The Social Structure of Plants

There is an old wives' tale about singing to plants to keep them healthy and glowing. I have always been skeptical of this concept, though, because plants lack a neural system. Our neural network allows us to transmit signals to be processed by our brain, whether they be sound waves that oscillate our chest cavity or the fine hairs of our ear canal. The only network located in a plant that I am familiar with are that of the xylem and phloem, but those only carry fluids and dissolved materials throughout the plant.

However, recent research has shown the intricate complexities that have evolved with our ridiculously distant relatives. Ethylene has been known to be released by plants to promote various cascade reactions depending on the plant. I remember reading once that some vegetables release similar chemical cascades when boiled (whether this is true or not is irrelevant to my main point, in the end). The author humorously posited that plants thus felt pain. This "pain" is obviously different then the "pain" the majority animals feel, but "life" is equally as differen for the plant then the animal.

Though the concept of plants having feelings or emotions are odd since they lack a nervous system, it is interesting to note that plants have the ability to recognize their siblings.

“The ability to recognize and favour kin is common in animals, but this is the first time it has been shown in plants” said Susan Dudley, associate professor of biology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. “When plants share their pots, they get competitive and start growing more roots, which allows them to grab water and mineral nutrients before their neighbours get them. It appears, though, that they only do this when sharing a pot with unrelated plants; when they share a pot with family they don’t increase their root growth. Because differences between groups of strangers and groups of siblings only occurred when they shared a pot, the root interactions may provide a cue for kin recognition.”

My question, like any good scientist, is how. How do plants recognize one another? Considering the lack of eyes, I am going to have to assume it is some chemical recognition. Perhaps the mechanism is in the roots? I am fairly certain leaves have been studied ad naseum concerning the gases they release. It is a shame I am unable to log onto my university library's resources at the moment. I would attempt to find the paper the article discusses and other papers relevant to discussing the social network of plants.

Though this doesn't change my perspective on my role in the predation of vegetables and fruits in my life, this find does suggest that plants are more sophisticated than naive reasoning allows.

Regional Myths and Legends Found in Genesis

Author's note: I am currently pulling material from message boards that I interact on frequently. I dmit that these will be very rough. There is also a chance that I did not properly cite material due to being rushed or out of sheer laziness. I apologize ahead of time, and I have no problem fixing improper citations and give credit where credit is due, if necessary.

There are numerous stories and names that parallel Biblical stories and myths. Here a few.

The Creation: Enuma Elish
So you've read the Enuma Elish. Good, that makes discussion easier. Do you not recall the first four lines of the Amorite epic?

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both

Do a comparative analysis of the text with the very beginning of Genesis:

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Deep and waters is important etymologically, as the Hebrew word used here (tehom) is etymologically traceable to Tiamet.

Although it was not directly taken from the Babylonian creation myth, there are elements that suggest influence.

Tiamet: Etymology
In the Ugaritic glossary of Canaanite Myths and Legends, John C. L. Gibson notes that tehom appears in the Ugaritic texts, c. 1400-1200 BCE, simply meaning the "depths of the sea". Such a depersonalized Tiamat (the -at ending makes her feminine) is the deep or abyss (Hebrew tehom) present at the beginning of the book of Genesis: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." (Genesis 1:2).

Her name seems ultimately to have been a Sumerian one as in that language Ti is "life", and Ama is "mother", suggesting her original name may have been "the mother of all life" (Thorkild Jacobsen, 1968) "The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat" Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 104-108.) This title was given to the divinised 1st King of the 3rd Dynasty of Kish, Kubau, who reappears in Hurrian mythology as Kheba (identified with the "mother of the Gods", Hannahannah) and with the Hebrew cognate Havva (Eve), also called "the mother of all living" in Genesis). ("Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature". American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Vol 15 (1899), pp.193-214)

The Slaying of the Dragon
The dragon slaying motiff is also present in the Bible in Psalm 74:14; Isaiah 27:1; Job 3:8, 9:13; Amos 9:3; Habbakkuk 3:10. This battle reflects the Syro-Palestinian version of a dragon slaying myth which is found in the cultures of the region. The closest rendition comes from the 14th century BCE Canaanite texts from Ra's Shamrah. Bhaal defeated a dragonlike monster: "You will crush the serpent; you will consume the twisting serpent, the mighty one with seven heads". This directly parallels the Biblical account (see Isaiah 27:1 and Psalm 74:14).

