Study Finds That Religion Used To Justify Crimes

By on June 14, 2013
Criminals who identify with a religion use their beliefs to justify their actions

Criminals who identify with a religion use their beliefs to justify their actions.

 

A study coming out of Georgia State University found that religion might, in fact, help criminals justify their crimes rather than actually deter them from committing the act. The study analyzed 48 serious criminal offenders (robbers, con-artists, drug dealers etc…) from Atlanta. There have been many studies regarding the issue of religion and crime. The results have been pretty inconsistent. In some cases the level of religiosity can actually help deter an individual from committing a crime( victimless crimes) and in other studies there doesn’t really seem to be an effect.

Continue reading…

Why Plato Sucks (especially for atheists).

By on April 3, 2013

“Christianity is Platonism for the people.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

In the course of fulfilling my duties as an underpaid slave to the university  a teaching assistant, I’ve had the mixed blessing of reading and reflecting on Plato for two consecutive quarters these past few months. I say mixed because while this has afforded me an opportunity to understand Plato’s thought in more richly textured detail, it has served mostly to reinforce the position I already held on that most beloved of philosophers – which is, simply, that Plato blows.

I am not intimidated by your stone locks nor your piercing blank eyes, sir.

I am not intimidated by your stone locks nor your piercing blank eyes, sir.

Yes, I’m being hyperbolic. But allow me to make my case. I believe I can argue, with only moderate exaggeration, that any sincere atheist should have some serious misgivings about Mr. Plato – and this is simply because, as Nietzsche argued at length, Plato kind of invented Christianity. We must say “kind of,” of course, because Plato obviously never clearly articulated a concept even of a singular, all-powerful humanoid God, let alone anything as obtuse and ridiculous as a singular, all-powerful humanoid God which first creates imperfect beings in his image, then condemns them for acting on their nature and then creates a son to sacrifice for said imperfect beings who then somehow transforms himself into a sin sponge that sucks up all the ickiness in those poor beings simply by enduring some severe unpleasantness for a mere weekend.

But I digress – because here’s the thing. Plato may not have come up with the exact details of that ridiculousness, but he helped build the intellectual foundations absolutely essential to making the theological claims of Christianity thinkable at all. And in certain respects what he came up with, I dare say, rivals if not surpasses Christianity on the absurdity meter.

Continue reading…

Does Atheism Have a Burden of Proof?

By on December 16, 2012

All too often, arguments between theists and atheists end up with theists demanding that atheists disprove God. At first glance, this doesn’t seem like too much to ask, since atheists constantly ask for theists to prove that there is a God. If atheists can’t prove that there isn’t a God, then how can they demand that theists prove there is? Aren’t atheists guilty of a double standard, holding the theistic position to a standard of evidence that they don’t require of themselves? The answer to these questions is no, because theistic confusion around this issue derives from a misunderstanding of the atheist position, as well as general ignorance regarding the relationship between claim-making and the burden of proof. Although this may seem a bit “101” to those in the atheist community, it is nevertheless a major point of confusion for many theists, and is therefore deserving of continued clarification.

To start off, it is crucially important to understand the difference between the following atheistic positions:

1. I do not believe in God(s).

2. I believe there is/are no God(s).

Prima facie, these positions seem equivalent. Indeed they are similar, insofar as they describe a person who has no active belief in God(s). However, they differ dramatically regarding whether or not they carry with them a burden of proof. Both are atheistic positions; however position #2 is not a requirement of being an atheist, while position #1 is. Position #2 necessarily implies one also holds position #1 (since #2 is a subset of #1), but position #1 does not imply one also holds position #2. A Venn diagram will help clarify this relationship.

 

Continue reading…

I am a bundle of (adorable, anxious, Monty Python-loving) neurons.

By on June 22, 2012

There’s a fun little story up at The Times on the imperfections of perception and memory, due to our brains being, alas, less than mere receivers of reality.

It looks at phenomena that most readers are probably familiar with – the power of misdirection, the unreliability of our senses. However I never get tired of reading about these aspects of neuroscience — it seems fundamentally important to me that one always remember that not only are you your brain, but your brain is quite the trickster.

A lot of people know and understand this but do not necessarily apply it in everyday life. For example, how many times have you gotten into a huge argument with a friend about the particulars of certain events that took place maybe days, maybe years ago? Most of us insist our memory of the events are correct. But this is usually a mistaken confidence. More of us should probably, much of the time, really question how our accurately our brain has recorded these occurrences, notorious as it is for rearranging details to fit the narratives we like to tell ourselves.

I personally enjoy questioning my memories — especially my childhood ones — and wondering what was real, and what as been created in post-production. I suppose for some people meditating on this can make them uneasy — knowing that our memories and senses are not entirely reliable can disturb one’s sense of control and understanding. However, I like to look at my cognitive mistakes as another chance to get to know myself — what is my mischievous brain up to now, and what can I learn about my thoroughly human condition from its shenanigans and mistakes? Once you let go of the idea that “you” are completely in control, living with the fact that you are your brain and, moreover, you’re not always in the driver’s seat, instills not so much terror as intense curiosity. We’re all along for the ride, and we’re all unique, so go ahead and get to know your brain — which is to say, go ahead and get to know yourself.

Foundations of New Atheism in the Radical Enlightenment

By on May 18, 2012

If you ask an educated person to name prominent French figures of the Enlightenment, there is a pretty good chance he or she will name Voltaire and/or Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Atheists will likely view these Enlightenment figures positively, especially Voltaire, for laying the foundations for modern secular thought. In this essay, I want to discuss just how right atheists are to think their foundations lay in the Enlightenment, but their views are more closely shared by forgotten figures that Voltaire actually opposed. There was a socially subversive group of intellectuals that were an important and influential component of the European Enlightenment, especially in France. Despite their influence at the time, we rarely hear their names in popular forums today. This subversive movement is commonly called the Radical Enlightenment.  Continue reading…

Private Evidence and Reliability

By on March 17, 2012

By now, many atheists who read much apologetics literature will know of Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN). Basically, the argument says that if our belief formation systems were not brought about by something aimed at truth, then they are not necessarily reliable. Continue reading…


Copyright © 2009–2012 Christopher Thielen & others. Some rights reserved.