Heather seems to be flat out wrong. Her argument that the extension of equality has been so great in countries like secular Sweden: Here First, like Secular Nazi Germany, Sweden practiced forced sterilization. So has the United States. Eugenics were pushed by a secular left and fought against by the Fundamentalists and Catholic Churches. Unitarians were the biggest pushers of eugenics policies in the U.S. So to say that secularism has been a win-win for equality is a little bit crazy. Lastly, her comparison of Mexico v Sweden in terms of corruption is so off in terms of any type of social science methodology as to make one laugh. Ross hits on the development issues involved and the arrow of causation. But to sit there and attribute Mexico's corruption to the Church is absurd without any type of evidence. Soviet Russia was secularized and is much today; guess what? they are pretty corrupt. Everytime I hear her speak I wonder how she keeps her job. The case for secularism might be a good one, but she shouldn't be the one arguing for it. And using hyperbole is not helpful either.

Now this I like: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/189...2:05&out=12:16 On the other hand, I'm growing a wee bit tired of these endless discussions of what constitutes "conservatism." We've been subjected to it for what seems like years now! As we all know, conservatism has multiple defintions: for Matt Lewis, conservatism is what people who don't live in New York City think. For George W. Bush, conservatism is interventionist foreign policy, big spending, and social neanderthalism. And for Andrew Sullivan, conservatism is whatever he happens to "think". Sorry, think. (So that on the same day, both Ron Paul and Barack Obama are conservatives.) Even more tiresome are the constant references by allegedly learned conservative intellectuals (Brooks, Douthat, Sullivan) to the aprocryphyl golden age of conservatism as embodied by Edmund Burke. Have any of these people read Burke recently? He was an appalllng anti-enlightenment reactionary, an elitist bigot who valued the lives of aristocrats more than the lives of common people.

Heather comes off as completely overbearing. She cut off Ross's responses about 20 times. she did agree at the end that believers and non-believers should both be much more humble about the extent of their claims to know the truth. Ross represented that attitude throughout, while heather only came to it in the last minute or so. great job Ross -just don't get pushed around so much next time.

Why couldn't they have a Jesuit argue against her? That would be a much more vigorous discussion.

her basic objection - "if god existed, he'd run the world my way. since the world doesn't work the way I think it should, god does not exist" how could even a jesuit argue with that kind of ego-centrism?

One gets the sense that she is a little bit dense. I was jesuit educated and I understand that the application of science is incorrect when accessing the existence of God. Both failed to touch upon this, but free will would require the absence of evidence for God. Indeed, reason is an oppressive god, though I doubt Heather would understand that.

Heather has a reputation as a fearsome interlocutor, and my experience with her writing is that her arguments, even if I tend to disagree, are pretty generally strong. I'll take you guys' opinions under advisment, since I haven't had sufficient attention to watch this yet. But more often than not, it's wise to take her seriously.

Heather is too quick. I wonder in what sense she means.

I find these arguments about whether religion is a boon or not to society tiresome. In practice, its just about impossible to weed out the magnitudes of each force religion exerts on society. Therefore, there is no rational way to determine if religion is a net benefit. Also, empiricism fails to contribute anything to the discussion, since both secular and religious societies have such a bad track record, each side can point to a virtually unlimited set of data points. Not to mention just how hard it is to weed out what the actual causations from the mere coincidences are for each arbitrary data point (i.e. Did the Gulags happen because of how secular that region was, or was that a mere coincidence? Same for the Crusades). On a different note, there was a quote (Ill have to paraphrase it, my memory sucks) I read from some Sci-Fi whose title escapes me at the moment which I feel sums up this Diavlog rather well. Some Guy: Doctor, why in this age did those religious wackos do something so crazy? It's completely illogical! Dr.: You shouldn't say that, their logic is impeccable, its just accepting their premises that's difficult for us.

Intellectuals have thought that noble lies are necessary since the time of Plato. This country was founded to allow for individuals to make their own chooses and need not be controlled by lies. Additionally, hasn't metaphysics been proven irrelevant by Anglo-American philosophy for over 100 years?

"reason is an oppressive god, though I doubt Heather would understand that"

I doubt anyone would understand that. "Believe it", perhaps, but not likely "understand" it, because it's a ridiculous bit of hyperbole. An intense discussion about the existence of God and the significance of religious belief between an atheist libertarian and a conservative Roman Catholic is among my worst nightmares...

Quoting nikkibong: Now this I like:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/189...2:05&out=12:16

On the other hand, I'm growing a wee bit tired of these endless discussions of what constitutes "conservatism." We've been subjected to it for what seems like years now! As we all know, conservatism has multiple defintions: for Matt Lewis, conservatism is what people who don't live in New York City think. For George W. Bush, conservatism is interventionist foreign policy, big spending, and social neanderthalism. And for Andrew Sullivan, conservatism is whatever he happens to "think". Sorry, think. (So that on the same day, both Ron Paul and Barack Obama are conservatives.)

Even more tiresome are the constant references by allegedly learned conservative intellectuals (Brooks, Douthat, Sullivan) to the aprocryphyl golden age of conservatism as embodied by Edmund Burke. Have any of these people read Burke recently? He was an appalllng anti-enlightenment reactionary, an elitist bigot who valued the lives of aristocrats more than the lives of common people.

My hope is that if they debate the definition of conservative long enough they'll come to their sense. It seems to be working so far. The amazing thing about Sully is that out of a constant stream of muddled overemotional nonsense he's occasionally clear and

It's so oppressive that no one lives by reason alone. Tell me why that is hyperbole? To function one must make normative claims that have weak empirics.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Also, empiricism fails to contribute anything to the discussion,

You're confusing empiricism or science with secularism. Here's where empiricism makes a contribution: Religion: eating prayers will cure your sickness. Empiricism/Science: the Nuclear Bomb. And what's great about the religious end of it (something Ross disingenuously ignored) is that religion always makes empirical claims. These claims are always proven false. Yes, always.

She's on your side, so I assume you will be cutting her a lot of slack - but go ahead and listen and let me know what you think. your opinions, when informed by fact, are usually interesting.

