Tucker Carlson’s Cognitive Dissonance

LOL! Tucker Carlson did his best with his constant interruptions designed to unhinge Bill Nye, but became unhinged himself as Nye remained quite calm and provided the answers to what he was asking. But then, Carlson denied Nye was answering the questions because Carlson couldn’t understand the very simple, factual answers.

We humans are still territorial creatures, a legacy of our evolutionary past. Today, we can see our territoriality in political borders, properties and land possessions, supported by law, the police and the military.

We have psychological territories as well (subjective belief that cannot be independently verified as true), such as religion, politics and, yes, even negatives such as global warming science denial.

Many of us cannot allow objective facts (e.g., independently verifiable, human caused, global warming) to encroach on our subjective territories. Tucker’s angry conflict arose when Nye’s objective facts came in contact with his subjective border, and Nye correctly identified it as Tucker’s “cognitive dissonance.”

That Carlson rushed to his border to fight against Nye’s objective facts demonstrates his belief that his territory was threatened, which is why he became angry.

THE EMPATHY IMPERATIVE book trailer

If you like the trailer, please share.

If the Bible is the inerrant word of an inerrant god, then who really introduced evil into the world and why? If the Earth is only six to ten thousand years old, why is there such overwhelming, logically indisputable evidence of evolution?

Was Descartes wrong, and God was a deceiver, after all?

M. Jefferson (Jeff) Hale, a humanist professor of evolutionary biology, remains an unrepentant skeptic as the biblical Tribulation begins.

Wars, super storms, famine, disease, and food riots sweep the earth. Politicians, frightened by signs of the End of Days, scramble to make laws proving to God that they are worthy of salvation. A nationwide purge of liberal educators is implemented, and Jeff is on their hit list.

Jeff is curious about world events but unmoved by the mania and the purge. His only concerns are to enhance the intellectual maturity of his students, resolve his romantic ambivalence, and come to terms with the death of his estranged, fundamentalist father.

Yet, Jeff knows the answer to a question unasked, and as even as zealous forces move against him, he becomes the focus of an extraordinary event unforeseen even by God.
_______________________

“The Empathy Imperative” is a philosophical/spiritual novel written in the spirit of the BBC/WGBH Boston production, “God On Trial,” a play written by Frank Cottrell Boyce, based on an event told by Elie Wiesel in his book, “The Trial of God.”
_______________________

Paperback and Digital:

http://booklocker.com/books/6830.html (free chapter available)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Empathy-Imperative-Max-Furr/dp/1626463220

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-empathy-imperative-max-t-furr/1114833671?ean=9781626463226

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17659816-the-empathy-imperative

ISBN-13: 9781626463226
Publisher: BookLocker.com, Inc.
Publication date: 2/15/2013
Pages: 452

Through the Eyes of an Atheist

This Blog’s theme, as followers know, is about Empathy and Universal Benevolence. That means that one should try to see life through the eyes of others, even non believers. Without theists at least trying to understand this, the world will never find peace. And to say that the world will never find peace anyway is to close one’s mind to the possibilities, to be part of the problem, and to help ensure it may not happen.

This video is perhaps the best presentation of reality as seen through the eyes of an atheist. I have never seen better.


— Max T. Furr is author of The Empathy Imperative, a philosophical novel exploring the nature of Justice and mercy, and demonstrating why religion often prevents us from extending those concepts to others.

Was Descartes wrong, and God was a deceiver after all? What would the world be like if empathy, not self interest or religious dogma, were our primary motivating force?

Religion Verses Atheism: A Misunderstood Debate

religion and science debateRecently on The Daily Tarheel, I posted a comment in support of same-gender marriage in which I chided religion for inhibiting advancements in the human condition. A contributor responded with a few questions which seemed to show that some good, religious folks have misunderstood the roll of atheists in relation to advancements in the human condition. Although I had not mentioned atheism in my original post, he wanted to know what atheism has contributed to humanity. I took this as an opportunity to elaborate, and decided to share the debate here.

