14 September 2010 Rehabilitation

Last night: I slept well. But I took Naproxyn at 7 pm, two extra strength Tylenol PM at 9:30, and iced my shoulder twice during the evening.

This morning: heavy legged from yesterday’s squats, run and Sunday’s race. The knee was a tad “hot”. So I strolled my 10K (6.3 mile) hill course in 1:35; 8 minutes slower than last time.

I am still catching up on sleep.

PT: one more appointment prior to the doctor. He dug into my muscle and got the pressure points. We did some tests; if I have a tear it isn’t a major one as I have strength; it is just painful.

Bill Maher Mosque Opinion

Bill Maher tells Jay Leno his opinion on Mosque by 9/11 Ground Zero.

Bill Maher Mosque Opinion, posted with vodpod

Atheism, Science and Koran Burning (or: Why I am not a UU)

Politics and the teaching of evolution
Larry Moran alerted the readers of his blog to this article in Salon. Here are highlights:

Why do you call yourself an atheist? Why not an agnostic?

Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

[....]

It’s interesting that you link those two words — intelligent and atheistic. Are you saying the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist?

There’s a fair bit of evidence in favor of that equation, yes.

That sounds like an elitist argument. Do you want to cite that evidence?

It’s certainly elitist. What’s wrong with being elitist, if you are trying to encourage people to join the elite rather than being exclusive? I’m very, very keen that people should raise their game rather than the other way around. As for citing the evidence, a number of studies have been done. The one meta-analysis of this that I know of was published in Mensa Magazine. It looked at 43 studies on the relationship between educational level or IQ and religion. And in 39 out of 43 — that’s all but four — there is a correlation between IQ/education and atheism. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist. Or the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist. [...]

What about the old adage that science deals with the “how” questions and religion deals with the “why” questions?

I think that’s remarkably stupid, if I may say so. What on earth is a “why” question? There are “why” questions that mean something in a Darwinian world. We say, why do birds have wings? To fly with. And that’s a Darwinian translation of the evolutionary process whereby the birds that had wings survived better than the birds without. They don’t mean that, though. They mean “why” in a deliberate, purposeful sense. So when you say religion deals with “why” questions, that begs the entire question that we’re arguing about. Those of us who don’t believe in religion — supernatural religion — would say there is no such thing as a “why” question in that sense. Now, the mere fact that you can frame an English sentence beginning with the word “why” does not mean that English sentence should receive an answer. I could say, why are unicorns hollow? That appears to mean something, but it doesn’t deserve an answer.

But it seems to me the big “why” questions are, why are we here? And what is our purpose in life?

It’s not a question that deserves an answer.

Note that Professor Moran highlights different things. Dawkins goes on to say that “yes, evolution lead him to atheism” and such an answer would hurt the case of teaching evolution in the public schools. Nevertheless, he feels the need to answer honestly. I am glad that he does.

Frankly, I see science and religion as being incompatible. Sure, there are outstanding scientists who are religious (though I think that many suffer from cognitive dissonance) and some who marry the two by making religion into a bunch of metaphors.

Speaking of religion: I was raised Catholic, eventually became a Unitarian and am now an atheist. My wife it thinking about going back to the UU church but I am not even tempted. Here is why.

They favor:

I am more of:

Another aspect can be seen here. Basically, a fundie preacher was going to burn a Koran in public. The UU’s protested (ok, so far) but then a skateboarder stole the Koran to keep the fundie from burning it. This guy was viewed as a hero.

Well, I see it this way: yeah, I’ll say it: there is really no good reason for this fundie to burn a Koran in Amarillo, TX. That is just sticking a stick in the eye of a disliked group. And I don’t care for book burnings in general; it reminds me a bit of this:

I am for opposing bad ideas loudly and vigorously. Burning a book means that you’ve lost the intellectual battle.

Nevertheless, I find the following types of statements to be off-putting:

Let us leave aside the religious dimension, most of us live in a secular society; thus, let us examine the secular arguments of free speech which underpins this issue. This has resurfaced the old debate of the right of freedom of speech against ‘selective’ curbing of it, to prevent incitement to hate and violence. In defence of Terry Jones, the issue of freedom of expression is pointed out, along with the example of the Muslims burning the Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie, in the past. The obliging media selectively pushes the arguments of incitement to hate and violence to the back, and the argument of the right of free speech for Terry Jones is brought to the front. It works in reverse for the Muslim action and reaction, as it is always measured against the principle of incitement to hate and violence, rather than a right to express their viewpoint.

Both, the Satanic Verses and the actions of Terry Jones are provocation, and not a reaction; one can also include the Danish Cartoon in this category. Rather, the Muslims will point out, if the media opposed the book burning of Satanic Verses, why did they not demonstrate the same level of opposition to the burning of the Quran. Moreover, the ‘Satanic Verses’ is not a sacred scripture with millions of followers around the world. Thus, if anything, the response to curtail free speech of Terry Jones should have been greater. This merely confirms that media consistency is the exception, and media-hypocrisy is the norm.

Wrong. I had no problem with people destroying The Satanic Verses so long as they were destroying their own property. It was the death threats that were out of line. Neither Muslims, Christians or Jews have a “right” to not be offended. Those who think that they have this right don’t belong in the United States.

This is even dumber:

Burning the Quran is not freedom of expression. It is a violation of the rights of one billion and 570 million Muslims

Dr. Diaa Rashwan

Wrong.

Simply put, I am not going to say that I respect an idea that I don’t respect, and I am not going to let some religious idiot tell me what ideas I can oppose and what ideas I must stay silent about.

Yes, build your mosque, church of synagogue where ever you have the land and permits to do so. Worship the way you see fit. But don’t ask me to say something nice and respectful about it and if opinions are being voiced, I’ll voice mine. And I am not going to stick up for a dumb religion just because it has minority status in this country. This is one reason I wouldn’t fit in at a UU church.