Great para-quote, Starr. Not sure if I'll bother watching this one. I wasn't too big a fan of HM last time. And I don't know if my + feelings for Ross are enough of an incentive to overcome that hurdle.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Heather comes off as completely overbearing. She cut off Ross's responses about 20 times.

she did agree at the end that believers and non-believers should both be much more humble about the extent of their claims to know the truth.

Ross represented that attitude throughout, while heather only came to it in the last minute or so.

great job Ross -just don't get pushed around so much next time.

I have to say that I agree with these observations. Despite the problems, I generally enjoyed the diavlog although I can't really say I came away with any new insights. I think it is unfortunate that they ran through the question of religion among conservatives or on the right so quickly because I think this was the most interesting part. A lengthy rehashing of vague and general religious questions, even between two smart people, is inevitably going to seem tired (anyone who cares has read, heard, or participated in these discussions so many times already). You need to really narrow the question to hopefully produce something more productive. An interesting side road that I kind of wish the discussion had gone down a little more so I could

alls u gotta do is go through about a month of archive video at theync.com to know that if there is a god - he's the most worthless sack of crap ever.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Heather comes off as completely overbearing. She cut off Ross's responses about 20 times.

she did agree at the end that believers and non-believers should both be much more humble about the extent of their claims to know the truth.

Ross represented that attitude throughout, while heather only came to it in the last minute or so.

great job Ross -just don't get pushed around so much next time.

I have to say that I agree with these observations. Despite the problems, I generally enjoyed the diavlog although I can't really say I came away with any new insights. I think it is unfortunate that they ran through the question of religion among conservatives or on the right so quickly because I think this was the most interesting part. A lengthy rehashing of vague and general religious questions, even between two smart people, is inevitably going to seem tired (anyone who cares has read, heard, or participated in these discussions so many times already). You need to really narrow the question to hopefully produce something more productive. An interesting side road that I kind of wish the discussion had gone down a little more so I could

Quoting popcorn_karate: Heather comes off as completely overbearing. She cut off Ross's responses about 20 times.

I found this particularly hard to take, too, especially since the pattern seemed to be that she'd talk for five minutes and then interrupt Ross after his first sentence of response.

No, metaphysics hasn't been proven irrelevant, at least not to philosophers. Saul Kripke resuscitated metaphysics with his 1972 Naming and Necessity. Ever since then it's been going great guns. Some notable works include: Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity; David Lewis, On the Plurality of Worlds; and Peter van Inwagen, Material Beings.

Quoting popcorn_karate: She's on your side, so I assume you will be cutting her a lot of slack - but go ahead and listen and let me know what you think. your opinions, when informed by fact, are usually interesting.

I don't agree with "fearsome interlocutor," but I will agree with the spirit of what Jeff had to say. (What I've read of) Heather's work on Secular Right is good, and much better than the she comes across in this diavlog, to my taste. Even filtering out her objectionable manners, her arguments here were pretty run of the mill. As someone representing "my side," let's just say she's not on our A-team, or perhaps, did not bring her A-game to this diavlog. Abu Noor said elsewhere in this thread that narrowing the topic(s) might have made for a better discussion. I agree.

"R. Pointer wrote on 04/13/2009 at 04:09 PM
Re: God and Man on the Right
It's so oppressive that no one lives by reason alone.
Tell me why that is hyperbole?" Because it doesn't make any sense unless you make assumptions about the role of reason in the evolution of human knowledge that false, i.e. that reason is inevitably a matter of extremes. The fact is that few people who accept the primacy of reason and/or the scientific method don't also recognize the limitations of those modes of thought. People who embrace reason are far more likely to also embrace a degree of skepticism than people whose primary relationship to knowledge and understanding is based on faith and/or religious dogmas. I'm not an atheist and folks like Christopher Hitchens strike me as more than a bit sophomoric, but philosophes of that ilk are far less possessed by an oppressive "God" - or epistemological doctrine - than their counterparts on the opposite extreme of religious orthodoxy and fundamentalism.

Quoting brucds: [...]

I agree with you in spirit, but strictly speaking, there is some sense in which reason (alone) could be said to be oppressive. It does not give credence to arguments from faith, for example, and there are people who find that quite off-putting.

I haven't listened to this one yet, but if I know Heather Mac Donald, she'll let us know that cops aren't racist and teh blacks should shut the eff up.

Quoting claymisher: I haven't listened to this one yet, but if I know Heather Mac Donald, she'll let us know that cops aren't racist and teh blacks should shut the eff up.

She did hasten to point out that blacks are "more religious" and "have more children out of wedlock." I could only laugh.

here's an internet forum for people who think Pokemon is real:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pokeclips...php?act=SC&c=1 think about it

"there is some sense in which reason (alone) could be said to be oppressive" And there is some sense in which peanut butter (alone) could be said to be oppressive. Seriously though, the advent of reason has been far more liberating than oppressive in human history - and one of the things it has liberated us from is oppressive religious dogma. You've got to construct a hyperbolic context in which reason could be considered oppressive - i.e. some monomaniacal obsession on the part of a hyper-rationalist freak or an perversion of scientific method (such as Marxist orthodoxy run amok in Russia or China, which ironically mirrored pre-Enlightenment faith-based totalitarianism by punishing skepticism or deviation from doctrine) - and not the general impact of what would broadly be termed "reason" in the real world and in actual human history.

While I generally enjoyed this conversation, speaking as a Catholic, I must admit (rather reluctantly) that Heather Macdonald wiped the floor with Ross Douthat. Using classically liberal arguments, she made an excellent case that conservatism need not, and even should not, be linked with religion. She was clear, concise, and calm to Ross's increasingly anxious and upset obscurantism. When things got hot for Ross, it was disappointing to see him try to diffuse the argument through humor, by resorting to ponderous, long-winded sentences, or rather random hypotheticals. It's strange because arguing for the linkages between religion and conservatism is supposed to be one of Ross's main competencies (or maybe he just takes it for granted and has never really formulated a non-faith-based argument for it before?) and, in fact, covering these constituencies is a large rationale for his promotion to the lofty position of New York Times op-ed columnist. At least that was always supposed to be the rationale for Ross's new role at the New York Times, right? Perhaps we should consider another possibility: Ross is very amiable and is "in the club". His presence in the Matt Yglesias / Ezra Klein / Megan Mcardle social network

Religion is important for the American Right for the same reason Political Correctness is important for the American Left: Control. On the Right when we need fighters to pursue out geopolitical goals we fire people up with "God and Country." When we need cheap labor and people start complaining about illegal immigrants ruining their towns we call them "intolerant" or "racist" and they shut up real quick. Religion and Political Correctness work like a charm in controlling the untermensch masses. Sometimes we combine the two and say its "unChristian" and "racist" to want your kids to go to good suburban schools instead of letting us bus them to the inner city becuase "we're all Gods Children." This works awesome.

