How to wean humanity from religion?

I've obviously been neglecting my blog here. Since my last post I have moved and gotten a new job.

I just finished an interesting book, The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Harris's basic premise is that religion is going to result in the end of humanity. He is especially hard on Islam, comparing it's current state to that of Christianity in the middle ages (e.g., the killing of heretics). He imagines what a radical Islamic state might do with a nuclear bomb. Considering that many of the 9-11 terrorists were well educated and believed that they would been going to great honor in heaven by killing unbelievers, this is a scary idea!

Harris asks why religious beliefs are exempt from criticism in the West? When you look at them, you have to admit that many religious beliefs are pretty wacky. Which is more plausible? The transubstantiation belief in the Catholic church or that aliens abduct people for anal probes? Why do religious people put so much stock in what are written in inconsistent books that are so obviously the work of the backward time they were written in?

Now to the real point of this post. If we need to get past religion, how do we lead the believing world to do this? Harris points out one of the biggest stumbling blocks. It is considered wrong to criticize anyone's religious beliefs unless it is deemed a cult. But how different is a cult than a main religion? Is a snake handler sect a cult? I for one don't see much difference in these beliefs and others that the mainstream religions espouse. However, there's a very good chance that if I criticized a coworker's religious beliefs that I would be fired on the spot. In the mainstream media, religion is also a sacred cow (pun intended). Non-believers are marginalized and have zero clout with either of the two main political parties as demonstrated in the Tampa city council.

When religious beliefs are challenged, it is very hard to get the issue examined in a rational manner. Anger or violence is the usual the result. Clearly, in the current environment, a direct challenge is counter productive. However, I do believe that when the religious attempt to use public institutions to promote their irrational views they must be opposed vigorously (e.g., intelligent design in public schools).

I believe a more effective campaign would involve an under the radar viral approach directed at the young. Clearly, many people are indoctrinated at an early age with religion, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out. It is probably easier to challenge their beliefs when they have not had time to form strong emotional attachments to them yet. Maybe they can learn that God doesn't exist at the same time they learn that Santa Claus doesn't either.

Will man ever go to the stars?

I have serious doubts that man will ever have a routine presence in space. I do not believe that space travel will ever be economical. The settlement of the New World by Europeans can not be used as an analogy for settlement of other worlds. The explorers and frontiersman had to bring relatively little with them. The lands they colonized had air, water, food and raw materials to construct almost anything they needed. Certainly none of the planets in our solar system are this friendly to human life. Any settlement of them will require astronauts to carry a friendly environment with them. This will be very expensive. It is very likely that there are earth-like around other stars, but interstellar travel is also very expensive. Who would pay for the enormous money required? What return would they get on their investment?

If we send anything to the stars, I believe that it will be robots. Robots can be made that can operate in many different environments including space. The robots will have to be much more intelligent than present day robots. In fact, the robots will need human-level intelligence (or higher). Eventually, I think that we will develop the technology to do this (maybe after a Singularity). It is possible that these robots might be Von Neumann machines that will colonize the galaxy in our stead.

The Singularity

The Singularity is an interesting idea. In a nutshell, it states that technologically change is increasing at an exponential rate and that there will reach a point when people at the forefront of change will be incomprehensible to people not keeping up. Certainly, no one can deny that technology has been changing at a rapid rate and that the rate itself is increasing. There are lots of people who are currently being left behind by those of us who use the Internet and other digital media. However, whether this will actually result in a singularity is still in doubt. One of the most passionate proponents of this idea is a Vernor Vinge. His essay describes possible paths to a singularity. He has lead a new wave of science fiction dealing with this issue (see Charlie Stross and Ken MacLeod for other authors investigating the singularity).

I still have to admit that this may all be wishful thinking. In particular, science fiction dealing with singularities often portray the result of a singularity as god-like beings that are inscrutable to baseline humans. Calling the singularity a "rapture for nerds" is, I have to admit, a fair criticism.

Why is cloning wrong?

I really do not understand why human cloning is such a hot button subject. The public seems to have gotten their understanding of cloning from movies! First, one doesn't grow a full grown clone in a vat. Secondly, a clone will not have the memories of the original. With present technology, a clone would be born from a woman's womb, just like an ordinary person. One fact that many people do not seem to understand is that identical twins are natural occurring clones. So a clone is essentially a time-shifted twin. In fact, because of differences in the fetal environment of the clone compared to the original, a clone is likely to even look different. (The first cloned cat is an example of this.)

There is at least one compelling reason to do human cloning: infertile couples. This would give them another method of having a child. I have a child myself that was conceived using IVF. I remember when the first test-tube baby was born and all the concerns this created at the time. Now, it is not a big deal at all. Will cloning also become less controversial over time? With the rabid reactions to it so far, I fear not.

Now, at the present time, there is a legitimate reason for banning human cloning: the technology is not ready. The failure rate is high and there is a too high chance of birth defects. But these are not the reasons given for banning cloning.

The irony of the cloning discussion is that many people seem to consider therapeutic cloning as more acceptable than reproductive cloning. I really don't understand the ethics of this viewpoint. Therapeutic cloning starts with the exact same process as reproductive cloning, but harvests the stem cells from the resulting embryo. I don't pretend to know when life begins (or even if this question has a precise answer), but this procedure seems to have many more ethical questions than letting the embryo go to term (assuming that the technology gives the embryo an acceptable chance of no defects).

So if the technology is developed to allow safe human cloning, what is the harm in allowing it? Billionaires who hope to create duplicates to carry on their dynasty will be greater disappointed in the outcome!

Are all religions equal?

As a teenager, I asked myself this question. It seemed obvious to me that the answer is no. The religions of Jim Jones, the Heaven's Gate cult and others are clearly wrong. So how does one determine which are possible true religions and which are not? I reasoned that if there was a God, he should make it clear to a determined person which religion(s) is/are legitimate.

The Christian/Jewish/Islamic God had no problem with making his presence felt directly according to the Old Testament to the people of the middle east. I thought it very strange that he did not seeming appear to have make any effort to reach the other peoples of the world (not withstanding the Book of Mormon). He only seems to be interested in certain races of men. (Note that he does not seem to want the worship of the Egyptians in Exodus.) In fact, the Old Testament seems to imply that other gods exist (e.g., the Golden Calf). It is only in more modern times that these religions have attempted to convert others.

My criteria for a valid religion is one that is obviously true. I don't understand why God would try to confuse people with multiple religions and punish ones who pick the wrong one with Hell! I really can't understand how someone in a tiny cult can believe that they have the one true belief and everyone else is damned.

After mulling over these issues and applying Occam's razor, I came to the conclusion that since there is no obviously true religion, none of the world's religions are valid. And an atheist was born.

Why is evolution so hated?

It has always seemed strange to me that evolution is the big bugaboo that people have with science. Other differences between religion, such as the Big Bang and quantum theory, are rarely attacked even though they in many ways are much more antagonistic to religion. The big bang deals with the creation of the entire universe. Quantum theory puts limits on what is knowable. How much more heretical could these ideas be to religion?

Ironically, I believe that it is the fact that evolution shows that there is not such an unbridgeable gap between human and other life, that so many people refuse to accept the mountain of evidence for it. This is ironical, because religious people often accuse seculars of putting humans before god (and, in fact, are often referred to as humanists), but it is just this same attitude that keeps them from accepting the fact that humanity is only an insignificant part of the cosmos!

Introduction

I'm new to blogging, so this is just an experiment. I hope to post some half way interesting comments here soon.