Jeber’s

Physics discussion ends in skateboard attack

Sometimes we forget that once upon a time philosophers drank poison and submitted themselves to death at the stake, rather harsh criticisms of the philosophical arts. Then something like the following happens and we are once again reminded that philosophy can be dangerous. It seems contemplating physics is an especially risky occupation.

(06-24) 13:20 PDT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO — A homeless man is on trial in San Mateo County on charges that he smacked a fellow transient in the face with a skateboard as the victim was engaged in a conversation about quantum physics, authorities said today.

Jason Everett Keller, 40, allegedly accosted another homeless man, Stephan Fava, on the 200 block of Grand Avenue in South San Francisco at about 1:45 p.m. March 30.

At the time, Fava was chatting with an acquaintance, who is also homeless, about “quantum physics and the splitting of atoms,” according to prosecutors.

Keller joined in the conversation and, for reasons unknown, got upset, authorities said. He picked up his skateboard and hit Fava in the face with it, splitting his lip, prosecutors said.

Fava also fell and broke his ankle, although how this happened wasn’t exactly known, authorities said.

The attack was witnessed by two other people who told police that Fava had done nothing to provoke Keller, authorities said.

Keller is expected to take the stand at his jury trial in the Redwood City courtroom of Superior Court Judge James Ellis.

E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com. (Source-sfgate.com)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Philosophy: Mind and Manners (crookedtimber.org)
• #172 ~ A Girl’s Guide to Modern European Philosophy (literatehousewife.com)
• When Magical Thinking Works – It’s Not a Secret (bizop.ca)

War, what is it good for?

Historically, wars were fought to increase the empire, conquor enemies, gain wealth and impose one society’s beliefs and customs on the rest of their (known) world. Two domestic benefits of warfare were employment for many of the young men and work for those who stayed home, manufacturing arms and munitions. 

In the 21st century we no longer occupy those lands we conquor, indeed we no longer even conquor our enemies to the same extent our ancestors did. We don’t kill every adult male or manchild, we don’t rape the women or take possession of all the livestock of our foe. We don’t even attempt to become benign overlords any more.

We do still send our young males, and now females, into harm’s way. We are on our way to making warfare more antiseptic and sterile, but we’re not there yet. We no longer reap the benefit of increased employment or manufacturing capabilities, since we can now use robotics to construct our instruments of war, requiring fewer humans and manufacturing plants. The battlefield will soon be overrun with robots. The new “frontlines” will be occupied by a person in the rear with a joystick and monitor. Our enemy’s tactics are changing, too. Our greatest enemies are foreign belief systems and computer viruses. Our nation’s freedoms have turned out to be a Trojan Horse.

War seems to be morphing into an activity that offers none of the rewards it traditionally has, none of the benefits. Soon it will become a completely senseless behavior. Yet humans are confrontational animals. Because we posses a sense of personal property we have also evolved attitudes and behaviors to provide for the defense of that property. When we perceive our nation as personal property (us vs. them) we extend that desire to defend our property to the national level. So it seems inevitable that mankind will continue to argue, assault and take up arms against neighbor and foreigner.

If conventional warfare no longer exists, how horrific is the future of human antagonism?

Aldous Huxley on Mind Control and Depopulation

A prescient and thought-provoking interview with Mike Wallace, as relevant now as it was then.

White Privilege

For the last 40 years I’ve maintained a passion for the subject of White privilege and racial equal rights. It’s not a popular position even among my liberal friends, who perhaps out of a feeling of guilt prefer to avoid the topic, or would rather focus on the equal rights angle and sweep the concept of White privilege under the rug.

I’ve recently come across Tim Wise, who writes eloquently on this subject. Here’s a snippet of one of his articles at the Red Room, titled “This is your nation on White privilege“. In this article he refers specifically to the current candidates for president.

