Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Scientology Official Threatening Protestors? | Main | One Giant Cross, Slightly Used. »
Category:
Posted on: May 13, 2008 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton
Crews and search dogs hunted Sunday for survivors or bodies in piles of debris after tornadoes and storms rumbled across the region a day earlier and killed at least 23 people in three states.
So how long before we hear what God was angry about this time? John Hagee, you discerned the signs and explained Hurricane Katrina. Any guesses here? Pat Robertson? You claim to talk to God on a regular basis. Gays again? The ACLU this time? Whatever it is, I'm sure those 23 people deserved it.
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
So, how is this at the interface of science, religion, law, and culture?
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 9:42 AM
Moron.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 13, 2008 10:01 AM
It's a comment on our culture that a significant portion of the population in all seriousness use religion to blame phenomena reasonably well explained by science on politics.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | May 13, 2008 10:04 AM
Well just Visit Ray Comfort's blog. He has something to say about the earthquakes in China and the Typhoon in Myanmar.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 10:18 AM
And yet Sally Kern types never quite interpret these things as "change your ways" but rather "work harder to implement theocracy".
Posted by: chancelikely | May 13, 2008 10:43 AM
It seems God has to almost kill you before you can claim he miraculously saved you. Being involved in such a miracle must be worth all the collateral damage (or is it friendly fire?), else why would God do it? He sure has been busy this month. (Seriously, it's the old "Problem of evil" in theology: Essentially, it's Eve's fault.)
Posted by: uncle noel | May 13, 2008 10:44 AM
@#3 (W. Kevin Vicklund) - Perhaps you're right, I'm certainly willing to give it to you. However, is it a productive comment, or just preaching to the choir? I don't think these sorts of quips (it appears to me to be writing just for the sake of writing something, anything) are worthwhile, and they certainly don't help people of religious persuasion understand our (by our I mean those dedicated to the advancement of science) positions. It's noise.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 11:13 AM
Did it ever occur to anyone that God keeps punishing states that try to pass legislation outlawing gay marriage?
Posted by: Todd | May 13, 2008 11:33 AM
TomJoe,
When even the mainstream media uses terms like "acts of God" and "miracle" to describe natural phenomena and the serendipity of people that were affected but not killed by these occurrences you can hardly blame rational thinkers for pointing out the ironies involved.
Also I doubt that any rational discussion would sway the religious from their superstitious views on the matter.
Posted by: Lance | May 13, 2008 11:34 AM
Lance,
When even the mainstream media uses terms like "acts of God" and "miracle" to describe natural phenomena ... you can hardly blame rational thinkers for pointing out the ironies involved.
I suppose not, but it gets old (at least for me) to see every blogger (ok, that's an exaggeration) with similar posts about the same subject, all with heavy doses of sarcasm. That it puts a sour taste in my mouth I suppose is my problem, and my problem alone.
Also I doubt that any rational discussion would sway the religious from their superstitious views on the matter.First of all, I doubt "the religious" all feel this way. Second of all, I would never say never. I know it doesn't help matters, that much I think I can bank on. The real way to settle the issues that ail us, is to sit down and talk about them. That isn't happening, and until it does, we'll be stuck dealing with the messes, rather than making true progress.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 11:43 AM
Ok TomJoe speak! Why is it that states that keep trying to pass discrimatory laws against homosexuals keep getting pummelled? Is god just a bullying sadist, or is there some method to this madness? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJaxck | May 13, 2008 12:31 PM
TomJoe wrote:
Then feel free to find a blog you like better. There are only a few hundred million others to choose from.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 13, 2008 12:42 PM
When Ed made the post about the girl who suffered a head injury in a tornado and told news reporters that she had been "blessed," a lot of people here made comments like "Why can't you just leave people who have been through a disaster alone? No doubt they're happy to be alive-- they don't need to be criticized."
But there is no place more appropriate to analyze such comments, and the kind of thinking they betray (natural disasters are the result of deliberate action by God, and in them God chooses for some to die and some to live) than a blog like this. We're not getting up in the faces of distraught people and hassling them. If they choose to comb the web for critical commentary on their thoughts for the evening news, well...so be it. But the same kind of thinking that causes such people to thank God for the blessing of surviving a tornado is what causes Pat Robertson to say that those who suffered deserve it, and that folly needs to be pointed out, for as long as such claims are made.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 13, 2008 1:09 PM
Ed - Not much into receiving a little bit of criticism, eh?