There is also a Babylonian version in the Creation Epic. Marduk slayed Tiamat and divided her corpse in two to create the earth and the sky. The extolation of Yahweh's military victory parallel's Marduk's, specifically in Isaiah 51:9, Job 26:12, and Psalm 74:13, 89:10.

The Serpent: The Causation of Life and Strife
Tiamat in Babylonian mythology was a serpent. The constellation Ophiuchus was viewed as representing Tiamat, the Bitter Ocean. She was the personified Chaos, which the Greek poet Hesoid alludes to in his Theogony: "First of all Chaos came into being". Tiamat married Apsus (which you mentioned in your post concerning the Enuma Elish) and begat many evil deities which created confusion, friction, and strife. In the war that ensued to destory her proginy, Apsus the god of Fresh Waters was killed by Ea. Tiamat then married her son Kingu and begat more offspring. Another war ensued, one in which the Son God Marduk slayed Tiamat. At this point, I must mention that Elohim (which is interpreted to correspond to the same figure as Yawheh) is said to have created the light from the darkness, the often motiff of religions in the region to associate light with good and life and dark with evil and death, as well as with the sun and sunset.

The serpent is present in Syrian mythologies as the (indirect) causer of life and strife. This motiff is exemplified in the Garden of Eden myth, in which the serpent persuades Eve to eat the apple of knowledge of good and evil. Egyptian lore has a serpent motiff concerning the mythology surrounding Apep. Apep is the serpent which attacks the Sun to prevent its rising.

The Garden of Eden: Plagiarism
Though the Garden of Eden account is not entirely plagiarized, it is not entirely original either. It is a latter evolved form which was influenced by the other creation accounts surrounding the area.

First, I will explain the account atrologically. Consider Genesis 2:8 "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed". This could mean Mesopotamia, but more than likely the Hebrews had in mind the heavens. Yes, the heavens, as the heavens always come from the east as the sun sets to the west. As the autumn equinox is passed into winter, the Virgin, the Herdsmen and Draco appear across the sky. Ophiuchus is also nearby, just to note. The Virgin holds a branch of fruit in her hand, symbolizing Autumn, which she is tantelizing the Herdsman with. When the Virgin and Herdsmen fall beneath the horizon, Perseus rises on the other side with a sword in his hand, seeming to drive them from the summer heaven. The term "fall of man" occurs astrollogically as the fall of the sun, when it descends past the halfway point towards its lowest point on the horizon during the winter months. This is symbollically parallel to the Christian crucifixion, as astrologers described the sun as beig crucifies as it crosses the halfway point towards descent. The cross is entirely symbolic of the sun's cycles, and it is not a coincidence. The shorter end corresponds to the shortest day, the winter solstice. The longer end corresponds to the longest day, the summer solstice. The two equal sides refers to the days with same lenths, the spring and fall equinoxes. This is not a coincidence; the cross comes from astrology and can be traced in the sky.

Secondly, consider the Sumerian paradise myth. The Sumerian Eden is located in Dilmun, modern day Bahrain, and is etymologically related to the old Babylonian name Gan-Eden, "the garden of the Middle East". Note that Mesopotamia means "between the waters", as well. Enki, the Sumerian water-God and God of wisdom, impregnated Ninhursag, wo gave him a duaghter. Desiring a son, Enki impregnated his daughter, who gave him yet another daughter. Ninhursag poisoned Enki with eight different plants. She then created Nin-ti in order to heal Enki. One of the sick organs is the rib. Nin-ti heals Enki. Etymologically, Nin-ti means "she who makes live" which (as will be shown later) is approximately the equivalent of Eve. Ti also means "rib", ironically, so she is also called "the lady of the rib".

Next, consider the Babylonian legend of Adapa. Adapa, son the god of Wisdom, Ea, broke the wing of the Storm bird who attacked him in the Persian Gulf. Ea summoned Adapa to question his violence and warned him that, having displeased Anu, King of Heaven, the gods would offer him the food and drink of death, which he must refuse. Anu, however, learning of this indiscreet disclosure, tried to foil Ea by offering Adapa the bread of life and the water of life instead. When Adapa refused, Anu sent him back to earth as a mortal. This story parallels the theme of the serpent's warning to Eve, that God had decieved her about the forbidden fruit.

