In defense of "witchcraft"

Sam Harris craftily turns his critics' arguments on themselves in this entry from his blog on The Huffington Post. He exposes the bland and ludicrous assumption that religion has a basis in reality, and that delusions are on an equal plane with facts just because they are ancient and widespread, and are promulgated by revered "authorities."

In Defense of Witchcraft)
Posted June 26, 2007 | 03:40 PM (EST)

Imagine that the year is 1507, and life is difficult. Crops fail, good people suffer instantaneous and horrifying turns of bad luck, and even the children of royalty regularly die before they have taken their first steps. As it turns out, everyone understands the cause of these calamities: it is witchcraft. Not all witchcraft is at fault, of course -- there are "white" witches who use their powers to heal -- but there is no question that some witches have formed an alliance with the Devil. Happily, the Church has produced many learned and energetic men who are equal to this challenge, and each year hundreds of women are put to death for casting spells upon their innocent neighbors.

Imagine being among the tiny percentage of people -- the 5 percent, or 10 percent at most -- who think that a belief in witchcraft is nothing more than a malignant fantasy. Imagine writing a book arguing that magic spells do no real work in the world, that the confessions of bad witches are delusional or coerced, that the claims of good witches are self-serving and unempirical. You argue further that a belief in magic offers false hope of benefits that are best sought elsewhere, like from scientific medicine, and lays the ground for false accusations of imaginary crimes, leading to the misery and death of innocent people. If your name is Sam Harris, you may produce two fatuous volumes entitled The End of Magic and Letter to a Wiccan Nation. Daniel Dennett would then grapple helplessly with the origins of sorcery in his aptly named, Breaking the Spell. Richard Dawkins -- whose bias against witches, warlocks, and even alchemists has long been known -- will follow these books with an arrogant screed entitled, The Witch Delusion. And finally Christopher Hitchens will deliver a poisonous eructation at book-length in The Devil is Not Great.

What sort of criticism would these misguided authors likely encounter? In the following essay, I present excerpts from actual reviews of recent atheist bestsellers, replacing terms like "religion," "God," and "atheist" with terms like "witchcraft," "the Devil," and "skeptic." Observe how much intellectual progress we have made in the last five hundred years:

Complete article

Mark Twain's War Prayer

His family begged him not to publish it, his friends advised him to bury it, and his publisher rejected it, thinking it too inflammatory for the times. Twain agreed, but instructed that it be published after his death, saying famously: "None but the dead are permitted to tell the truth."

O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

Mike Gravel's honesty - shocking and refreshing

Watch the video

A Tenet of Disbelief

** George Tenet's new book kicks back at Cheney/Bush for blaming the Iraq war on his "slam dunk" remark. (See reactions at end)

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.

Complete article here, but may require subscription.

COMMENTARIES
Arianna Huffington: Why didn't he just resign?
From former colleagues at the CIA

The fall of Tom Friedman - to me

**I must confess I have been a fan of Tom Friedman for many years. I read both The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The Earth is Flat and thought they were both insightful and prescient about the new world order powered primarily by the internet and technology. I had casually accepted the premise that it would be a good thing for the Middle East to become democratic. Shame on me. It's easy to assume that what one is used to is easily accepted by people who don't share your background or preferences. But in recent months I've come across commentaries about Friedman that suggest that he isn't the visionary I thought he was. His unqualified promotion of "globalism" seems to ignore the real human costs in favor of unrestrained corporate expansion. The following critique by "Hunter" at dailykos.com strikes me as perceptive and is certainly thought-provoking. But judge for yourself:

Think Progress presents the comedy stylings of Iraq War advocate Tom Friedman:

FRIEDMAN: I’m really sorry. Next time — Next time Ishwar [caller], I promise, I really promise, I’ll be a better liberal. I’ll not in any way support any effort to bring democracy to a country ruled by an oil-backed tyranny. I promise I will never do that again. I promise I’ll be a better liberal. I will view the prospect of Arabs forging a democracy as utterly impossible. They’re incapable of democracy. I agree with you on that now.

Estimates put the number of Iraqi dead above half a million people. Even the most conservative (cough) estimates confess the number to be in the multiple tens of thousands.