Quoting bjkeefe: I found this particularly hard to take, too, especially since the pattern seemed to be that she'd talk for five minutes and then interrupt Ross after his first sentence of response.

I wrote my own 'review' (in reply to David Edenden's post) before I read other comments about this diavlog, so I'm surprised that you would say this. I don't think Ross had much to say. It was surprising to me because I generally like Ross, but now I'm beginning to question how good his arguments really are. Ross is amiable, has all the right friends in the prominent Atlantic blogging network, and is a regular face for the bloggingheads audience. Maybe that could explain the differences in perceptions?

Quoting brucds: "there is some sense in which reason (alone) could be said to be oppressive"

And there is some sense in which peanut butter (alone) could be said to be oppressive. Seriously though, the advent of reason has been far more liberating than oppressive in human history - and one of the things it has liberated us from is oppressive religious dogma. You've got to construct a hyperbolic context in which reason could be considered oppressive - i.e. some monomaniacal obsession on the part of a hyper-rationalist freak or an perversion of scientific method (such as Marxist orthodoxy run amok in Russia or China, which ironically mirrored pre-Enlightenment faith-based totalitarianism by punishing skepticism or deviation from doctrine) - and not the general impact of what would broadly be termed "reason" in the real world and in actual human history.

As I said, I agree with your view in spirit, and obviously I prefer reason to religious dogma. But I just don't think you have to be hyperbolic to construct a context where insisting upon reason alone would be viewed by some people as oppressive. Indeed, it is at the core of many of the

Quoting bhf: I wrote my own 'review' (in reply to David Edenden's post) before I read other comments about this diavlog, so I'm surprised that you would say this. I don't think Ross had much to say. It was surprising to me because I generally like Ross, but now I'm beginning to question how good his arguments really are. Ross is amiable, has all the right friends in the prominent Atlantic blogging network, and is a regular face for the bloggingheads audience.

Maybe that could explain the differences in perceptions?

I saw your other comment. On the point here, I don't think it's possible to discern whether Ross had much to say, because it did not seem like he had much of a chance. Maybe it's a matter of perception, but I'd bet tall dollars that if someone were to add up the time spent talking for the two in this diavlog, Heather's minutes would be at least double Ross's. I do agree that he seemed a little squishy at times, and it seemed at others as though he was almost embarrassed to stand up for what he believes. It could also be that he did not want to

bjk - one problem is that the first comment I responded to didn't include the qualifier "alone." That was added later in order to justify some notion about how reason might be, in some hypothetical context, akin to an "oppressive God." So the argument slipped when I challenged it. Also, just because someone else might consider a challenge to religious orthodoxy unpleasant or discomfiting doesn't mean that there's anything "oppressive" about the questions being raised. The faith and the rationality that I find intellectually respectable are both comfortable with the necessity for skepticism and tolerance of alternative beliefs. But proponents of doctrine based on faith tended to be intolerant of skepticism until confronted with the empirical triumph of reason over faith as the foundation for our knowledge of the world. Consequently many people who profess religious faith today are comfortable with skepticism and even embrace doubt as an essential feature of their beliefs. That's relatively new. It's also a rejection of "oppressive Gods" by virtue of coming to terms with reason as essential to intellectual credibility. The discourse of "faith" may raise questions some of us find compelling or

Thanks for your reply. I'd agree with your caveats that (A) we don't know what's going through Ross's head (maybe Heather surprised him with some pretty personal topics he wasn't prepared to argue) and (B) an objective "time count" would probably show Heather with an edge (to be fair, though, Heather spoke with a steady pace, while Ross sped up over time), but the squishy arguments about religion and conservatism are still concerning from our newest NYT op-ed columnist who was supposedly hired to be a "religious conservative" voice. Regarding the "cynicism and social networks," let me begin by agreeing that the NYT could have done much worse than Ross, who does have interesting things to say. Let's stipulate that Ross is probably going to greatly exceed the low weekly standard (sorry, bad pun) that Kristol has set, so we should be holding him to a higher standard. But I think it reasonable to ask ourselves two questions: (1) how do social networks influence elite selection processes, especially when others (Macdonald, McWhorter, Cowan, and Salam) were seemingly overlooked? and (2) What does it say about progressives and our institutions that certain conservatives are allowed in our networks and others are

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't agree with "fearsome interlocutor," ...

I'm not sure I do either, but that language is supported by the link I provided - from a Mother Jones contributor, no less. My takeway was really intended to be "she's worth taking seriously."

Quoting bhf: While I generally enjoyed this conversation, speaking as a Catholic, I must admit (rather reluctantly) that Heather Macdonald wiped the floor with Ross Douthat.

Using classically liberal arguments, she made an excellent case that conservatism need not, and even should not, be linked with religion. She was clear, concise, and calm to Ross's increasingly anxious and upset obscurantism. When things got hot for Ross, it was disappointing to see him try to diffuse the argument through humor, by resorting to ponderous, long-winded sentences, or rather random hypotheticals.

It's strange because arguing for the linkages between religion and conservatism is supposed to be one of Ross's main competencies (or maybe he just takes it for granted and has never really formulated a non-faith-based argument for it before?) and, in fact, covering these constituencies is a large rationale for his promotion to the lofty position of New York Times op-ed columnist.

At least that was always supposed to be the rationale for Ross's new role at the New York Times, right? Perhaps we should consider another possibility: Ross is very amiable and is "in the club". His presence in the Matt Yglesias / Ezra Klein / Megan Mcardle social network

impossible to tell from this DV since Heather thought he was interviewing her rather than having a conversation with her. have you listened to it yet?