Now, let us consider Gilgamesh and the Serpent. In this popular epic, Gilgamesh heard about a plant which held the secret to immortality. With much effort, Gilgamesh gets the plant from the bottom of the sea. On his journey back to his people, Gilgamesh set the plant aside to take a bath. SUddenly, a serpent appeared and snatched the plant. It shed its skin as it returned to the water. Thus, the serpent robbed humans of immortality and forcing them to be mortals, similar to how the serpent robbed Adam and Eve of life with as immortals.

Lastly, we will look at the words themselves. "Adam" is not an explicit proper name but comes from ha-adam, which in Hebrew translates "the man". The word adam comes from adamah meaning country, earth, gorun, husband, or land. This suggests the context of Genesis 3:19 "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return". This is symbolic of the material which comprised of him, the very land he walks on. Likewise, "Eve" is from the Hebrew chavvaoh. This is Hebrew for lifegiver, as in "the mother of all living". Its root, chaya, means "serpent" in Aramaic. Eve and the serpent are thus to be taken synonymously. The word "Eden" is traced back to Sumer as "fertile land". As well,it came to mean to the Hebrews "delight", so the land of Eden was a garden of delight or enjoyment. Thus, Adam and Eve describe no one in particular as well as Eden not describing any place in particular. They are generic temrs meant to stay generic for the sake of the mythological Creation story.

Conclusion
It is an entirely silly proposition that the Hebrews were an isolated culture with no influence from others. They did not find God on a mountain or some divinely inspired epitomy. No, they created God as a means to explain their origins and purpose and borrowed willfully from the present creation stories present in the region. Do not be naive.

Sources and Recommended Readings
A Dictionary of Creation Myths by David and Margaret Leeming
Myths from Mesopotamia by Stephanie Dalley
Stories from Ancient Canaan by Michael David Coogan
Sumerian Mythology by Samuel Noah Kramer
Conceptions of God in Anceint Egypt by Erik Hornung

Bad News for Science Education

A recent poll by USA today has shown that 44% of American believe that humans did not evolve, and 66% believe that humans were specially created 10,000 years ago. Yes, I am well aware that these numbers do not add up (more than likely due to the wording of the question itself), but even if we allowed a little leeway with the numbers, it is still disturbing that statistically speaking nearly half of the American populace view evolution as some scientific shame.

I can only think of two causes. One, there is a lack of solid science education in public schools across the nation. Certainly, there are public school's with strong science programs, but their exist others where the science program seems like it's just managing to get by. Second, political and religious pundits with little to no actual authority or credibility in science or science education
have voices louder than science educators. The combination of these has doomed the public at large.

Somehow, though, I doubt 1,007 people are representative of the country. But also, it doesn't surprise me the numbers correspond in this fashion. I do find it interesing that percentage is siilar to the percent in population of evangelical Christians. Now, correlation doesn't always equal causation, but I somehow doubt we can rule religion out in the case of people staying ignorant of the concerns and knowledge in science.

Quinquae Viae (of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

Thomas Aquinas is better known for his contrbution to natural theology by compiling and developing five specific arguments to support belief in the Christian God. These arguments can be found in his Summa Theologiae. As an attempt to show how superfluous these arguments really are, I well embark on a basic excercise in showing that the Five Ways, as they are called, point just as equally to the Flying Spaghetti Montser (FSM).

Ex Motu

1. Some things are moved.
2. Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
3. An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
4. Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
5. This mover is what we call the FSM

Ex Causa

1. Some things are caused.
2. Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
3. An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
5. This causer is what we call the FSM

Ex Contingentia

1. Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
2. It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as nothing can come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occured.
3. Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
4. This being is what we call the FSM.

Ex Gradu

1. Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
2. These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.

Ex Fine

1. All designed things have a designer.
2. The universe is designed.
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.
4. This designer is what we call the FSM.