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you’ll “kick their fuckin’ ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office–since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s–while if you’re black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), you’re a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn’t fit to safeguard American institutions.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do–like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor–and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives near Russia, you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and Harvard Business School (George W. Bush), and still be seen as an “average guy,” while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then Harvard Law, makes you “uppity” and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.), and that’s OK, and you’re still cut out to be president, but if you’re black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can’t be trusted to make good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she’s disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you then go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you’re black and married for nearly 20 years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called “terrorist fist bumps.”

White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you may have sold drugs at some point.

In response to some of the more heated and ignorant comments he received on this article, he posted a follow up with the following analogy to help make his point clearer:

Taking things out of the racial context for a minute: imagine persons who are able bodied, as opposed to those with disabilities. If I were to say that able-bodied persons have certain advantages, certain privileges if you will, which disabled persons do not, who would argue the point? I imagine that no one would. It’s too obvious, right? To be disabled is to face numerous obstacles. And although many persons with disabilities overcome those obstacles, this fact doesn’t take away from the fact that they exist. Likewise, that persons with disabilities can and do overcome obstacles every day, doesn’t deny that those of us who are able-bodied have an edge. We have one less thing to think and worry about as we enter a building, go to a workplace, or just try and navigate the contours of daily life. The fact that there are lots of able-bodied people who are poor, and some disabled folks who are rich, doesn’t alter the general rule: on balance, it pays to be able-bodied.

That’s all I’m saying about white privilege: on balance, it pays to be a member of the dominant racial group. It doesn’t mean that a white person will get everything they want in life, or win every competition, but it does mean that there are general advantages that we receive.

America is a nation of White privilege, one of the more prominent examples of our national belief that might makes right and the majority rules.We offer faint praise for minority programs but drop their funding in order to free more funds for killing those in foreign countries who aren’t like us. America, where the continued presence of the KKK and Neo-Nazis is blamed on the right of free speech, when in reality they persist because there are Americans who still believe in the ideals espoused by those groups.

American society is still largely racist. Our social policies are still largely racist. We may claim our objections to Mexican immigrants are based on economics, but it’s rather obvious there’s a strong element of racism in our xenophobia as well.

I think it’s sad that in the 21st century, after all this nation has endured, we still have to ask if the country is ready for a Black president.

The web is the world, writ electronically

Humans started to form societies as soon as we learned to communicate. Small groups of hunter-gatherers formed larger groups to ensure their survival. In order to coordinate their hunting parties, they had to develop a means of communication. Communication became the means of cooperation.

Look at the terminology I just used; communicate, coordinate, cooperate. The prefix co means together; joint; jointly; mutually. Co is the prefix that defines human society. As individuals, early man was nearly helpless. He had no fur, not very good teeth, relatively poor eyesight. He was near the bottom of the food chain. Yet collectively, humans survived, even prevailed against adversity.

Communication, the ability to share ideas, is what has enabled us to reach the 21st century without becoming extinct. Our means of communication have evolved from the written word to the printed page, from smoke signals to the telephone, from street singers to MP3s. And now we have the internet.

Even though it’s only a few decades old, the internet has begun to evolve, too. At first it was a simple repository of electronic pages; you had to know where to look to find what you needed. Hyperlinking gave this electronic library continuity, a means to get from one document to another. Soon this medium earned its title as the world wide web. Anyone anywhere with internet access could communicate with others from across the globe. The internet reduced the time it took to send a message from one pole to the other to a matter of seconds.

Just as early man had the entire world to himself, early users of the web felt like citizens of the planet. Eventually, though, just as mankind settled into towns and cities and states, electronic communication is becoming more localized. Ebay is a world market, Craigslist is a local one. Local communities are finding new ways to use the internet to stay in touch, to be politically active, to recruit volunteers. Just like society, the internet is becoming more and more community oriented. Just as you can be a member of the human race while at the same time be a member of your neighborhood, the internet will always be a global means of communication, but the true value of the medium is shifting toward those around you. Social networking is starting to focus more on the small scale, the local group. It’s not unprecedented; it’s exactly the way human society itself evolved.

