Intelligent Design Revisited

I just noticed there were some fairly intense comments left on my blog post about Ben Stein's movie Expelled, and I feel its only fair to respond to some of the fantastic points people brought up. I'm so excited that you guys are writing such great responses!!!

Blogger mynym correctly said that I shouldn't reject what Ben Stein says based only on articles about the movie and not the movie itself. What I should say, is if those articles are accurate in what Stein says in the movie, I reject it. He also questions my assertion that theology and science should be kept separate.

How would one keep theology and science separate? I can really only answer from one side of that: how to keep theology separate from science. Pretty easy for me, since I really know nothing of science. This will also depend on the particular theology of the individual in question. For me, the Bible is not the ultimate authority on the natural law of things. I'm unique in that I don't believe the Bible is the direct word of God, but rather words inspired by God but limited by human expression.

That being said, I believe God is the author of all science. When a scientific fact is proven, I see it as part of God's truth. If one admits to the existence of a God, there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have wanted a panda's thumb to be the way it is. Natural selection may have been the process by which it became so, but that is still a tool of God to me.

Charles also corrects me in my use of the term "atheist". Atheism is not the rejection of God, merely its absence. He also adds the following,

"You're starting the the premise that God exists and arguing that science shouldn't try to disprove what, apparently, you've already accepted as fact. This is entirely unscientific! Scientific inquiry begins with as few assumptions as possible and builds knowledge hierarchically using observations made in the real world. At no point will any of these observations lend credence to theistic belief. Does this disprove religion? No, because if you're using the word "disprove" you are assuming GOD was already proven! No, Theists are UNABLE to prove GOD and Science continues on its merry way confirming that God touches no part of the natural world and leaves no trace of his supposed existence".

If science (the discipline) is absent of God, does it actually confirm that God touches no part of the natural world and no trace of his existence? Or does science begin by rejecting God based on lack of evidence, and then go on to explain things? I think the discipline should merely be absent of theology, but the individuals pursuing it are always going to have their own personal ideas of the implications of scientific fact. Those ideas are not the realm of science, but are part of other disciplines.

I'll give you a fun example. I recently went to see Eddie Izzard (one of my intellectual soul mates) perform live where he talked a lot about religion (the Christian one) and scientific facts. He looks at the planet Mercury with all its extreme conditions and says, "What's the point?" Mercury is useless and therefore there is no ultimate plan and no God. I completely respect that, but I can look at Mercury and conclude that there is a God. The science of that planet tells me there is a designer out there, and he's very very creative.

"And as a personal note, as an Atheist (that DOES reject God), I find life quite fulfilling and not at all "lonely" as you say."

If one is an atheist that rejects God and finds life fulfilling, good for you. I just can't wrap my head around it is all.

Mr. Finnish Biochemist Drop Out, wow. We'll have to save getting around to your comments another day, because they are intense!

Blasphemy, blas-pher-you, blas for everybody!

This week I got to write a reaction paper to a fascinating book entitled When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball for my Religion and Peacebuilding class. I thought I'd share a little bit of that essay with you folks.

Looking at my own religious community, the American Christians, I have to say yes, religion is becoming evil. When I look at other communities, I want to say no, because I can easily point non-religious motivations that are creating conflicts but expressing themselves in religious language. It’s a bit of a double standard, but I have a tendency to harshly criticize what I am closest to. The problem isn’t within the nature of Christianity; its how societies have allowed religious expression to become so poisonous to the general public. Lucky for me, Kimball is a Baptist minister, and he applies the warning signs mainly to his own faith, as is to be expected.

Of the five warning signs that Kimball lists (1. Absolute truth Claims, 2. Blind Obedience, 3. Establishing the Ideal Time, 4. The End Justifies Any Means, and 5. Declaring Holy War), absolute truth claims are the most dangerous if only because it is the first step. In middle school and high school (such a loooong time ago, I know), I was a very active evangelical Christian, for many different reasons I won't go into.

I have since removed the evangelical label from my religious identification, not because I experienced any destructive blow to my faith in Christianity, but because I was becoming better friends with non-Christians and I felt that always looking at people as potential converts or even just believing that these people were on “the outside” was wrong and dehumanizing. Even just thinking that my non-Christian friends would not be allowed into heaven was a truly scary thought and it ceased to be my motivation to change them but rather to change myself. I even have a refrigerator magnet that sums up most of feelings towards contemporary American Christianity, “Please Jesus, save me from Your followers.”

