blog post

Fabled comedian/actor/writer John Cleese, is well-known for Monty Python works that include The Holy Grail and The Life of Brian. In an interview, he has this to say about religion. (Note: AVC is A.V. Club, not Atheist Vs Christian.) Readeth thou more

With this site barely born, I really appreciate the acknowledgement on Scientificblogging.com's Darwin Day 2008 page:

When biologists talk about the nuances and complexities of evolution, it's easy to get lost. Defaithed tackles the issue for Darwin Day by writing Darwin Day fun: A layman explains evolution by natural selection ... Don't let their modesty fool you. They condense a lot of complexity into 5 easy-to-understand bullet points and then flesh them out nicely.

It's an honor to be mentioned, and to be a part of celebrating one of humanity's greatest intellectual accomplishments.

A minor curiosity:

This is what it looks like when a legitimate University's bioscience department has to live with an Intelligent Design supporter among its faculty: the poor scientists have to publish an open "please don't think we're all like him" disclaimer.

http://www.lehigh.edu/%7einbios/news/evolution.htm

I appreciate the intent behind the Freedom from Religion Foundation's "Imagine No Religion" billboard. It counters the inane "God" billboards littering US highways, reminding people that we atheists are here and we're not going to keep quiet any more.

May I toss in my reservations from the peanut gallery, though? With humble appreciation for the billboard initiative, I'll note that I find faith, not religion per se, the more appropriate target for an abolition movement. That's okay; "Imagine No Belief Not Based on Evidence" would really make for a lousy sign. "Imagine No Religion" is pithy and recognizable. Let's go with it.

But then there's the design. Beautiful medieval calligraphy on eye-catching stained glass... Those are artistic associations with religion that are harmless, and per my minor complaint above, are precisely the sort of benign thing we don't want lumped into the "religion" we criticize. Obviously, no one's going to mistake the sign for a campaign against artful glasswork, but on a subconscious level might it not feed thoughts of "atheists hate what's good and beautiful in religion"? Irrational thoughts those would be, yes, but we are looking to target irrational thinkers...

How about pairing the message with a visual reminder of the ugly side of religion? Maybe something like this (but by an actual competent designer, of course):

Just an idea.

It's a long read and some goes over the head of a layman like me, but it's a great read, too. A rational thinker sits in on a 2007 "conference" of Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, and deconstructs the proceedings in the light of actual science.

There's a lot of good response within to the arguments put forth by ID proponents. The best part is the conclusion, showing how ID plants the seeds of its own clumsy disassembly: Readeth thou more

Religion vs science. Science vs religion.

For a long time, that classic match-up has bothered me. I don't think it makes for an accurate depiction of what the opposing sides are here, and a poorly-defined argument stands little chance of reaching any conclusion.

Others have said it already, and have done so better than I will, but I'll take a shot at it anyway: what science is opposed to is not religion per se, but faith. Belief not founded upon rational evidence. And while the words "religion" and "faith" are used interchangably, they're not the same. For purposes of the "science vs religion" debate, the distinction is important.

What is "religion"?

Good question. Not only are there a myriad of recognized religions to choose from, there's first the under-discussed issue of what the heck religion is. Readeth thou more