Quote for the day

“We are turning into a nation of whimpering slaves to Fear — fear of war, fear of poverty, fear of random terrorism, fear of getting down-sized or fired because of the plunging economy, fear of getting evicted for bad debts, or suddenly getting locked up in a military detention camp on vague charges of being a Terrorist sympathizer.”

Hunter S. Thompson

Bakunin vs. the gods

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.
– Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State (1871), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary Of Quotations

People go to church for the same reasons they go to a tavern: to stupefy themselves, to forget their misery, to imagine themselves, for a few minutes anyway, free and happy.
– Mikhail Bakunin, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

Religion is a collective insanity.
– Mikhail Bakunin, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

The idea of god implies the abdication of human reason & justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty & necessarily ends in the enslavement of manking both in theory & practice.
He who desires to worship god must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty & humanity.
– Mikhail Bakunin, his classic statement on the matter

All religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties.
– Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State (1871), quoted from Emma Goldman, “The Philosophy of Atheism” (1916)

Two reasons more people believe in gods than aliens

These may not be the only reasons more people believe in gods than aliens, but they’re the most obvious to me.

Since we have as much supporting evidence for the existence of aliens as we do gods, you’d think both would be equally embraced. Yet they aren’t, because…

…our interest in the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe is fairly recent. (Only in the last few hundred years have we come to better understand the requirements for life to exist. Only in the last century have we developed the means to explore the universe in such a way that the conditions that would permit life to exist might be detected. Within the last century we’ve come to accept that space flight is possible.)

…the reward for believing in gods is substantial while believing in aliens doesn’t have any pay-off. (Nearly every religion offers a reward for belief. Forgiveness for transgressions, eternal life, community with other believers, peace of mind, the belief you are loved and cared about. Belief in aliens doesn’t promise any benefit, temporal or eternal.)

Time magazine invents facts to claim that Americans support Bush’s domestic spying abuses

Glenn Greenwald, in a Salon.com opinion piece, provides a refutation of the points in the previous Time article. While he doesn’t challenge the underlying premise that the U.S. government is acting in ways detrimental to and incompatible with our Constitution, he does question the conclusion Time reached, that Americans just don’t care.

No matter how corrupt and sloppy the establishment press becomes, they always find a way to go lower. Time Magazine has just published what it purports to be a news article by Massimo Calabresi claiming that “nobody cares” about the countless abuses of spying powers by the Bush administration; that “Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security”; and that the case against unchecked government surveillance powers “hasn’t convinced the people.” Not a single fact — not one — is cited to support these sweeping, false opinions.

Worse still — way worse — this “news article” decrees the Bush administration to be completely innocent, even well-motivated, even in those instances where technical, irrelevant lawbreaking has been found…

Does Calabresi or his Time editors have the slightest idea how secret, illegal spying powers have been used, towards what ends they’ve been employed and with what motives? No, they have absolutely no idea. Not even members of Congressional Intelligence Committees know because the Bush administration has kept all of that concealed. So Time just makes up facts to defend the Bush administration with wholly baseless statements that one would expect to come pouring out of the mouths only of Dana Perino and Bill Kristol — the “motivating factor” for secret, illegal spying was nothing “other than law and order or national security.” This article literally has more factual errors — pure, retraction-level falsehoods — than it has paragraphs. It makes Joe Klein look like a knowledgable and conscientious surveillance expert. It’s one of the most falsehood-plagued articles I’ve seen in quite some time.

The proposition that “polls consistently” find that Americans don’t mind incursions into their civil liberties is a rank falsehood.

Read the full article for a well-supported contention that Americans do care about the situation. What to do about it may well be the most important question in the upcoming election.

Do Americans Care About Big Brother?

Via Time Magazine online:

A quick tally of the record of civil liberties erosion in the United States since 9/11 suggests that the majority of Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security. Polling consistently supports that conclusion, and Congress has largely behaved accordingly, granting increased leeway to law enforcement and the intelligence community to spy and collect data on Americans. Even when the White House, the FBI or the intelligence agencies have acted outside of laws protecting those rights — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the public has by and large shrugged and, through their elected representatives, suggested changing the laws to accommodate activities that may be in breach of them.

