Post by Maverick on Aug 13, 2004 12:13:50 GMT -5
America needs a dose of skepticism
Click here to read the original article
Published August 10, 2004
Molly Ivins
I know there's no evidence that shows the death penalty has a deterrent effect, but I just feel in my gut it must be true." — A very, very high-ranking Texas public official
Austin, Texas — Well, good buddy, let's go with your gut; why bother with the evidence?
I bring this up not to argue the death penalty chestnut one more time, but as an interesting example of the thesis of Wendy Kaminer's book, "Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety."
Kaminer, a wonderfully funny social critic, takes on a host of threats to rational thought, including our fascination with angels, aliens, near-death experiences, junk science, the recovery movement and aspects of the computer culture. Her short book demolishes New Age inanities, various conspiracy theories and, in general, a pantheon of lunacy that would do credit to 14th-century Europe. But she's funny and sort of nice about it all, as well as honest enough to admit that she goes to a practitioner of homeopathic medicine.
The book is advertised as pointing out "the amusing and ominous effects of our deference to spiritual authorities and resistance to critical thinking" — including the association of religious belief with virtue. That means, in these parlous times, that it will inevitably be attacked as anti-religious.
Not long ago, I spoke to a group of librarians and, in the course of running down censorship threats from various quarters, cited several examples of censorship by religious fundamentalists. Afterward, an angry woman approached me and, her voice shaking with passion, announced, "I am a Christian!"
"So am I!" I replied, beaming upon my co-religionist, who was much taken aback.
She was apparently prepared to be personally insulted because I had described some fundamentalists as well-meaning but total knotheads — as though Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, the alarming number of preachers and priests who turn out to be child molesters, and the many other religious leaders who have proved to be lazy, drunk, adulterous, hypocritical or plain silly do not exist.
Not all religious leaders, of course, just some — perhaps almost as many as in, say, an equivalent pool of CPAs. What's wrong with recognizing that?
I do think it would help if we had a public voice attacking the excesses of religion equivalent to the great 19th-century atheist Robert Ingersoll. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was both so angry and batty that my reaction was: "Thanks, I'll take the Baptists."
But I see no reason why religious leaders should not be held to standards of logic, even if mystery and faith are admitted as part of the argument. Katha Pollitt and Kaminer between them begin to fill the Ingersoll role.
Contact Molly Ivins through www.creators.com.
Click here to read the original article
Published August 10, 2004
Molly Ivins
I know there's no evidence that shows the death penalty has a deterrent effect, but I just feel in my gut it must be true." — A very, very high-ranking Texas public official
Austin, Texas — Well, good buddy, let's go with your gut; why bother with the evidence?
I bring this up not to argue the death penalty chestnut one more time, but as an interesting example of the thesis of Wendy Kaminer's book, "Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety."
Kaminer, a wonderfully funny social critic, takes on a host of threats to rational thought, including our fascination with angels, aliens, near-death experiences, junk science, the recovery movement and aspects of the computer culture. Her short book demolishes New Age inanities, various conspiracy theories and, in general, a pantheon of lunacy that would do credit to 14th-century Europe. But she's funny and sort of nice about it all, as well as honest enough to admit that she goes to a practitioner of homeopathic medicine.
The book is advertised as pointing out "the amusing and ominous effects of our deference to spiritual authorities and resistance to critical thinking" — including the association of religious belief with virtue. That means, in these parlous times, that it will inevitably be attacked as anti-religious.
Not long ago, I spoke to a group of librarians and, in the course of running down censorship threats from various quarters, cited several examples of censorship by religious fundamentalists. Afterward, an angry woman approached me and, her voice shaking with passion, announced, "I am a Christian!"
"So am I!" I replied, beaming upon my co-religionist, who was much taken aback.
She was apparently prepared to be personally insulted because I had described some fundamentalists as well-meaning but total knotheads — as though Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, the alarming number of preachers and priests who turn out to be child molesters, and the many other religious leaders who have proved to be lazy, drunk, adulterous, hypocritical or plain silly do not exist.
Not all religious leaders, of course, just some — perhaps almost as many as in, say, an equivalent pool of CPAs. What's wrong with recognizing that?
I do think it would help if we had a public voice attacking the excesses of religion equivalent to the great 19th-century atheist Robert Ingersoll. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was both so angry and batty that my reaction was: "Thanks, I'll take the Baptists."
But I see no reason why religious leaders should not be held to standards of logic, even if mystery and faith are admitted as part of the argument. Katha Pollitt and Kaminer between them begin to fill the Ingersoll role.
Contact Molly Ivins through www.creators.com.