Conclusion
It follows from the above five arguments that the FSM does indeed exist. QED

William Lane Craig and Wikipedia

I have come to the conclusion that I don't update this readily enough to even draw in traffic. To few (if any) readers who do manage to read this message, I apologize. For the past month and a half I have been reading up on "intelligent design" creationism. The process seems to draw away what little time I do have between my studies and work.

Anyways, personal business aside, I was reading over the quantum mechanics article at Wikipedia earlier this evening when a memory crossed my mind. When I attended the Future of Atheism conference I had a great misfortune of interacting with William Lane Craig. During the course of our discussion, he insisted, quite adamantly, that there existed more than ten different versions of quantum mechanics. I must stress versions, as he attempted to imply that there existed multiple mathematical formalizations to quantum mechanics. Though I called him on his bullshit at the conference, I didn't have the means to show him his error. As well, lacking a formal training in physics himself (as he did admit to me), simple words or even a marker and a whiteboard would not have suffice to convince him of his error impromptu.

It is well known that there is only one version of quantum mechanics. A wave function is a wave function, a state is a state, and an exchange force is always an exchange force. What he probably meant to say was there are different interpretations. After having read the Wikipedia article, it seems clear to me that Craig, when doing his research on quantum mechanics, simply used Wikipedia. This especially became clear to me when I compared my notes to the article itself. That is, his wording and the wording on the page sounds so similar, I cannot help but make this association.

I doubt Craig reads this, but in case he does, I should let him in on a little secret. The Copenhagen interpretation is the one most supported by experimental data and is less bulky in complex or abstract thought. I say this lightly, because quantum mechanics itself is a rather abstract art, but indeed the Copenhagen school seems to always wins. That is, we live in an indeterministic world in which particles are in constant supposition of states. A particle can be anywhere prior to measurement, and the measurement only tells you where the particle is at the time of the measuring event. Any time after the event or any time before the event cannot be determined except with another measuring event. But then you only have the particle's position in that time; therefore, you cannot extrapolate where the particle will be at all times but only where it was at those times. This is a peculiar interpretation, but the one most accepted by physicists (including a vast majority of Noble Prize winners) as well as most supported by measuring events.

Bohm's hidden variables, which Craig attempted to attribute to God (under his breath in mutered nonsense, it seemed), holds no ground. Sadly, I cannot elaborate very well at the moment on why Bohm's interpretation is a bit off. But for the time being, Ill be brief. Bohm's interpretation fails to give an account of quantum field theory as well as makes spin a very difficult topic to approach conceptually. For this reason, and a number of others, Bohm's interpretation is not taken seriously. These and other reasons are why R.F. Streater listed Bohm's interpretation as a lost-cause.

Finals are this week, so expect no more posts from me. This summer, I plan on attacking head-on the mathematics and philosophy of "intelligent design" creationism.

Dissenters Accosted at DI Retreat

Recently, our dear friends at the Discovery Institute held a conference at Southern Methodist University. For an organization that preached persistently how they have been censored, it speaks volumes for them to bully dissenters. The article below discusses a group of students from SMU whom came to protest the DI's presence in a peaceful manner: Darwin vs. Design conference - The Mix.

If you desire a full review of the speakers, vist the following reviews:

From Goosing the Antithesis, articles by Zachary Moore:

• Lee Strobel
• Jay Richards
• Stephen Meyer
• Michael Behe
• Q&A
• Final Thoughts
  

From Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog:

• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Conclusion

Fred Phelps, WBC, and VA Tech Funerals

I'm glad to see that Fred Phelps and Co. can take times out of their busy schedule of protesting army funerals, blaming the lose of the soldier on God's wraith for a variety of nuances, to protest at the funerals of victims of the VA Tech violence. The protest is not for upping gun control or campus security; such noble causes are above Phelps and Co. It seems, rather, their only intent is to drive home their sole message:

"God is punishing America for her sodomite sins and for persecuting Westboro Baptist Church for warning America of her doom."

Indeed, Mr. Phelps. America is doomed, but not because of our sin nature. America is being held hostage by bad politicking and stupidity, something your co-patriots contribute to greatly.

In the beginning...

"In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God."
- John 1:1

Greek is an interesting, complex langauge where words can take on many different meanings. Just to show you the complexity within Greek, I have decided to entertain a nice little excercise. The above Biblical passage is often recited by certain evangelists as a proof positive of the legitmacy of the Bible. Notice, though, I have replaced "Word" with logos.