First you didn't challenge my argument. You just claimed it was hyperbole. Second, if Hegel considered the question of reason being oppressive and a good number of continentals thought that it could be, then I don't think some flip comment on a bloggingheads message board is enough to squash the question. Lastly, the point I was striving to point out was that if Heather thinks here epistemology is so strong and backed up by only empirical analysis, then I think she is deeply mistaken. Additionally, I don't see how the truth claims that come out her worldview aren't as normative as a fundamentalist Christian's. I am not one, but I don't see hers as somehow morally superior.

Quoting bjkeefe: She did hasten to point out that blacks are "more religious" and "have more children out of wedlock." I could only laugh.

Agreed, that was dumb. Although it did mask a more interesting mis-reading of basic social science findings that conservatives often make. Correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what McWhorter would think of this. Don't they sit down the hall from each other? Maybe another "same room" diavlog could be arranged?

Quoting AemJeff: I have a somewhat different view of Ross. I think he's a perfectly capable critical thinker, as good as some of the more insightful members of the blat-pack - probably has better game than McArdle, IMO - it's when he engages on religious issues and issues of sexual politics when I think he's weakest. It seems to me that Ross's emotional connections to his religious heritage is such that he's not really capable of achieving the distance necessary to analytical thinking. Which, given his perch at the NYT, and all of the insularity that seems to go with that, is, I think, bad news for Ross, in the long term.

Good point. Kindof strange, though, given that he's supposedly being hired because of his insights into religious conservatism, right? I'd have to agree: I generally enjoy Ross more than Megan...you and bj are right to point out that Ross is generally quite reasonable outside of the religion context. Although my point was that we should probably be looking outside of the rather dense atlantic.com social network to find original stuff that challenges progressives (in good ways). For example, I generally find McWhorter and Cowan -- while obviously very different! -- to be the

Quoting bhf: Thanks for your reply. I'd agree with your caveats that (A) we don't know what's going through Ross's head (maybe Heather surprised him with some pretty personal topics he wasn't prepared to argue) and (B) an objective "time count" would probably show Heather with an edge (to be fair, though, Heather spoke with a steady pace, while Ross sped up over time), but the squishy arguments about religion and conservatism are still concerning from our newest NYT op-ed columnist who was supposedly hired to be a "religious conservative" voice.

I was under the impression he was hired to be a conservative voice. I never heard anyone even remotely connected say anything about "religious" being a criterion.

Regarding the "cynicism and social networks," let me begin by agreeing that the NYT could have done much worse than Ross, who does have interesting things to say. Let's stipulate that Ross is probably going to greatly exceed the low weekly standard (sorry, bad pun) that Kristol has set, so we should be holding him to a higher standard.

That much is easy to agree upon.

But I think it reasonable to ask ourselves two questions: (1) how do social networks influence elite

Quoting AemJeff: I'm not sure I do either, but that language is supported by the link I provided - from a Mother Jones contributor, no less. My takeway was really intended to be "she's worth taking seriously."

Yep. As I went on to say, "but I will agree with the spirit of what Jeff had to say."

Quoting popcorn_karate: impossible to tell from this DV since Heather thought he was interviewing her rather than having a conversation with her.

have you listened to it yet?

Just started it.

Quoting brucds: "there is some sense in which reason (alone) could be said to be oppressive"

And there is some sense in which peanut butter (alone) could be said to be oppressive. Seriously though, the advent of reason has been far more liberating than oppressive in human history - and one of the things it has liberated us from is oppressive religious dogma. You've got to construct a hyperbolic context in which reason could be considered oppressive - i.e. some monomaniacal obsession on the part of a hyper-rationalist freak or an perversion of scientific method (such as Marxist orthodoxy run amok in Russia or China, which ironically mirrored pre-Enlightenment faith-based totalitarianism by punishing skepticism or deviation from doctrine) - and not the general impact of what would broadly be termed "reason" in the real world and in actual human history.

Heh. As for the advent of reason, as a historical phenomenon it's pretty recent, but as an approach to the world I gotta figure it's really old. I'd like to think when Og said, "God make fire," Zog said, "What makes you think that?!" BTW, anyone else read "Doubt: A History" by Jennifer Hecht? It's really terrific. It's a historical tour

Quoting brucds: bjk - one problem is that the first comment I responded to didn't include the qualifier "alone." That was added later in order to justify some notion about how reason might be, in some hypothetical context, akin to an "oppressive God." So the argument slipped when I challenged it. Also, just because someone else might consider a challenge to religious orthodoxy unpleasant or discomfiting doesn't mean that there's anything "oppressive" about the questions being raised. The faith and the rationality that I find intellectually respectable are both comfortable with the necessity for skepticism and tolerance of alternative beliefs. But proponents of doctrine based on faith tended to be intolerant of skepticism until confronted with the empirical triumph of reason over faith as the foundation for our knowledge of the world. Consequently many people who profess religious faith today are comfortable with skepticism and even embrace doubt as an essential feature of their beliefs. That's relatively new. It's also a rejection of "oppressive Gods" by virtue of coming to terms with reason as essential to intellectual credibility. The discourse of "faith" may raise questions some of us find compelling or

Quoting bjkeefe: I was under the impression he was hired to be a conservative voice. I never heard anyone even remotely connected say anything about "religious" being a criterion.

Maybe not in the official press release, but I'd be surprised if you think that Ross's religious writings weren't a topic of discussion, perhaps even positively (under the view that he'd be "reaching out" to new demographics and helping the Times mitigate accusations of bias). I do recall that a bunch of conservative bloggers -- like crunchy con, etc. -- were alternatively happy to have "a real religious conservative " or upset that Ross wasn't "conservative enough." It is all quite predictable to me that this would be a topic of conversation and, therefore, something to think about in the NYT selection process if only because Ross is probably going to write about the intersection of religion and politics a fair amount. Whether you'll like that outcome is another question.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm sure "who you know" plays a role in getting jobs like this, but I don't think your examples are proof of anything.