In all the examples of diminished civil liberties, there are few, if any, where the motivating factor was something other than law and order or national security. There are no scandalous examples of the White House using the Patriot Act powers for political purposes or of individual agents using them for personal gain. The Justice IG report released Thursday, for example, examined some 50,000 National Security Letters issued in 2006 to see whether the FBI misused that specialized kind of warrantless subpoena. The IG found some continuing abuse of the power, but blamed it for the most part on sloppiness and bad management, not nefarious intent. In a press release accompanying the report, Fine said, “The FBI and Department of Justice have shown a commitment to addressing these problems.”

For now, however, civil libertarians will have to continue to argue that the danger lies not in how the government’s expanded powers are being used now, but how they might be used in the future. So far, that argument hasn’t convinced the people.

There’s an old joke; The two most destructive attitudes in society are ignorance and apathy…but I don’t know and I don’t care. It seems this may no longer be a joke.

Do the words attributed to Ben Franklin apply here? “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety“, used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759). It could be argued that the colonialists could not envision the threats we now face and that Franklin (or Richard Jackson or whoever) would not have been so absolute in saying that had they lived today.

Is security and national defense sufficient cause to restrict liberty and add conditions to our freedoms? Or are those concepts being used by a malevolent government in order to suppress dissent and control the population through fear and intimidation?

These are perhaps the most important questions we face as we move into the 21st century.

Playing with memes

I just heard a TV ad for a clothing store that repeats the phrase “Family Values” several times. Ostensibly they’re referring to values (savings) for the whole family.

On another level, they’re parroting a phrase popular in society. That some customers might associate this store with a religious right catchphrase that appears to imply wholesomeness and decency is a subtle attempt to manipulate opinion. Of course all advertising is an attempt to manipulate opinion, but I don’t often see advertisers trying to incorporate phrases more appropriate to the political spectrum to sell dresses and shirts.

Being aware of these efforts to put thoughts in your head that have nothing to do with the product in question is the first step in resisting such efforts.

Religious prattle

Following is an actual letter to the editor, a shining example of parroting unoriginal clichès without making any effort on the part of the writer to think for himself or even put his canned comments into his own words:

Thoughts on the ‘God’ question

“In God we trust.” Well, except for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ellen Johnson, Michael Newdow and a minority portion of the rest of the population that sometimes labels themselves “brights.”

The evidence of an intelligent creator surrounds us: Everything from the vast wonders of space to the mysteries of quantum physics stand as witnesses. So, if there is a God, his word is the Bible. The Bible tells us either heaven or hell awaits us after we depart the tent of flesh we now occupy. As a believer, I trust I’ll be in heaven. But, if I’m wrong, then there is no consequence of hell, there’s just nothing. I either win big or get away free and clear.

For the atheist, if they are correct, they’d get the same nothing. Unless of course they are wrong, which would mean an eternity of torment in hell. They’ll only know for sure when they get there, and it will be too late. Dawkins would have his evidence then. He can deny, but he’ll know the truth soon enough. I’d say Madeline Murray O’Hair, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and many others are believers now.

–Bill Cook of Mission Viejo

Let’s break this down and see if Bill is speaking the “truth” or just repeating the same tired arguments that have been debunked many times before.

“In God we trust.” Well, except for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ellen Johnson, Michael Newdow and a minority portion of the rest of the population that sometimes labels themselves “brights.”

While I sincerely doubt Bill has ever read anything written by Dawkins, Harris and the others or actually knows what the Brights stand for, he is essentially correct that these people do not trust in god.

The evidence of an intelligent creator surrounds us: Everything from the vast wonders of space to the mysteries of quantum physics stand as witnesses.

If you expect to find an intelligent creator, I’m sure nature appears to support your preconceived notion. It is not, however, a universal truism. Different people will interpret nature according to their own beliefs and conclusions. A personal perception is proof of nothing beyond a person’s individual mindset. To the scientist, skeptic and non-believer, the awesomeness of nature illustrates the awesomeness of nature, nothing more.