Kimball uses a familiar phrase to highlight the problems of absolute truth claims: “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship”. I've heard that one a lot, and even used it quite a few times. I don’t really agree with that statement anymore in so much as I believe Christianity is a religion and a relationship, as are most other faiths. However, I’ve always thought it was a clever way to exempt Christianity from the debates over secularism and the general evils of religion that were usually posed by ardent atheists.

I agree with Kimball that the phrase also hints at a much deeper issue, the complete nullification of any other religion’s right to assert its own validity. In particular, I liked his quote, “I am convinced that it is possible to be a person of faith with integrity—a Christian, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist—and at the same time recognize that one’s own experience of God does not exhaust all possibilities” (9). I think it is fair for a religion to assert it has the best understanding of truth, as any company would describe their product as the best version of its kind in the market, but not the only way of understanding truth.

Be aware that I am not claiming the a belief in the existence of an absolute truth is dangerous, it is just the way people have chosen to express their exclusive access to this truth.

What do you guys think about absolute truth claims? Do you think you have it right and everyone else has got it wrong? Or is everyone wrong, and that's okay?

The title of this post is inspired by Eddie Izzard's bit about Pope-Man. Could be a whole series...with a lot of complaints. I swear I quote that man almost as much as Dr. Ahmed. Almost.

It was supposed to be the Spanish Casual Chat!

The debate over water boarding has come back into the headlines with the erasure of certain CIA interrogation tapes, and so I feel compelled to write about it again.

Facts on Torture

The Methods Under Scrutiny

Water Boarding: From the BBC, "Water-boarding involves a prisoner being stretched on his back or hung upside down, having a cloth pushed into his mouth and/or plastic film placed over his face and having water poured onto his face. He gags almost immediately."

additionally from ABC news, "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in."


Belly Slaps: From ABC news, "A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage."

Long Time Standing: From ABC news, "This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions."

The Cold Cell: From ABC news, "The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water."

Is this against international law?

Yes. The UN definition of torture states that,

"torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

As for the American legal code, it defines torture as:

"an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;(C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality."

These "enhanced interrogation techniques" are absolutely banned by international law, the U.S. government does not consider them torture. However, it is illegal for the U.S. military to use water boarding, but this is not the case for the CIA. In an executive order, President Bush declared that the CIA must adhere to Geneva conventions and listed many different torture methods that were to be banned. There was an addendum to the order listing the allowed techniques, but not all of these were made public.

Effectiveness

Former CIA agent John Kirikau opposes the decision to erase CIA interrogation tapes and while he agrees that water boarding does indeed work, he no longer supports its use. Interestingly, he was subjected to the method during his training. He tells the story of breaking Al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubayda, who had been uncooperative for weeks. Minutes after the technique was used, Zubayda started giving information that led to the arrest of another suspect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in Pakistan in 2003. Zubayda also gave the interrogators information on the organizational structure within Al Qaeda.

"Now after all these years, time has passed, and we're more on our feet in this fight against al Qaeda, and I think it's unnecessary," he said.

In a separate CNN interview, Kiriakou said the Justice Department and National Security Council reportedly approved waterboarding and other "alternative" interrogation techniques in June 2002.

"It was a policy decision that came down from the White House," he said.

Despite the executive blessing, Kiriakou and other agents were conflicted over whether to learn the technique, he said.

"One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."

Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it.

"Waterboarding was an important technique, and some of these other techniques were important in collecting the information," he said. "But I personally didn't want to do it. I didn't think it was right in the long run, and I didn't want to be associated with it."

My conclusions

I found Kiriakou's testinmony to be very compelling. Enhanced interrogation techniques may very well be unnecessary. Currently, CIA director Michael Hayden has declared that the CIA no longer uses water boarding, also suggesting that it's unnecessary. A good question to ask, and I doubt if it could ever really be answered, is whether the technique has helped the CIA in fighting terrorism in the long run, or harmed it. We all know the case for weapons in Iraq was faulty, whether it was due to executive pressure of just poor gathering of information, is this the same for counter terrorism?

While you're pondering that, please enjoy a musing from one of the 21st century's greatest thinkers, Eddie Izzard, with some leggo animation. I couldn't find his full bit on the spanish inquisition, but this one should do just fine.