While I found your insights into the other people (McWhorter, Cowan, Salam, etc.) I mentioned quite insightful (see below), I think you missed

Quoting bhf: Good point. Kindof strange, though, given that he's supposedly being hired because of his insights into religious conservatism, right?

I'd have to agree: I generally enjoy Ross more than Megan...you and bj are right to point out that Ross is generally quite reasonable outside of the religion context. Although my point was that we should probably be looking outside of the rather dense atlantic.com social network to find original stuff that challenges progressives (in good ways). For example, I generally find McWhorter and Cowan -- while obviously very different! -- to be the most fascinating and challenging "conservative" bloggingheads diavloggers. They really seem to stand alone as iconoclasts.

Urgh, I gotta learn to read before I click. It's hard to disagree about McWhorter, though I haven't paid careful enough attention to Cowen to have an opinion. But there have been plenty of nominally conservative participants (including both Heather and Ross) in and out of that social circle who provide all kinds of challenge for people on all sides: e.g. Frank Fukuyama, James Joyner, Larison, Brink Lindsey, Ramesh, Reihan , Julian Sanchez, Volokh, Matt Welch, and Will Wilkinson - all of whom bring an awful lot to the table, many of whom are easily describable as iconoclasts. I get the feeling

I find Ms. MacDonald's emphasis on what she sees as the narcissism inherent in petitionary prayer to be a particularly weak argument, although she obviously sees it as very strong.

I haven't heard the dialogue yet, but if she said petitionary prayer is narcissistic, well, that's idiotic -- precisely the kind of ignorance of and hostility toward religion that insults people and stifles mutual understanding. Note: I am an atheist and am certain that no one is listening to petitionary prayer; nonetheless, to demean people's motives with psychobabble is offensive.

Quoting Wonderment: I haven't heard the dialogue yet, but if she said petitionary prayer is narcissistic, well, that's idiotic -- precisely the kind of ignorance of and hostility toward religion that insults people and stifles mutual understanding.

Note: I am an atheist and am certain that no one is listening to petitionary prayer; nonetheless, to demean people's motives with psychobabble is offensive.

I really don't understand. This seems to me a perfectly arguable point. "Narcissism" isn't inherently a meaningless concept, and the logic of petitionary prayer presupposes a definitively self-centered point of view. You might disagree, and you can certainly argue another view - but asserting that it's a demeaning description and therefore out-of-bounds, by definition, just strikes me as a completely backwards evaluation.

It's struck me as somewhat unfocused, but Heather got to the heart of things here. The ensuing discussion of Ross's opinion of Joseph Smith's claimed experience really puts a point on it. If you accept the foundational stories of your own faith, by what standard do you reject the basis of somebody else's faith?

I really don't understand. This seem to me a perfectly arguable point. "Narcissism" isn't inherently a meaningless concept, and the logic of petitionary prayer presupposes a definitively self-centered point of view. You might disagree, and you can certainly argue another view - but asserting that it's a demeaning description and therefore out-of-bounds, by definition, just strikes me as a completely backwards evaluation.

I've commented further here. Please note that I haven't yet heard what MacDonald actually said, so I'm just going on the general idea of petitionary prayer as narcissistic.

Quoting bhf: Maybe not in the official press release, but I'd be surprised if you think that Ross's religious writings weren't a topic of discussion, perhaps even positively (under the view that he'd be "reaching out" to new demographics and helping the Times mitigate accusations of bias). I do recall that a bunch of conservative bloggers -- like crunchy con, etc. -- were alternatively happy to have "a real religious conservative " or upset that Ross wasn't "conservative enough." It is all quite predictable to me that this would be a topic of conversation and, therefore, something to think about in the NYT selection process if only because Ross is probably going to write about the intersection of religion and politics a fair amount. Whether you'll like that outcome is another question.

Yeah, I suppose I can buy that.

While I found your insights into the other people (McWhorter, Cowan, Salam, etc.) I mentioned quite insightful (see below), I think you missed my main point (probably I didn't communicate it well). I'm not saying that Ross got his job because, for example, he was recommended by some powerful atlantic person like Andrew Sulivan. Instead, my hypothesis is that he is "an acceptable" conservative (i.e., won't challenge us progressives

Quoting Ray: [...]

And what's great about the religious end of it (something Ross disingenuously ignored) is that religion always makes empirical claims. These claims are always proven false.

Yes, always.

I think you misunderstood my post, perhaps I was not clear. Anyways, how exactly is one suppose to falsify religious claims that depend on the intervention of some being that exists outside all our concepts of reality? Seems untestable to me. The fact that you can't actually falsify the religious claims has always been what I viewed as the largest chasm between religion and science.

Quoting AemJeff: It's struck me as somewhat unfocused, but Heather got to the heart of things here. The ensuing discussion of Ross's opinion of Joseph Smith's claimed experience really puts a point on it. If you accept the foundational stories of your own faith, by what standard do you reject the basis of somebody else's faith?

Yeah, that was one of her better moments.

I liked both Heather and Ross in this diavlog. Their respective styles of communication are very different and perhaps that explains some of the comments that I read above. Heather is more loquacious and her arguments seemed to be more elaborate. Ross was more spontaneous and did, at times, come across as somewhat frustrated. But overall they brought up interesting views. I wish they had discussed stages of moral development in this context. I think it explains some of the parallels between the evolution of religious belief and morality. We are getting very religious around here... Is it Bob's fault?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: The fact that you can't actually falsify the religious claims has always been what I viewed as the largest chasm between religion and science.

There is no chasm between religion and science. Both make claims about the way the world actually is. Both present empirical evidence to support their claims. This was the point of the miracle discussion here. In order to establish sainthood, the Vatican verifies the occurrence of miracles, by gathering evidence for them. For real. They do interviews, accumulate documents, all that shit. And all of this evidence is eminently falsifiable. This is where Ross's point breaks down. For him, examining the evidence means trying to explain the miracle. But that's not what the evidence goes to support. The evidence goes to support the claim that a miraculous thing happened, e.g. that the lame were made to walk, the sick healed, etc. The Vatican investigation asks, "was someone sick in the first place?" That's a question that you can answer with "no".