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 1:11 PM
Gretchen
We're not getting up in the faces of distraught people and hassling them.
Correct, no one is getting up in the faces of people with religious beliefs and hassling them, but this particular medium (Science Blogs) touts itself as medium for scientific communication. It's not some lone yahoo spouting off on Blogger (like myself) or Wordpress. Here, scientists have been chosen to speak on issues at the forefront of science today. As such, people (which may include theists) may come here looking to become informed, not insulted. Which is why I personally think a gig here comes with a bit more responsibility. Obviously not everyone (or anyone for that matter) is going to agree with me.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 1:17 PM
TomJoe -
Ed's blog is like his house. If his guests are arrogant fools he has the perfect right to show them where the door is and to work it!
Anyway, you didn't answer my question: "Is god a bully and a sadist, or is the method in this madness?" -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2008 1:17 PM
DingoJack - Ed's blog is a public forum, and while I'm sure he could ban me for my criticisms, I don't think I'm being particularly arrogant or foolish with my comments.
As for your question, exactly what do you want me to say about it? I don't think there is any link between states trying to pass stupid, unfair laws and natural events (just like I don't believe the inverse either). I also don't agree with Pat Robertson or any other preacher/individual when they imply that God sits up in Heaven pondering what punishment to mete out on a day to day basis because he perceives that people have been "behaving badly".
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 1:23 PM
TomJoe,
Maybe you haven't been reading this blog very long, but it is and has always been about science among other things-- namely, law, religion, and culture. Scienceblogs knew that when they picked it up, and presumably they still know it. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with them.
Also, Ed did not insult theists. He made a point about the ridiculousness of the type of thinking that some theists practice.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 13, 2008 1:29 PM
Good to see you have sense. Personally I think god (if god(s) exist or not) have little to do with tornados (or is it tornadoes?) it is simply a confluence of dry westerlies and moist southerlies that trigger such events. I believe in what can be proved, my catch cry is "show me the evidence?" How about you? -DJ
Posted by: DinjoJack | May 13, 2008 1:29 PM
DingoJack - I don't think God has anything to do with disease outbreaks, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes or any other natural phenomenon. I believe that science, done correctly, is reliable and trustworthy, and should be advocated, supported and taught. Science which isn't done correctly (which I would contend isn't actually science) has no place in schools (e.g., Creation Science) and should be refuted (though I would contend that the refutation if done wrongly could have an even worse effect than if it had been ignored).
Gretchen - If I placed more meaning into Ed's post than intended, I apologize.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 1:40 PM
Good to talk with you TomJoe (sorry we got off on the wrong foot, so to speak). Please stick around. But unfortuneately it's late and I have got to sleep. So goodnight, and good luck. :-) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2008 1:53 PM
Seems that God has been kind of cranky lately.
Posted by: C Barr | May 13, 2008 2:12 PM
Love this post. Spot-on.
Posted by: John | May 13, 2008 2:15 PM
Some of us Christians are looking at the natural events that are going on around the world and thinking...gee...how can I help these people pick up the pieces and rebuild their lives? We are also wondering how we can influence Myanmar to accept outside help and stop letting their people die to prove some sort of sick, militaristic point.
As far as Pat Robertson goes...he can take a long walk off a short pier...
But if you want cause and effect....I think both states went for Obama....guess I better watch out myself;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 13, 2008 3:16 PM
Rev AJB, what church are you with? Just curious.
Posted by: mroberts | May 13, 2008 3:17 PM
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America-ELCA for short. The "liberal" Lutherans.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 13, 2008 3:39 PM
God must be REALLY angry with China, then!
Life's hard and complicated. People will always want a god, or gods, to help them out with things they feel are beyond their power. Unfortunately since most religions strip people of their personal power when they're children (or stunt it at best), the whole god thing usually dominates.