I begin with my reply to his questions, which are incorporated below and are marked by <>:


Thank you for the questions. I always appreciate a civil debate. Forgive the lengthy reply, but your questions cannot be answered in a few words.

First, my argument has nothing to do with atheism. It has everything to do with religion-free Reason. Perhaps you could call it humanism. There are atheistic humanists, spiritual humanists, and religious humanists–and every shade within that spectrum. This applies, as well, to scientists the world over.

<>What advancements do you believe the anti-religionists of the 20th century brought to the world and the human psyche?

The question is a straw man argument. Again, I am not arguing atheism v religion. Advances in human societies have nothing to do with atheism, but everything to do with critical thinking. Better to ask what advancements have dogmatic religion brought to the world and to the human psyche. Dogma, by its very nature, is not a result of critical thought. (no condescension meant).

Once science divorced itself from religion and threw off (or set aside) the yoke of religious dogma, we achieved great strides in knowledge. In medicine, for example, we found that illness was not caused by demons, a devil, witchcraft, and/or a god’s punishment, but by organisms too small to see with the naked eye. The religion-free Scientific Method brought us cures for most of those diseases, and it will be religion-free science that conquers the Ebola virus.

For contrast, I researched the effectiveness of prayer and know that it does not work–subjective opinions notwithstanding. See: http://new.exchristian.net/201….

Too, science gave us knowledge that mental illness is not demonic possession, and this advancement led to cures and therapy instead of exorcisms. We no longer burn people to death because Reason has brought us empathy and understanding.

The Enlightenment brought us real astronomy (fought against by the church, fang and claw). Astronomy was nurtured by the birth of physics (where was the church here?)

The short if it is that the exclusion of religion in science has opened up humanity to every advancement known to the world and religion has been dragged along kicking, screaming, and killing. Reject science and you get ISIS (as an example).

<>If theism is out, what reason do you propose for our ability to reason?

My powers of reason (and yours) are a product of evolution. It developed because of its survival value just like most traits of all other species.

I sense that you would not agree with that. I will welcome your thoughtful arguments for Intelligent Design, but before you start, check out the documentary and trial transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. You can find them athttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/e…. Dr. Behe testified, and the judge was a conservative, appointed by a conservative.

<>When you consider world history, how has atheism fared in the promotion of world peace?

Again, it isn’t atheism v. religion. it is about Reason. Unfortunately, partly because of religion, science has had little effect on the human psychological thirst for domination and territoriality, and this, too, is a result of those traits we inherited from our evolutionary past. It is only when humanity realizes its own nature and whence it came will we be able to collectively do something about it. Better to ask what religion has contributed to world peace. Here is an article that will answer this question..

<>What religion(s) do you see killing each other in the names of their loving, merciful gods?

When you realize the real reason you disbelieve and oppose other religions, then, and only then, will you realize why they disbelieve and oppose yours. Muslims of every persuasion believe their god to be a loving god, so long as one is faithful to Islam. Christians believe their god to be a loving god so long as one is faithful to Christianity.

In the Muslim world, however, having rejected the Enlightenment, various denominations are even now killing each other. Surely you’ve noticed. Listen to many fundamentalist Christians who think we should nuke the Muslim nations and kill them all. I’ve debated many who advocate a “finial Crusade.” I suppose you might call that their “finial solution.” It is such a sad view, I think.

<>Where does the “golden rule” come from?

From many religions as well as the ancient sages. I’ve researched this as well: See: https://thebenevolentthou.com/2… for the list and the quotes.

<>How do you know that’s the only doctrine humanity needs?

The last answer lays out the reason.

<>Why do you list “love” as a prerequisite to marriage?

I did not “list” love as a “prerequisite” to marriage. This question is an equivocation on my argument that no one in this nation (U.S.) should be denied the right to marry someone he or she loves. This is not a theocracy. It is a secular nation. No religion has a right to dictate to others in society that they must abide by certain religious beliefs. You may not like what others do because of your religious beliefs, but since their actions bring no harm, they have every right to marry someone they love–the same right you reserve for yourself.