I like Heather, she's written some insightful articles, but the whole "Atheist Conservative" shtick bores me. She and Derbyshire seem to spend 90 percent of their time attacking Christianity or yapping about "evolution" (the dullest topic of all time) and 10 percent promoting conservatism. I think the audience for "atheist" or secular conservatism is very small. Although many conservatives are religious - or have a positive view of it - religion really isn't emphasized that much. Its the left who're obsessed with Religion and hate Christianity. The Founding fathers were Christians, deists, or agnostics. None of them wasted energy worrying about how many times George Washington mentioned "God"; or the fact that the Congress hired a Reverend to give an opening prayer. They had bigger fish to fry. Heather's "secular" conservatism comes off as a stunt. Hey, its tough for conservative intellectuals, so if it helps her financially with the liberals who control the MSM - OK. But please, less secularism and more conservatism.

Quoting rcocean: Although many conservatives are religious - or have a positive view of it - religion really isn't emphasized that much.

That is just too funny not to quote.

Quoting rcocean: Heather's "secular" conservatism comes off as a stunt. Hey, its tough for conservative intellectuals, so if it helps her financially with the liberals who control the MSM - OK.

Ditto.

Sheesh! Here's the argument she's making in essence: "Injustices X, Y, and Z exist (It's hard to understand where this notion of "justice" comes from, absent some sort of Ultimate Morality, but leave that aside). I can't make or understand any argument to explain that, given the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is also good. Therefore any attribution of justice to a divine source is an illusion, and any claim of knowledge outside of some absolutist empiricism is false." But that's just an assertion, not proof. She appeals to "reason," the believer appeals to his or her God. What is the difference?

I found Heather quite interesting here, and Ross not at all interesting. She is kind of overbearing and tough, though. It amazes me that people here are saying that "secular conservatisim" is a very common trope. I don't think it's at all common, and she is certainly not pursuing it as a gimmick. I had only seen Heather before in her diavlog with Kleinman, which was a strange conversation about which I don't remember very much of substance. This is the sort of person I would like to have in opposition, a thoroughgoing rationalist-humanist who differs with me only as to means. She seems like a person of good will, in the sense that she does not seem to be someone interested in oppressing others for her own financial benefit. As for the racism accusation, I don't know. It's not news that there are a lot of out-of-wedlock births in the African-American population. It's not news that this pattern does not conduce to their socio-economic welfare as a group, nor to that of the kids with no fathers. I'd have to hear her reading of "The Bell Curve" stuff to get a better sense of her

Quoting rfrobison: Sheesh!

But that's just an assertion, not proof. She appeals to "reason," the believer appeals to his or her God. What is the difference?

Good question! Reason and facts can be proven, have reliable predictability and moreover, theories/reason can change as new facts are discovered.

Uh, yeah. Too bad she didn't cite any.

"no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver"

すみませんが、スペーン語が分かりません。

Quoting rfrobison: すみまさんが、スペーン語が分かりますん。

Babel Fish: "The being completed [ma], [supen] language you understand, it is."? "no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver" Babel Fish: "there is no worse blind person than the one than does not want to see" If you have a point to make, make it in a more easily understood idiom...(or provide the translation). You may be interested in reading the life and works of people like Michael Shermer and Bart Ehrman, both of them started as pious Christian fundamentalists and as they delved deeper into the original "sources" of the "holy" books, became agnostic/atheists...

Speaking of God. A little tidbit from an Australian father of an Australian soldier paraphrasing a phone call from his son... "Before I came over here I thought we (the Australian Army) were pretty shit hot..... was I ever wrong!....The Yanks (I hope you don't mind me using that word) are so professional from the top to the bottom that it is almost embarrassing to be in their company, and to call yourself a soldier....don't get me wrong, we are good at what we do but the Yanks are so much better.....they are complete at what they do, how they do it and their attitude is awesome....they don't complain they just get on with the job and they do it right.....I carry a Minimi (SAW) so I am not real worried about a confrontation but I tell you I feel safer just knowing that the US Army is close by....If we got into trouble I know that our boys would come running and we could deal with it but they would probably be passed by a load of Hummers. No questions asked, no glory sought, the Americans would just fight with us and

Quoting SkepticDoc: Babel Fish: "The being completed [ma], [supen] language you understand, it is."?

"no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver"

Babel Fish: "there is no worse blind person than the one than does not want to see"

If you have a point to make, make it in a more easily understood idiom...(or provide the translation).

You may be interested in reading the life and works of people like Michael Shermer and Bart Ehrman, both of them started as pious Christian fundamentalists and as they delved deeper into the original "sources" of the "holy" books, became agnostic/atheists...

Bablefish does not do a very good job with Japanese--and it probably didn't help that I had a couple of typos in that very short sentence. If YOU wish to make a point--any point at all--please do me the courtesy of writing in English. Or you can learn Japanese (or French) and we can try those if you like. The phrase above is accurately translated as: "Excuse me, but I do not understand Spanish." And as long as we're trading book recommendations, I might suggest "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis. He was an Oxford professor who started out as an atheist, began an

I love French, not to mention the women...

Thanks the recommendations Bobby.

tl;dr

Quoting rfrobison: Bablefish does not do a very good job with Japanese--and it probably didn't help that I had a couple of typos in that very short sentence. If YOU wish to make a point--any point at all--please do me the courtesy of writing in English. Or you can learn Japanese (or French) and we can try those if you like.

The phrase above is accurately translated as: "Excuse me, but I do not understand Spanish."

And as long as we're trading book recommendations, I might suggest "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis. He was an Oxford professor who started out as an atheist, began an exploration of the sources of morality (among other things) and then became one of those God-awful (pardon the pun) fundamentalists.

I think the reason he wrote is Spanish was not to obfuscate his point, but because he was pulling out a common saying from that language. Sort of like how one might write "plus ce change, plus ce la meme chose" instead of "the more things change, the more they remain the same." Still, I thought your response was pretty funny. (Three years of college-level Japanese, and I still struggle to hold a conversation. It's no wonder at all

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/189...7:07&out=17:58

Spanish, French, women, oh la la.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVAVjzBPyxY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIIL5p7_WKk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ufFvJa1Tk
I wish I understood some Japanese: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U2nBre-JEU

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/189...7:07&out=17:58

Aaaaah, she was just showing off how beautifully unblemished her skin is. ;^)

Quoting SkepticDoc: Spanish, French, women, oh la la....