Posted by: DonZilla | May 13, 2008 3:47 PM
TomJoe,
You criticize my use of the word "religious" to lump together people that think supernatural forces are at work in the outcome of natural events. If that seemed to be stereotyping different religious people together I'm not sure there is a coherent alternative.
Websters Unabridged defines religious as:
1. Of or pertaining to religion; concerned with religion; teaching, or setting forth, religion; set apart to religion; as, a religious society; a religious sect; a religious place; religious subjects, books, teachers, houses, wars.
It defines religion as:
1. Veneration or reverence of the Supreme Being, and love of his character; loving obedience to the will of God, and earnest devotion to his service.
These definitions fit pretty well with the group of people that interpret the outcome of natural events as the "will of God".
What do you think would convince deity worshippers that weather was basically a result of thermodynamic and fluid dynamic perturbations of the atmospheric system and that the random placement of humans in and out of harms way was unrelated to the will and design of their favorite deity?
If someone is killed or "spared" during any specific event would these people not be forced by their faith to decide that God decided the particular outcome, because if he didn't decide the outcome it certainly was not His will?
I'm not trying to play semantic games here; I really would like to see someone construct a cogent argument that has both an omnipotent God and random outcomes as joint premises.
Posted by: Lance | May 13, 2008 3:50 PM
Lance - Not every theist/religious/deity worshiper believes that God is a micromanager, fussing over every single detail of the happenings on planet Earth. So many (maybe even most, because I haven't seen any polls which point in either direction) theists/religious/deity worshipers already believe that weather is "basically a result of thermodynamic and fluid dynamic perturbations of the atmospheric system".
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 3:57 PM
Sure, but to get back to your original point, there are a lot of very prominent and politically powerful religious leaders in the US who argue that certain meteorological events are the work of God, and do not arise from scientifically understood principles. So this post is perfectly in keeping with this blog's mission.
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 4:28 PM
"Not every theist/religious/deity worshiper believes that God is a micromanager, fussing over every single detail of the happenings on planet Earth."
Do you suppose that these people believe their god is unaware of the weather in any particular place? Also that their god is unaware of the consequences of this weather? And that he is either powerless or indisposed to help those that are about to be affected?
If those people believe that he chooses to intervene even once then he has chosen not to intervene at all other times and has therefore willed the consequences to occur.
If he has never intervened then he has either chosen not to do so or is powerless to intervene. Both of these cases are effectively indistinguishable from a universe with no god.
Which of these do you posit as a logical defense of their "non-micromanager" deity?
Posted by: Lance | May 13, 2008 4:37 PM
TomJoe wrote:
When it comes to what I choose to write about or how I choose to do so? Nope. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. There are a billion blogs in the world, for crying out loud. If you don't like one, find one you do like.
Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence that ScienceBlogs touts itself in the manner you suggest. You are simply wrong when you claim that here "scientists have been chosen to speak on issues at the forefront of science today." I am not a scientist and I was one of the first to be asked to join this network with the full knowledge that science is only a small part of what I write about. And no one ever told me that I was to limit myself to "issues at the forefront of science today." In fact, my contract explicitly says that I get to write about anything I want to write about.
Also, I did not insult "theists." There are lots and lots of theists who post here regularly who agree with me that believing that God sends tornadoes and hurricanes as a result of sin is ridiculous and they are just as critical of those who do as I am. In fact, I am quite outspoken in defending the notion that theism itself is not irrational at all, while certain theistic beliefs certainly are (and I am not an atheist, I'm a deist). I am not anti-theistic at all, I am anti-stupidity. And my many theistic readers understand that perfectly well. Perhaps if you spent some time reading my perspective rather than bitching about what I choose to write about, you might have figured that out on your own.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 13, 2008 5:00 PM
So Ed you are a deist?
Wow, I don't believe I have ever encountered one of those before.
I just visited a site presented by the World Union of Deists, www.deism.com.
Their deist glossary defines deism thusly,
Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.