Logos can easily mean word. However, logos has a number of different meanings. Now, I know why translators choose 'word' as an all encompassing term. However, I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to discover why translators do as such (Hint: It has to do with an apocryphal work).

he following are different definitions of the word logos:

1. reason
2. account
3. story
4. report
5. praise
6. utterance
7. statment
8. precept
9. prophecy
10. converse
11. speaking
12. sentence
13. question
14. tale
15. inward thought
16. oracle
17. assertion
18. promise
19. resolution
20. condition
21. command
22. speech
23. discourse
24. myth
25. fable
26. prose
27. oration
28. proposition
29. position
30. principle
31. thought
32. opinion
33. expectation
34. plea
35. consideration
36. due proportion
37. analogy

Those are just to name a few. It's interesting, that without proper knowledge of Greek and the context of what's written, one could easily translate logos into any of the above. Just think, what if John 1:1 read as follows: "In the beginning was the myth, and the myth was with God, and the myth was God."

That doesn't seem to bode very well with Christianity. What about plea or fable or opinion? It escapes me how counter-intuitive the extremely religious can be. Considering their outright dislike of science for fear of it ruining their religion, they attempt to suppress knowledge from their young. To me, it seems very much like they are waging a war with knowledge. However, they fail to realize that God does not speak Enlgish and nor did the prophets. Why on Earth would they wage war on knowledge when they themselves rely upon it to understand their religion?

Perhaps, then, they only desire selective knowledge, as if their intellect were at some buffet sampling entres and desserts. This idea of picking and choosing seems short-sighted, and it is simply gross to consider them willfully abandoning true knowledge (such as the theory of evolution) over patently false concepts (such as Biblical Creationism).

I promise to post some more enlightening stuff soon. I've been a bit busy writing my book, unfortunately. Perhaps soon I will be confident enough to post a chapter, or at least a provocative section or two.

Rosie O'Donnell the Conspiracy Theorist

Rosie O'Donnell is, sadly, more fun to laugh at rather than laugh with. This is especially true as I grow older, wiser, and more knowledgeable of the world around me.

It seems that O'Donnell has written on her blog some interesting information. By interesting, I mean controversial but by no means accurate. She writes in her blog:

at 5 30 pm
9 11 2001
wtc7 collapsed

for the third time in history
fire brought down a steel building
reducing it to rubble

hold on folks
here we go

In which the following paragraphs and bulleted list are common 9/11 conspiracy theorist literature.

This is frustrating. Not because O'Deonnell has evidently been bought into crap spewed out by the same kind of people who talk as if Area 51 houses aliens. That is a different kind of sad (i.e. a more pathetic sadness). No, the real sadness is that people are willing to be diverted from the real problem with the Bush administration.

The real problem is not some mangled conspiracy theory. In all honesty, the Bush administration is not competent enough to have pulled off such a great feat without bungling it up. Their handling of Iraq is proof enough. People need to stop buying into the garbage of conspiracy theorists and start realizing the truth behind 9/11. That is, the terrorists were not some religious fanatics but killed themselves to end American support of Israel. People also need to realize that the Iraqi War (aka Operation Freedom) was not some humanitarian interest but an illegal war to satisfy special interests in Congress. People need to shut up about conpsiracy theories and actually read the entire 9/11 Commission Report and realize that America brought 9/11 upon herself.

There is this guy on YouTube who publishes videos that outline this and the fact that Bush has been lieing to us about why we're in Iraq. He also has a blog on the internet. He desires media reform and is attempting to show everyone that Bush is essentially a war criminal. Visit his website and subscribe to his YouTube videos. Thank you.

An Analysis of "Some Thoughts on New Atheism" and Comments

It seems that Douglas Groothius has commented on 'New Atheism' on his blog, The Constructive Curmudgeon [1]. 'New Atheism' is best described by the website with the same namesake [2]:

Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.

