Two people, on Twitter, posed an interesting question about the ability to have a parasocial relationship with god. I think it’s quite possible. However, I want to go further and question whether or not peoples’ relationship with god is parasocial, even under the assumption that god is purely fictional. Please be aware that these are just some ideas that I wrote down quickly, in the few hours following the initial discussion on Twitter. I won’t guarantee that the argument makes sense. But feel free to leave a comment or two. « Continue »
While Sq’wak is labeled, “The Divine Penguin” she is not actually a god, at least not as they are generally viewed. Here is why.« Continue »
Last year, I wrote a little bit about Penguinism, and provided the first passage of the Penguinomicon. Here I will provide more detail on the religion.« Continue »
I recently emailed the National Academy of Sciences in order to explain why their article on evolution is incorrect. I did not expect a reply, and I did not get one, as of yet, but misrepresenting science is not acceptable. Below is the email. « Continue »
In a recent article, posted on Atheist Republic, there was a suggestion that fundamentalist religion was positively associated with PNIMRs. However, the analysis seems to be an interpretation, of an interpretation, of maybe even one more level of interpretation before getting to the actual study. Furthemore, the study itself faces significant methodological errors. « Continue »
I created this page to explain a point about epistemology. Default to nonexistence is not universal. Whether or not we default to an assumption of existence or nonexistence depends on necessity. If neither are required, we just don’t make an assumption. If there is more danger if something exists, we assume existence. For instance, we assume drugs have dangerous side effects, until shown otherwise. We’re also risk averse, so even though this page does not contain any harmful material, one might still be cautious about clicking a link to it.
Recently, I came across an article discussing Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. I have not focused on Daniel Dennett’s work, but I wanted to respond to the discussion in the article, and will be adding more to this discussion as I read through the book. One of the largest issues is that Dennett’s position seems to be that Dennett, or at least the author of the blog article, seems to view religious behavior as being indistinct from non-religious belief: “from the meme’s-eye-view, there’s no difference between a Muslim who prays five times a day because he truly believes in Allah and the truth of the Koran, and a Muslim who prays five times a day because that’s what Muslims do.” The second issue is the view that religion perpetuates itself because there is a belief that religion is good. « Continue »