There's only one for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mksbm5piI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jx4_zx1zr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukNbNJ3u2II

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/189...7:07&out=17:58

That had me in tears. Thanks for the link.

Another Francophile: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...20Paris&st=cse

I was typing something and not looking at the screen and all of a sudden I looked up and was like (Joey Lawrence voice) "Whoew!!"

There may be another issue, linguistics and neuroplasticity; some languages may make the the brain "work" differently, and there could be some differences in affective responses depending on the language that we are currently using, or the language that we grew up with. I personally regard English to be better for technical issues and communication in fields like Science and Math. It was hard for me to study with medical Spanish textbooks, I am not sure if this was the result of poor translations, since the original texts were in English! The Romantic languages appear to me more conducive to expressions of feelings, deep emotions, particularly anger (rabia)! There is a definite difference in the emotive response when I watch European foreign films (Spanish, French and Italian), I've had a limited exposure to Russian films (Night Watch and Day Watch), that was a different experience, not enough to make any generalizations, except that I enjoyed the Russian inflections with subtitles better than the English dubbed dialog.

Yes, I'm a non-believer but Heather won most the arguments easily in this diavlog.

Quoting Castaa: Yes, I'm a non-believer but Heather won most the arguments easily in this diavlog.

Example: Ross: You believe in the supremacy of democracy... You believe that your Mother loves you... But you can't prove either with science.

Heather: But I know that my Mother exists!
Heather should call her mom god... problem solved What a circular load from Ross on the promise of Christianity: Just believe and the pain of the tsunami or the seeming injustice of gods' selective benevolence will be made palatable.

Wow, we moved from metaphysics to linguistics in one smooth motion. Fine by me, I wasn't really up for a huge philosophical debate anyway. And I wasn't aware that that saying was originally Spanish. Thanks, Tara. As for French women, I've only met a few. I spent five months in Dakar as an intern with an NGO many, many years ago. My French is pretty rusty by now. I'm afraid we wouldn't get very far if you started conversing with me in "la belle langue."

Quoting DoctorMoney: tl;dr

Would you like a bun with that?

Quoting rfrobison: And as long as we're trading book recommendations, I might suggest "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis. He was an Oxford professor who started out as an atheist, began an exploration of the sources of morality (among other things) and then became one of those God-awful (pardon the pun) fundamentalists.

What if Christ did not exist, there was no resurrection? Would there be "Christianity"? Clarification:
I am an atheist that hopes that there is an existence beyond matter, "Life Force" if you will. I find some Buddhist ideas appealing, particularly "Karma" I am perplexed at the discussion between two bright people and the Wikipedia entry on Ross that he embraced Catholicism. I feel an incredible guilt because most of my formative education came from Catholic Schools, but that same education and critical thinking skills have led me to abandon the faith that formed my mind. Is there "Catholic Anonymous"?

I just have to say, I thought Heather's story about the family and the SUV is a pretty devastating challenge to the idea of God. When she raises the contrast between the (mysterious? farsighted? indifferent?) divine father and the frantic human father--what is there left to say? Not that it is logically inarguable, but I find that this story only becomes more convincing the more you think about it.

Does a functioning society require religious faith? Hell no! :-)

Quoting SkepticDoc: What if Christ did not exist, there was no resurrection?

Would there be "Christianity"?

Not for me, anyway. I have read about certain "liberal" scholars and clergymen who claim to be Christians but expressly deny Christ's divinity and resurrection. The so-called Jesus Seminar is, from what I've read, devoted to "demythologizing" Christianity. But I'd say that's a useless enterprise, one the Apostle Paul saw coming about 2,000 years before the good doctors did. 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 (NIV) 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. I suppose if Jesus was not a historical figure

I'll just be straight up and say this sucked. Heather is a major blowhard, and Ross couldn't get a word in edgewise. You could tell he was getting more and more uncomfortable towards the end, because she was treating it like a damn interview. I wish someone with differing views could've given her a more full-throated opposition than Ross' just kind of quaint contrarianism.

I should have phrased it as "Christians Anonymous", self help to avoid the opium of organized religion...

heather, your rudeness made this diavlog very unpleasant for me.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/nyc/...igious_belief/

Quoting SkepticDoc: I should have phrased it as "Christians Anonymous", self help to avoid the opium of organized religion...

Which, it seems to me, still has the same problem as "Catholics Anonymous," but never mind that. To your original point, I would say that I see little need for a recovery group for people like us; i.e., people who have found the explanations of Catholicism (or any other religion) wanting and have sought better ones. We have already kicked the habit by ourselves, so to speak. I suppose, in some sense, you could get involved with a skeptics' group or an organization that, say, promotes atheism, the separation of church and state, a humanistic way of life, etc., if you felt the need to get that group support for your new way of thinking. To my taste, I'm happy such groups exist and I applaud their work, but I can't see myself joining any of them. There is one remaining issue -- that guilt that the Catholics are so good at instilling in children. If you ever find a way to overcome that, let me know. Actually, in all seriousness, my own experience has been (1) that some of it goes away with time, and (2) that other pieces of it are non-problematic; e.g., I don't

I find Heather's arguments very odd and ahistorical. She maintains that we should embrace the ideas of Locke, Hume, etc., and that the church is morally deficient for having failed to condemn slavery. Well, weren't her favored persons rather cosy with slavery? Didn't John Locke publish a defense of slavery? And here we're talking explicitly about the race-based slavery that we find specially abhorrent today. Here's a nice piece from David Hume: I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to

Meh. I'm tired of atheist vs. Christian. Let's have some action! Atheist vs. Muslim! Atheist vs. Buddhist! Atheist vs. Unitarian! Or if the Christian (Douthat, for example) is so sure he's right about his god, Christian vs. Muslim. Let's have it! Come on! I'm actually serious. I saw Dawkins on Colbert a while ago and had this great point: a Christian disbelieves in all the other religions of the world, and the atheist disbelieves in all of them, so the only difference between the two is one more god. I'd never thought of it that way.