So, if there is a God, his word is the Bible. The Bible tells us either heaven or hell awaits us after we depart the tent of flesh we now occupy.

So if there is a god, he has to be your particular god? What supports that contention? Why couldn’t a god be one of any of the hundreds of gods humans have believed in throughout history? You said nature was a witness to (perhaps you meant evidence for) an intelligent creator. How did you get from that thought to supposing that an intelligent creator is necessarily the Biblical god? That seems to be a combined leap-of-logic-leap-of-faith. As to your last point, many Christians would disagree with your “heaven or hell” position. There is no unanimity among Christians on that subject.

As a believer, I trust I’ll be in heaven. But, if I’m wrong, then there is no consequence of hell, there’s just nothing. I either win big or get away free and clear.

Bad news, Bill. That would only be true if you knew for sure you believed in the right god. What if you almost got it right and the god of the Jews was the real god. And here you are worshiping a false messiah. No cookies for you, Bill. And since god has steadfastly refused to visit the Earth in person lately, you only have your own assurances to convince yourself your god is the correct god to believe in. If there is a god but it’s not the god you worship, you might not enjoy the afterlife after all.

For the atheist, if they are correct, they’d get the same nothing. Unless of course they are wrong, which would mean an eternity of torment in hell. They’ll only know for sure when they get there, and it will be too late. Dawkins would have his evidence then. He can deny, but he’ll know the truth soon enough.

A continuation of your misapplication of logic as detailed above. If there is no hell because the real god is a different one than you suppose, the atheist won’t suffer any worse than Christians who picked the wrong horse in the race. In addition, you expose one of the least convincing arguments in Christianity. “You’ll know once you die.” Isn’t it convenient to posit a truth that can only be appreciated after death. That’s no better than saying there’s a book in another galaxy that backs everything I say. Just go there and read it, you’ll see.

I’d say Madeline Murray O’Hair, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and many others are believers now.

Whether they are or not no one, including you, Bill, can say. What we do know with having to resort to faith is that they’re dead. Any more than that is just speculation on anyone’s part. No one knows from experience what happens after death. Factually, we have no reason to believe anything does.

MySpace, not atheist friendly

Will this post get me banned as well? We’ll see.

The Secular Student Alliance issued this press release:

Myspace Deletes Largest Atheist Group in the World.

Cleveland, OH.— Social networking cite, Myspace.com, panders to religious intolerants by deleting atheist users, groups and content.

Early this month, Myspace again deleted the “Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from people who find atheism offensive, marks the second time Myspace has cancelled the group since November 2007.

What’s unique in this case is that the Atheist and Agnostic Group was the largest collection of organized atheists in the world. The group had its own Wikipedia entry, and in April won the Excellence in Humanist Communication Award (2007) from the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University and The Secular Student Alliance.

“Myspace refuses to undelete the group, although it never violated any terms of service,” said Bryan Pesta, Ph.D., the group’s moderator. “When the largest Christian group was hacked, Myspace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”

“It is an outrage if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and the world’s largest social networking site tolerate discrimination against atheists and agnostics– and if this situation goes unresolved I’ll have little choice but to believe they do,” said Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain of Harvard University. News Corporation, Murdoch’s global media corporation which also includes Fox News, purchased MySpace in 2005.

“My personal profile was deleted as well, and despite weeks of emails to customer service, plus a petition signed by 500 group members, Myspace won’t budge. I think these actions send a clear message to the 30 million godless people in America (and to businesses whose money was spent displaying ads on our group) that we are not welcome on Myspace,” said Pesta.

For a Wikipedia article on the now defunct atheist and agnostic group, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group.

Check it out for yourself. Go to groups and search for “atheist”. Note the several pages of results that all refer to the Atheist and Agnostic group. Click on any of those links. They all lead to unrelated sites. Deception on a grand scale. It almost seems to be more work than was required.

So is this being done by MySpace or to MySpace? Either way it’s a sad comment on the state of this online community.
Thanks to Psychodiva for the head’s up.