The more infamous article from Wired gives a more expanded picture of this definition [3]. To help keep things concise, people consider the forefront of New Atheists being Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett [4]. My main concern is not an analysis of this 'New Atheism', but if I were to give a sound-bite it would be the following. To call this movement 'New Atheism' is akin to calling a new religion the 'New Theism'. It is really bothersome to read literature concerning atheism and notice the continuous misuse of the word. In short, an atheist is anyone who does not believe in a god. A modern Buddhist is typically an atheist. A modern Taoist is typically an atheist. Not every atheist is an ascribed naturalist, though perhaps these are the most common in America and other secular nations. The gross over-generalization of these groups simply need to end. The Buddhist holds no more sentiments with the naturalist's pursuit of answering reality than the Taoist feels for the dharma of Buddhism. I would use a more descriptive term for the three. Rather than the 'New Atheism', why not the 'new rationalists' or the 'New Naturalists'? Or rather, and this is perhaps the most descriptive of all, the 'New Popular Critiques of Religion'?

But I digress. I skimmed Groothius' log entry. I understand he was simply outlining his criticisms, so I will not hold the fallacy of ambiguity against him. Now, I will enter into a format which I rarely utilize, but for brevity and ease of reading I will engage each point presented. The first point follows:

These two books (The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation) are offering nothing new by way of critiques of theism or specific religions. Christian philosophers and biblicla (sic) scholars have responded to all the charges before. What is different is their severe tone. Religion is not just wrong, but terribly dangerous. It should scarcely be tolerated. To demonstrate this, one must argue that a belief is both false and deleterious. That doubles the intellectual load--and produces a fair amount of bombast.

To be fair to Dawkins, I think he presents an excellent case against organized religion. Currently, I am working on a review of the book myself, so I will not divulge too much information here. However, one case to consider is the comparison of the beliefs of the cargo cults to modern orthodox religions [5]. Though Dawkins does not make an outright comparison, he is sly in allowing the reader to fully comprehend what he is attempting to portray. That is, the beliefs of the cargo cult is equally as ridiculous as the claims of modern orthodox religions in light of rational scrutiny. The short amount of time for the development of the story of the cargo savior is analogous to the time frame for the story of, say, Mohammed's ascension. And just as their exists people devoted to this cargo savior not because they ever met the savior personally but because they learned of him vicariously from other supposed witnesses. This predicament is similar to when unnamed rabbis and pagan skeptics would contend with the early Christians [6]. Often, it took either a letter or visit from Paul to attempt to answer and rebuke skepticism, an individual who only knew of Christ vicariously from the apostles [7].

So, in conclusion, in terms of Dawkins, I have yet seen a religious scholar, known or unknown, address certain points in his book, and some of the points addressed are simply inadequate. For brevity, I can only recommend one reads my hopefully upcoming review of Dawkins' book.

Item two reads:

Harris especially assumes that all believers are fideists or rely on the worst possible arguments. This is false. A debate with Bill Craig would demonstrate this in short order.

I have had a great misfortune of interacting with William Lane Craig as well [8]. I do find a bit of humor, though, that Groothius cites Craig. Indeed, I believe if Craig were to ever face a theoretical astrophysicist in a debate rather than biologists or philosophers he would falter and revert to a very faith-based argument as his natural theology is rushed from underneath him. Sadly, the physics community knows of his mutilation of recent models of cosmology. I state sadly because physicists do not like to deal with people who show a lack of understanding in a certain topic and a will to never understand it correctly.

I digress [9]. I wish to remark in the irony of Craig being mentioned in the same paragraph as Harris being charged with overgeneralizng. In Craig's debate with Richard Taylor [10], he confuses egotism with naturalism. In fact, though I will not demonstrate this, his projection of egotism onto a natural basis of morality ignores the simple observance that we are social creatures by nature. However, this steers further from the course of this analysis, but the point had to be addressed. I find it ironic to recommend someone who over-generalizes to seek out someone else who over-generalizes as well.

Item three is uninteresting in this analysis, as he simply confirms the authors. Item four will be addressed after item five, which reads:

Harris and Dawkins are wrong in saying the religious moderates (this probably includes evangelicals to them) give safe haven to religious extremists, such as jihadists. Their reasoning seems to be that moderates give religion a pretty face and insulate it from rational testing. That means that radicals' religious beliefs cannot be intellectually critiqued either. Some moderate may make this claim to intellectual immunity, but I do not. As an evangelical (or historic Protestant) I believe that (a) religious beliefs should hold water philosophically and historically, (b) that Christian fulfills the condition of (a) and that (c) Islamic militants' religion is at once false, irrational, and dangerous. I fail to see how my "moderate" religion encourages, shields, or emboldens radicals in any way whatever.