Is this consistent with your beliefs? If not, or if you would like to expound on or modify the definition, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Posted by: Lance | May 13, 2008 5:42 PM
Eh, it's in the ballpark. All I mean by deism is this: my best guess for the origin of the universe is that something created it. And that's all the further I go with it. I might also be described as an agnostic in the sense that I don't pretend to know this is true, or even to have a coherent means of defending it. I believe that when we're looking at first cause arguments, either answer leads to absurd results that can't be logically defended. It's a mystery that none of us can claim to understand. So that's just my best guess.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 13, 2008 5:53 PM
Re Deism:
I always thought the best definition is "We are god's TV set."
(Which doesn't mean I don't think I'm on god's TV programme.)
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | May 13, 2008 9:37 PM
Ed - Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence that ScienceBlogs touts itself in the manner you suggest.
Sure, go to their About ScienceBlogs page, found here.
They say (in italics below), and I quote:
ScienceBlogs is very much an experiment in science communication, and being first also means being first to encounter unforeseen obstacles. We are learning as we go (and as goes the blogosphere) and appreciate your understanding and patience.
ScienceBlogs was created by Seed Media Group. We believe that science literacy is a pre-condition for progress in the 21st century. At a time when public interest in science is high but public understanding of science remains weak, we have set out to create innovative media ventures to improve science literacy and to advance global science culture.
So, is it a far cry for me to say: Correct, no one is getting up in the faces of people with religious beliefs and hassling them, but this particular medium (Science Blogs) touts itself as medium for scientific communication. Certainly not, when they say that very thing on their About ScienceBlogs page.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 13, 2008 10:58 PM
They need more gay. Look at California and New York, rarely do you see a funnel cloud, never mind tornadoes. And what do they have in common: good food, lots of quality entertainment, fine culture and the gay.
Now I know people might believe it's not the gay, but as we know, there is lots of the gay in food, culture and entertainment, and the more gay, the more (and better) you find those other wonderful things. So these things are obviously positive by-products of God's little tornado protection scheme that revolves around the gay.
In fact, the power of the gay is so great that I've read that if some of these States imported just a few thousand gays, that the incidence of tornadoes (punishments from God) might drop by half.
;)
Posted by: Moses | May 13, 2008 11:06 PM
TomJoe-
Your mistake is in thinking that every single thing said here has to be about science. As you've already been told many times, this blog is about many things and science is only one of them. Seed knew that when they asked me to join, they know that now and they seem quite pleased with what I do here (not to mention that I'm the second most read blog on the network - and the most read blog is just as diverse as mine and truly is anti-theist). You're barking up the wrong tree. I write about what I write about. Don't like it? I highly doubt anyone is holding a gun to your head making you read it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 14, 2008 12:57 AM
Moses:
You are not suggesting, I hope, that GOD might like gays or even (gasp) be, um, slightly gay!
Then again San Francisco gets earthquakes (like China, Japan, Iran, Central and South America & other parts of the U.S. (largest earthquake in U.S. history was that one east of the Mississippi, back in the 1800's?). So are the Chinese, Japanes, Iranians, MesoAmericans, many Native American cultures and the U.S.' early settlers/conquerors ALL gay.
Say it ain't so, Moses; say it ain't so!!
Posted by: democommie | May 14, 2008 7:11 AM
Ed - Your mistake is in thinking that every single thing said here has to be about science. As you've already been told many times, this blog is about many things and science is only one of them.
I never said that every single thing here has to be about science. My point, which may have not been articulated well enough, is that I don't find the criticism of religion to be very productive. Now, as I told Gretchen, if I misconstrued your post and read more into it than I should have, my apologies. I'm not here to argue just for the sake of arguing.
... and the most read blog is just as diverse as mine and truly is anti-theist
Damn skippy. Everytime I read his blog I see science taking two steps backwards in the realm of public trust.
Anyways, as I said, I'm not here to argue. Please accept my apologies for any offense I may have caused.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 14, 2008 8:21 AM
Democommie: You mentioned the earthquakes in California. I used to live out there, and every time there was a minor tremmor, the "RRR" (religious radical right - 3 lies for the price of one) would claim that it was either a punishment ofr the sinful life of CA. or a warning. I used to point out to them that tornadoes kill more people every year (on average) than earthquakes have killed in the last 50+ . Then I'd just smile innocently and ask "Just exactly who is God angry with?"
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | May 14, 2008 5:44 PM