That's more people than Thomas Friedman will ever shake hands with in his entire life. That's more people than he will ever exchange direct eye contact with. That's more people than will ever serve him a drink or take his plate away in every speaking arrangement he's ever done and billed for. And every six months (or "Friedman Unit") the number of dead again increases by five figures.

They're dead because Thomas Friedman and people like him thought they had a great idea, and wouldn't listen to any of the experts telling them they were wrong. He was convinced that reforming the Middle East via American military attack would be a brilliant and necessary strategy, convinced by his own goddamn notions of what the Middle East should look like and how many bullets it would take to get it there.

And now he hides behind the notion that the only problem, in all of this, was that the damn liberals wouldn't clap hard enough for the transparently puerile "plan". He doesn't have a problem with any of it, except for the criticism he personally gets as a result of the chaos. No, the whole problem was either that the damn Arabs didn't sufficiently greet us as liberators and get on with reshaping their country according to his plan, or that the liberals had the audacity to point out that his "plan" was idiotic.

What does a naturalist do with "a moment of silence?"

** A thoughtful comment on the Virginia Tech shootings by DagoodS:

Out of respect for the variety of beliefs, we will hear requests for “a moment of silence.” A politically correct notion to allow people to pray to their particular God, or reflect on what has happened. Infuriatingly, I have already seen complaints that a “moment of silence” is a useless acronym, as “silence” does nothing to help.

Yet, in some light, that is true. What benefit does it have for a grieving parent whether I take a moment from my schedule and set it aside just to think about what they experienced? Will this take away an ounce of their grief? Will they gain a gram of comfort, merely because I stopped typing for 60 seconds and reflect? What do I, as a naturalist, think about in that moment of silence?

Equally--will prayer help, either? I am not trying to diminish the effect of prayer, or bring out some statistical study as to whether it helps/does not help. But if there was a God that is so actively involved in the day-to-day events of planet earth that it would modify its intention at the request of a single human—such a God is well aware of yesterday’s tragedies in Virginia, Michigan and around the world. The harsh reality is that a person giving a five minute prayer from Topeka, Kansas will not give new insight to God that people elsewhere need comforting.

The moment of silence; the hour of prayer is primarily for us. It benefits us. It is a comfort for us. Perhaps, in small measure, it will ease some of the burden of those struck hardest, simply to know the rest of the world is taking time of their busy schedule to come together as humans and say two simple words, “We know.” Clearly we have not all experienced the same pain, nor have many of us lost children at such a young age. But we have all had tragedies—friends die, loved ones go astray, relatives become sick and pass away. While we may not ever experience the tremendous amount of agony others are experiencing today, we can share in a small portion, realizing that we have had miseries, and may in the future.

When we might want others to pause for a moment and say, “We know.”

Therefore, I will take time out of my schedule and observe a designated moment of silence. A moment to simply say, “I know.” And within that moment vow to do the best I can to alleviate the pain I see in the world. The pains from yesterday are too large, and too far away for me to help. However there are plenty nearby that I can reduce.

I know that may be of no use to those affected by yesterday. But as a human, it is the best I can offer today.

Doubt and Uncertainty: "It doesn't frighten me"

**I used to think the most important thing in life is finding "ultimates," the absolute truth - as though there's a hidden world that we can crack into and thereby get the answers to all our doubts and fears, and somehow be relieved and happy forever after. Though I tried to live that way a long time, I must also admit that I am an inveterate explorer who accepts no limits on what should be explored. I don't even need to know what's at the end of the line - the journey itself is worth it. In recent years I've come to accept this state of uncertainty and realize that though it can sometimes be stressful, I am not really afraid of being "lost." I know that as long as I'm conscious I'll just work with whatever I have at hand and try to understand it, or at least do something interesting with it.

Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his research in quantum electrodynamics. He was also a raconteur, artist, bongo player and safe cracker. A collection of his short works, "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out," is a constant source of inspiration for me - and I've quoted from it frequently in this blog. Here's another one about "Doubt and Uncertainty." I don't have Feynman's brain but I have at least a small portion of his spirit:

People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not, I'm just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it, that would be very nice to discover...

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can't figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is so far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me.