Quoting daveh: I find Heather's arguments very odd and ahistorical. She maintains that we should embrace the ideas of Locke, Hume, etc., and that the church is morally deficient for having failed to condemn slavery. Well, weren't her favored persons rather cosy with slavery? Didn't John Locke publish a defense of slavery? And here we're talking explicitly about the race-based slavery that we find specially abhorrent today.

Here's a nice piece from David Hume:

I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to

but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.

He was wrong about parrots too:

Known as one of the most famous African Grey parrots in history, Alex pioneered new avenues in avian intelligence. He possessed more than 100 vocal labels for different objects, actions, colors and could identify certain objects by their particular material. He could count object sets up to the total number six and was working on seven and eight. Alex exhibited math skills that were considered advanced in animal intelligence, developing his own “zero-like” concept in addition to being able to infer the connection between written numerals, objects sets, and the vocalization of the number. Alex was learning to read the sounds of various letters and had a concept of phonemes, the sounds that make up words.

Quoting SkepticDoc: I should have phrased it as "Christians Anonymous", self help to avoid the opium of organized religion...

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, man! BTW, I'm curious about the phrase "organized religion." Where does it come from? Anyone who's spent any time at all in churches soon realizes they are among the most dis-organized organizations ever conceived. Perhaps religions other than Christianity are incredibly well organized, thereby making up for Christians' lack of organizational skills...(?)

That's brilliant! I'll sign up for a Taoist vs. Unitarian cage-match.

"Chaplain," he asked casually, "of what religious persuasion are you?"

"I'm an Anabaptist, sir."

"That's a pretty suspicious religion, isn't it?"

"Suspicious?" inquired the chaplain in a kind of innocent daze. "Why, sir?"

"Well, I don't know a thing about it. You'll have to admit that, won't you? Doesn't that make it pretty suspicious?"

"I don't know, sir," the chaplain answered diplomatically, with an uneasy manner.

"Chaplain, I once studied Latin. I think it's only fair to warn you of that before I ask my next question. Doesn't the word Anabaptist simply mean that you're not a Baptist?"

"Oh, no, sir. There's much more."

"Are you a Baptist?"

"No, sir."

"Then you are not a Baptist, aren't you?"

"Sir?"

"I don't see why you're bickering with me on that point. You've already admitted it. Now, Chaplain, to say you're not a Baptist doesn't really tell us anything about what you are, does it? You could be anything or anyone." He leaned forward slightly and his manner took on a shrewd and significant air. "You could even be," he added, "Washington Irving, couldn't you?"-- Catch-22

Quoting claymisher: Meh. I'm tired of atheist vs. Christian. Let's have some action! Atheist vs. Muslim! Atheist vs. Buddhist! Atheist vs. Unitarian! Or if the Christian (Douthat, for example) is so sure he's right about his god, Christian vs. Muslim. Let's have it! Come on!.

Yeah, and how about an Aztec priest versus that lead singer guy from R.E.M. who "lost his religion"? At the end the priest could cut out his heart and sacrifice it to the sun god. Now there's something I'd like to see on Bhtv.

Claymisher, Did Frederick Douglas perform some research into the Flynn Effect or something? Why would that convince David Hume? Maybe he would look at the state of sub-Saharan Africa or blacks in this country and remain more convinced (I think this is something like the point of the Secular Right group). Is there evidence that "all men are created equal"? The problem that I have with the reasoning employed by Heather MacDonald is to look at our present circumstances and think that we've reached the highest moral ground, then work backwards and see this straight-line progression. The question about her analysis is not what Scottish guys in the 17th century thought was OK, but wasn't, but what do modern, advanced peoples think today that will likely be overturned.

Speaking of weird religion, I have never understood why "Imagine" by John Lennon is embraced by theists. Isn't the lyric an atheist anthem? Any clues on why they sometimes sing this song in churches would be appreciated.

Quoting Wonderment: Speaking of weird religion, I have never understood why "Imagine" by John Lennon is embraced by theists. Isn't the lyric an atheist anthem? Any clues on why they sometimes sing this song in churches would be appreciated.

Hmm, well, there are theists and there are theists, I suppose. I doubt we'll be singing Lennon's little ditty in my church anytime soon. Though the hope for peace and the idea that some things transcend country, for example, is one that anyone with a "universalist" outlook can appreciate, traditional Christians included. As for churches where "Imagine" is sung, if there are such, I'd say they are theists who have abandoned the idea of a heaven or an afterlife. In what sense they are "Christians," other than in the anodyne sense of "nice people," though, I haven't a clue.

Quoting daveh: Claymisher,

Did Frederick Douglas perform some research into the Flynn Effect or something? Why would that convince David Hume? Maybe he would look at the state of sub-Saharan Africa or blacks in this country and remain more convinced (I think this is something like the point of the Secular Right group). Is there evidence that "all men are created equal"?

The problem that I have with the reasoning employed by Heather MacDonald is to look at our present circumstances and think that we've reached the highest moral ground, then work backwards and see this straight-line progression. The question about her analysis is not what Scottish guys in the 17th century thought was OK, but wasn't, but what do modern, advanced peoples think today that will likely be overturned.

Wait, you know who Douglass was, right? Cut Hume a little slack. There wasn't a single African person writing in a European language in his lifetime (according to my googling). He was completely ignorant of the history of African kingdoms, traditions, etc. He probably never met a black person. The lesson here not talk about shit you know nothing about, even if you're David Hume. On

RF, that was pretty funny. One thing we apparently agree on is our feelings for Michael Stipe ;-) Did you ever read the book Aztec? It was like James Michener on PCP (what he would have wrote, that is.)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: RF, that was pretty funny. One thing we apparently agree on is our feelings for Michael Stipe ;-)

Did you ever read the book Aztec? It was like James Michener on PCP (what he would have wrote, that is.)

No, but I love historical fiction. Maybe I'll look for it. By the way, I think if they gave prizes for cool Net "handles" on Bloggingheads," you'd be in the running for sure. I wish I'd been more clever when I signed up for this thing!

Another video: http://fora.tv/series/sciencereligion