Creationism in Science Class: Why Not?

Image

I recall reading a joke some years back that asked, If evolution is true and humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Answer – Well, because some were given a choice. I laughed, but there is a molecule of passive truth there. Natural selection, though not offering a choice, is in fact, selective, although blindly so.

I’ve been considering this article for months now. It is no easy task to attempt an empathetic approach to such an emotional and divisive subject—emotional and divisive, of course, for biblical literalists. Yet, in order for there ever to be some progress in finding common ground, first and foremost we must not approach the subject of human evolution in a confrontational manner. We are creatures of reason and through reason we can find solutions—if we want them.

The impetus for moving ahead with this article was provided by a follower of my blog who opined recently that even though he agreed with me that creationism does not belong in science class, he felt that neither does “Darwinism.”

I can understand the blogger’s frustration. There is a world of misinformation about the Theory of Evolution and the great majority of Americans have little or no formal education in evolutionary biology. The great majority of folks have been taught from tothood that God created the world and all thereupon much as we see it today.

But evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. It is a theory of the origin of species—not how life on earth began, but how it became so diverse.

In this article, my intent is not to convince anyone of evolution or creationism, but to try and dispel some misconceptions about science. Understanding these misconceptions is the only way common ground can possibly be achieved.

Many folks over the past century and a half have learned to accept the growing body of scientific evidence for evolution by deciding that evolution was likely the way God chose to create human beings and that the Genesis creation stories are meant as metaphors. That’s fine. After all, nowhere in the corpus of the Theory of Evolution does it deny that a supreme being started the “Ball of Cause and Effect” rolling.

For many, adding to the difficulty of accepting the science is the fact that reading scientific articles on the theory can be quite dry and boring. Most folks have enough on their hands just making a living and finding time to feel at one with the family—to maintain that sense of identity and belonging we humans need. Thus, there is little time or inclination to sit down and educate oneself about evolution.

Too, I am well aware that the idea of human evolution is considered by many theists to be cold, soulless, without purpose, and therefore quite frightening. It is no wonder that biblical literalists do not want their children exposed to the theory and want it replaced in science classes by Intelligent Design (creationism). It is thought, too, that if one accepts evolution, then he no longer has a moral foundation on which to build his life. This is a false notion. A philosophical foundation for a moral and empathetic life can be every bit as strong as a religious foundation.

Greatly complicating the issue of creationism and evolution is our own language, and topping the list of complications is the word, “theory.” Dictionaries offer several meanings and even some of these are lacking.

Merriam-Webster, for example, offers the scientific definition as: “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wavetheory of light>.”

While this definition is true, it really doesn’t do justice to the word—i.e., it doesn’t explain the special method used to reach scientific acceptability. One is, therefore, left with something akin to the popular definition of the word “theory,” which is a “speculation,” or “hunch,” or “assumption,” as in, “that’s just a theory,” or, “It is my theory that the butler did it.” This popular definition is fine for the general public, but not for science.

Wikipedia has a decent definition in the last sentence of its first paragraph:

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis [Hypothesis: an intelligent deduction or guess based on known facts, experience and past scientific studies] . . . a theory is a ‘proven’ hypothesis, that, in other words, has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact. (Bracketed comment and italics mine)

Note that the word “proven” is in quote marks followed by a meaning not normally used in everyday language. That is because, ideally, science does not consider a theory to be the final and ultimate “proof.” For example, we all know that gravity exists, but science refers to it as the “theory of gravitation,” which is an ongoing field of science as is the theory of evolution.

Simply put, a scientific theory it is a systematically, methodically and independently tested, best explanation for understanding natural phenomena based on evidence—a theory was a hypothesis, but has withstood the rigors of the scientific method. Here is a simple example of the scientific method:

A scientist observes a natural phenomenon, the origin or nature of which is not fully understood.

The scientist attempts to explain the phenomenon by formulating a hypothesis based on her knowledge of a history of observations, studies and experiments that may be relevant.