Steal this idea, please

Here’s a suggestion I hope someone follows up on.

If you own or work for a virtual reality lab and would like to contribute to the happiness of a terminally ill adult:

Get together with the Make-A-Wish Foundation  (or do this on your own) and create a way for terminally ill parents to enjoy a virtual adulthood vision of their children.  The technology exists to age a person from an image of them.  This would allow a dying parent to enjoy a vision of their children grown and happy.  The adult/child could be shown in a scenario that the parent selects, like college or business.

I know Make-A-Wish deals with children.  This would allow them to increase their outreach in to parents as well.   If they don’t appreciate the opportunity this presents, it would be worthwhile to pursue on your own.

I can’t think of too much else that would put a dying parent’s mind at rest than to be able to “see” their children going on to become successful in life.

Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life

It appears I have a couple more months to finish the books I’m currently reading and get my desk cleared, so I can grab a copy of Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life by Austin Dacey.  From the advance reviews on Amazon, it is going to be a fantastic read.

Sam Harris, author of the New York Times best sellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation
“Dacey seeks nothing less than to interrupt a suicide, and he has written a beautiful primer on how our secular tradition can be rescued from self-defeat. The Secular Conscience reveals how simplistic notions of privacy, tolerance, and freedom keep dangerous ideas sheltered from public debate. This is an extraordinarily useful and lucid book.”

Susan Jacoby, author, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
“Austin Dacey’s The Secular Conscience is sorely needed at a time when both the religious right and the religious left claim that there can be no public or private morality without religion. With wit and a philosopher’s insight, Dacey explains exactly why secular morality, grounded in an ethical approach that relies on reason rather than supernatural faith, is sorely needed in the public square.”

Ibn Warraq, author of Defending the West
“Whenever I watch a riot over cartoons or meet another Muslim dissident forced to write under a pseudonym, I wonder, where are the Western secular liberals? Why do they shrink from defending freedom of conscience for all? Thanks to Austin Dacey, I now have an answer. As his piercing analysis shows, liberals have lost their grip on the real meaning of freedom. Only with a restored commitment to conscience as an objective moral ideal can they face down fundamentalists while constructively engaging with reformers of the faith. The Secular Conscience should be read by every friend of the open society.”

Book Description
The open, secular society is in retreat. From Washington to Rome to Tehran, religion is a public matter as never before, and secular values–personal autonomy, toleration, separation of religion and state, and freedom of conscience–are attacked on all sides and defended by few. The godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality in public debate, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing.Secular liberals have undone themselves. For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience–religion, ethics, and values–are “private matters” that have no place in public debate. Ironically, this ideology prevents them from subjecting religion to due scrutiny when it encroaches on individual rights and from unabashedly defending their own moral vision in politics for fear of “imposing” their beliefs on others.

In this incisive book, philosopher Austin Dacey calls for a bold rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Inspired by an earlier liberal tradition he traces to Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, Dacey urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and argues for a secularism based on the objective moral value of questions of conscience.

He likens conscience to the press in an open society: it should be protected from coercion and control, not because it is private, but because of its vital role in the public sphere. Conscience is free, but not free from shared standards of truth and right.

Marshalling the latest research on belief, the mind, and ethics, The Secular Conscience delivers a compelling ideal for the future of the open, secular society.

About the Author
Austin Dacey, Ph.D. (New York, NY), is a philosopher with the Center for Inquiry think tank in New York City, where he serves as the United Nations representative and a contributing editor to Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry magazines. He teaches philosophy, ethics and science education at Polytechnic University and State University of New York at Buffalo. He is the author of The Case for Humanism (with Lewis Vaughn) and articles in numerous publications including the New York Times.

Recycle that Xmas tree

If you’re concerned about the environment and consider it a waste to simply toss that Christmas tree in the trash, visit Earth911 and find a place near you where you can recycle it into mulch.

Recycle Your Christmas Tree

More tips from Earth911 for a sustainable holiday season.