You are ugly! Science says so....

There has been a major blow-up in the secular media over a post in Psychology Today. Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, is under fire for writing that black women are seen as less attractive that other women.

In an interesting rebuttal that also appeared in Psychology Today, Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman and Jelte Wicherts claim to have refuted Dr. Kanazawa's statistical analysis. Unfortunately, they also write this disturbing statement:

It is our view though that such research should be held to a higher standard than other research topics both in scientific rigor and presentation (see here for a similar argument). This should be so especially for topics that could potentially cause harm and suffering to individuals within a particular group. Science doesn't operate in a vacuum. Rigorous science collection and responsible science reporting is essential not just for the progress of science but also for the betterment of society (isn't that the point of psychology?).

There are some obvious questions in response to this statement: (1) Should all groups (what Dr. Kaufman means by a "group" is not clear) be protected, or just certain ones? (2) Who decides what constitutes "harm and suffering to individuals within a particular group"?

It is also interesting that Dr. Kaufman admits that Dr. Kanazawa might have reached a valid conclusion, even though he takes issue with the analysis used to reach it. This leads to a third question: (3) what is the highest priority of science - the betterment of society, or a fearless pursuit of the truth? The fact is that these two values can and sometimes do collide.

I am a mathematician, a white American who is married to a beautiful black African woman, so I find the idea that "attractiveness" is a quantity that can be measured objectively a bit of a crackpot notion. Beauty, as Dr. Kaufman notes, is mostly in the eye of the beholder. The images in the secular media of what constitutes female beauty come from a relatively tiny minority that happen to work in Hollywood and the fashion industry. Fashions change from year to year, and the images we see likewise vary. Trying to measure something as ephemeral as "attractiveness" is like trying to measure starlight by pouring it into a measuring cup.

Even so, I am not really in sympathy with Dr. Kaufman's concerns. He may be on solid ground with his analysis of Dr. Kanazawa's work, but it seems Dr. Kanazawa's real sin was in offending the wrong people. Let me ask a hypothetical question: what if Dr. Kanazawa had performed a similar analysis using similar data and concluded that Christian women were seen as less attractive than other women? Or Republican women? Or traditional women (meaning stay-at-home mothers)? Would Dr. Kaufman and others attempt to debunk that research with the same vigor they are showing now?

If one takes the writings of Richard Dawkins seriously, then religious belivers in general - and Christians in particular - are perhaps the most evil people in history. If there has been any backlash against Dr. Dawkins from the scientific community for his many popular bestsellers advancing such claims, then I have missed it.

Let Dawkins be Dawkins - and let Kanazawa be Kanazawa. If Dr. Kanazawa gets fired for this article don't pretend that political pressure had nothing to do with it. If you sow the wind (in pushing edgy topics in science) do not complain when you reap the whirlwind.

Has atheism fallen on hard times?

Recently, atheism has had to endure de-baptisms. Now Richard Dawkins, who might be considered by many to be the Pope of Atheism, is now refusing to debate the issue with William Lane Craig.

Some may think the professed atheist Dawkins has lost his nerve and is afraid to discuss an issue he appears to be losing on. Perhaps. But I will stick with my theory that Dawkins actually believes in God - and hates Him.

Dawkins views religious people the same way racist Southerners viewed blacks in the Jim Crow South. We can say a lot of things about that (none of them good), but we would never say that racists do not believe blacks exist. In fact, a pretty good case could be made that Dawkins is obsessed with God, to the point that he actually thinks that all of these bestsellers and TV appearances can somehow obliterate God.

As a lapsed atheist, I understand how atheism can seem as intellectually fearless and cool. But I lost my faith in atheism when I realized that atheism ducked too many important issues. Moreover, atheism had plenty of disdain for those who believed in God - but very little evidence to back up its claim that there is no God. Sporting an attitude like Dawkins' may wow them in the universities and the secular media, but it a poor substitute for thinking.

At any rate, atheism ain't what it used to be. The anti-believer Dawkins is proof of that.

Atheists, agnostics, and blow-dryers

This is just plain weird:

Atheists conduct de-baptisms using blow-dryers.

I am a lapsed atheist, and in reading the above story I have come to realize just how far modern-day atheism has fallen.

Once upon a time atheism and agnosticism could boast of top-notch intellectuals in its midst like Thomas Edison, Sigmund Freud, Pierre Curie, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich August von Hayek, and Karl Popper. Now they are stuck with Edwin Kagin and his blow-dryer performing "de-baptisms".

There is no small amount of irony in watching an atheist - who supposedly does not believe in God and who abhors superstitious rituals - performing a superstitious ritual wearing a monk's robe trying to counteract the effects of another superstitious ritual done on behalf of a God he does not believe exists. If I were still an atheist I would suspect that Kagin (whose son is a Christian minister) is some sort of Christianist plant designed to make non-believers look like idiots.

There is an interesting list of non-believers here. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the list (some of it appears to be wishful thinking), but it seems generally accurate. But if you look at the list, you will notice something curious. Atheism's "A-list" of top notch intellectuals decreases as it gets closer to our time, and is replaced by mostly artists and entertainers like Gene Roddenberry (the creator of Star Trek) and Barry White (a singer). The much vaunted intellectual superiority that non-believers are supposed to have compared to theists seems to be gone.

(Some may wonder why I did not include the famous author Richard Dawkins. The reason is simple: I have concluded that Dawkins is not an atheist, or even an agnostic. He quite clearly believes in God, and he hates Him with every particle of his being. No one would write book after book obsessing over something he claims is not real. Nazis may hate Jews, but we would never say that Nazis do not believe Jews exist. The same goes for Dawkins. In fact, sometimes I wonder if he ever thinks about anything other than God.)

Before I lost my faith in atheism I believed that the Universe could be explained in purely materialistic terms. It was reading C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters that awakened my intellect, and after reading Miracles I had lost my atheism for good. In other words, my spiritual journey has its genesis (no pun intended) in science.

At any rate, it is hard to believe that "de-baptisms" are going to catch on. Consider this quote from the article:

As Cambridge [Boxterman] completed her de-baptism, she expressed no qualms about how it might be perceived. "Sometimes you've got to have shock value," she said. "There's some times where you just have to shock people into getting attention and from there, they ask questions... And maybe they learn a bit."

Indeed, although they probably won't learn what Ms. Boxterman and Kagin are hoping for. The problems with shock jocks is that their shelf life tends to be very short. Given the undeniable hatred expressed towards Christians in many Muslim countries (which can lead to imprisonment, rape and murder), Kagin's blow-dryer shtick is about as edgy as a cotton ball.

In a popular culture that seems to be in a competition to blaspheme Jesus, Kagin does not strike me as a major contender. Nor do I believe that popular culture is a major threat to Christianity. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I do not believe Hollywood does not have has the influence they would like to think they have. The real threat to Christianity does not come from those who are doing little more than scrawling dirty words on the bathroom wall and giggling (think Comedy Central).

If you want to know what I consider to be the real threats to Christianity, then here they are: complacency and hypocrisy by Christians; those claiming to be Christians who want to modify Christian doctrines to satisfy secular political or cultural groups (ex: the ELCA and gays/lesbians); and government and educational authorities who demand obedience to the State and the official gods of the State.