immediately turn to murder.  I imagine they’d find that morals can operate independently of religion.

Bertrand Russel as quoted by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (p.97):

The immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes.

Certainly I find this to be true in my experience and I have not worked anywhere I consider progressive. In fact, I am always interested to read about how liberal academicians are, but have seen precious little of it. Admittedly, I would guess my collegiate coworkers to be left of those in big pharma, but not so drastically as the mainstream media would suggest.

More interesting, though, is the Dawkins’ claim that atheists presently hold the most persecuted religious belief. It’s interesting for the response it elicits in people of faith all clamoring to hold that title. Although I couldn’t say to which group belongs that distinction, I find it odd to argue for it.

From The New Yorker Archives, here’s an excerpt from a gem of a story describing the rise of the SUV in American Society despite an (un)safety record. From the article, Big and Bad: How the S.U.V ran over automotive safety:

Fred J. Schaafsma, a top engineer for General Motors, says, “Sport-utility owners tend to be more like ‘I wonder how people view me,’and are more willing to trade off flexibility or functionality to get that. ” According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills. Ford’s S.U.V. designers took their cues from seeing “fashionably dressed women wearing hiking boots or even work boots while walking through expensive malls. “

I offer this without comment except to say that infatuation with the automobile, while a staple of American culture, is lost on me. Also, though I’ve chosen to highlight this commentary, the article goes on to illustrate the fact that mid-sized cars are demonstrably safer than SUV’s.