Though I disagree with claim that Christianity passes the historical and philosophical litmus tests, I will not enter into this discussion. Dawkins, when he introduces the blame on moderate and liberal believers, charges them for allowing the perpetuating of extremism. I gathered from Dawkins that he was essentially blaming moderate believers for simply allowing the existence of extremists, and that from modern thoughts sprang forth extremist ideals. In other words, the moderate religious basis gave rise to the extremists at large. I will not expand any further on this, because hopefully this is self-explanatory.

Lastly, we come to the most interesting part; item four read:

Harris in particular conflates all religious claims: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. They are all of a piece in being irrational, false, and dangerous. He thus commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. Believing that one will receive the ministrations of exactly seventy two virgins after dying in a jihad is an order of belief far different than believing that since Jesus Christ rose from the dead in space-time history, one who believes in him will enter paradise after death as a martyr (which precludes anything resembling jihad). Christianity is well supported apologetically; Islam, which denies the central tenets of Christian (sic), is not. For example, it denies that Jesus was crucified--a fact affirmed by virtually every biblical scholar in the world today. The fact that both are "religions" says nothing about their relative epistemic status.

Harris' equating the Abrahamic faiths is a bit better conveyed in his book The End of Faith than his opuscule Letter. Now, since Groothius throughs in the epistemic card, I challenge him to read the works of some prominent apologists and historians of Islam. I also challenge the reader. As an atheist, i will admit that reading the apologetics of different beliefs only reaffirmed my atheism. Nearly every apologist makes the same claim concerning their religion. that is, the Islamic apologist can pull out textual credibility and integrity that would embarrass the average Christian apologetic. The Islamic claim of Mohamed ascending into heaven is no more as ridiculous as Jesus' ascension or Elijah's ascension. Islamic history is better chronicled around the start of the religion as compared to the history of the Apostolic Church. I am amazed, simply, how Groothius can make such a claim. Then again, it is not surprising when he reduces the religion to a straw man.

In the comments, he defends his position impromptu. I will not reproduce them here, but I will only affirm that the first few premises made me chuckle.


Notes
1. Groothius, Douglas. "Some Thoughts on New Atheism". The Constructive Curmudgeon. [Accessed 3/2/2007]
2. the New Atheism
3. Wolf, Gary. "The Crusade Against Religion". Wired. Oct. 23, 2006. [Accessed 3/2/2007]
4. Even after reading all his books and meeting him in person, I do not think it's justified listing him amongst Harris and Dawkins.
5. see Chapter 5, p 202
6. Thus far in my knowledge. there is a shortage of named criticisms on Early Christianity. The Earliest, most famous skeptic is Celsus, who went unanswered until ~80 years after his death. This situation is analogous, but I find the analogy to be a bit of a stretch. If anyone knows off-hand of any named criticisms of Christianity during the development of the Early Church, I desire to know.
7. Certainly, if one believes in his spiritual encounter, it is plausible one could formulate he knew of Jesus. However, a quick heuristic argument can be shown that Paul would not have known all of Jesus at Damascus. If we trust John that Jesus' ministry lasted three years, this is nearly 900-1000 days worth of preaching, if we allot some for travel and non-preaching activities. Amongst this time-frame, it is safe to assume that Jesus said a lot more than what is written in the New Testament, which amazingly only comprises of about three to four hours worth of speeches and sermons. It is difficult for one to reasonably believe that Jesus exposed to Paul his entire ministry in the short encounter at Damascus.
8. I interacted with W.L. Craig briefly at the 2007 Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum after his ~40 minute defense of natural theology. The meeting was unfortunate to me because I had to hear him essentially make a mockery of the natural sciences via his lack of knowledge and formal education in the respective fields, especially theoretical physics. His time will come for my critique of both his presentation and papers.
9. As one can tell, I have a serious qualm with W.L. Craig with his latest bolstering of theoretical physics as a proof positive for a finite universe.
10. Craig-Taylor Debate. [Accessed 3/2/2007]