The scientist then formulates ways to test her hypothesis such that, if it is true, a particular outcome is predictable.

If, at any time during her testing, she disproves her hypothesis—her prediction was incorrect—she throws out the hypothesis in favor of another that better fits the evidence. Then she sets about testing the new hypothesis.

If, after exhausting all tests, she cannot disprove it, then she publishes her findings and the details of her experiments in a peer reviewed, scientific journal. This allows other scientists in her field to independently duplicate her tests for validation and develop tests of their own in an effort to further verify the hypothesis or disprove it.

After many years of predictions and testing demonstrate that the hypothesis cannot be disproved, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory. And, that theory is a tentative conclusion because, ideally, science is always open to new evidence that might render the conclusion false.

This is the scientific method and it is why the theory of evolution belongs in science class. Without it, so much of biology and medical science would not make sense.

On the other hand, a creationist begins with the conclusion that God created everything very much as we see it today (I call this the “Poof Hypothesis,” not meaning to be condescending, but descriptive). Most often the research of the creationist is trying to find ways to refute evolutionary science. He will search in nature or mathematics for facts that might be construed to place some aspect of evolution in doubt. All evidence found that may support evolution is discarded or reinterpreted. At no time will the conclusion—that God created all things very much as we see them today—be doubted. This is not the scientific method, and therefore, does not belong in science class.

So, why is there so much misinformation about the theory of evolution? Sadly, all too often in their zeal to debunk evolution as a science, creationists will propagate incorrect information by extracting out of context comments by evolutionary scientists, thereby misrepresenting what the scientist actually said. For more information on this, see http://ncse.com/book/export/html/6711

Too, we have the ridicule factor:

Image

I would highly recommend watching the free reenactment (video) of the Dover, PA trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The site offers the trial transcript by which one may download to verify the authenticity of the reenactment. The reenactment, however, not only follows the transcripts closely but also demonstrates the unfortunate social cost to the community.

——————————————

Max T. Furr, author of the novel, The Empathy Imperative, a philosophical/spiritual drama.

Selected Essays and Squibs by Joseph Suglia

The Web log of Dr. Joseph Suglia

Free to express

thoughts, experiences, travel, feelings, stories, diaries and many more...

With My Face To The Rising Sun

Diary Of A Mad God Woman

The Free-Thinking Human

Just Another Former Christian on the Internet

Lama Surya Das

Spiritual Masters of Asia

The Charnel-House

From Bauhaus to Beinhaus

Dirty, Naked & Happy

is currently taking a break from blogging x

tripleclicka

perspective at the moment

Friend the Cat

Everyone Needs A Friend.

Chiefy's Word

All the things your mother told you not to talk about.

Toad's Great Adventure

"I will, then, be a toad." -- Stephen Crane

Notes from the U.K.

Exploring the spidery corners of a culture and the weird stuff that tourist brochures ignore.

BroadBlogs

A broad blogs broadly on women’s & men's psychology: sex, relationships, equality

العاب بنات ماهر

العاب بنات ماهر العاب فلاش ماهر ttt4 العاب سيارات ماهر العاب تلبيس بنات ماهر العاب فلاش ماهر 2015

Wary Wonderlust

Losing Ignorance, Finding Awe

My Holistic Table

The Art & Science of Cooking. Recipes free of gluten, sugar, dairy, yeast

The Arm Chair Pontificator

Satirical & Poetic Musings Of A Self-Proclaimed Nobel Prize Winner

A Narcissist Writes Letters, To Himself

A Hopefully Formerly Depressed Human Vows To Practice Self-Approval

Ben's Bitter Blog

"We make bitter better."

All Romance Reads

Get Your Swoon On

richardmarlowe236

Independence and Freedom Blog

A Holistic Journey

Finding my way back out of motherhood -- while mothering

Ben Garrido's Author Page

Literary Adventures in South Korea

Victoria NeuroNotes

Into the Gray

%d bloggers like this: