But “liberals” always want to try. Imagine the mental and logical gymnastics one must go through in order to believe that it’s all right to abort a “normal” baby, but not one genetically deformed:

Mr. Imparato said he was disturbed to learn recently that in several states with legislative efforts to restrict abortion rights, groups like Planned Parenthood often lobby for an exemption for women who learn their child would have a disability.

But he said that the person who alerted him was a Planned Parenthood lobbyist who was herself troubled by the tactic because it seemed to run counter to the progressive political agenda that supports both choice and tolerance of human difference.

Alan Boyle has an interesting interview with Paul Davies, and his latest theories about the universe.

The Centennial Edition of Atlas Shrugged, courtesy of the Ayn Rand Institute (though just the paperback). I can’t imagine I’ll ever find the time to reread it, though.

Jane Galt wonders why she prays to a being in whom she doesn’t believe (and let me extend my best wishes, though not prayers, for the health of her dog). As I’ve noted before, I’ve never done this, or had an urge to, but perhaps I’ve never been under sufficient duress. On the other hand, I’ve heard that, in fact, there are atheists in foxholes.

Quine or no quine, Will Wilkinson seems to be unable to make a distinction between not believing in something and believing in not something.

I don’t believe in God, and have no need for one, but that’s not the same things as believing there is no God. I remain a skeptic.

Derb makes an interesting point about the heritability of religious belief.

The two things

Does death give life meaning? Perhaps, but that I think that there are other ways to do so.

David Barash asks if we should be teaching evolutionary psychology.

Answer: yes, but carefully:

What to do? One possibility

Donald Sensing has an interesting post (with equally interesting comments) about science as a religion.

Frederick Turner has some thoughts:

The figure of the village atheist is a rather comic one. He proves his superior intelligence by mocking the sheeplike conformity of the poor benighted believers. The old word “enlightened” has now been replaced by the word “bright” as the self-description of this sort of atheist. He is a variant of the “Cliffie the mailman” wonk who knows it all, or Sportin’ Life the cynic in Porgy and Bess. An older version is Flaubert’s character Homais the bourgeois anticlerical pharmacist in Madame Bovary, and an even older one is Thersites the scurrilous doubter in Shakespeare and Homer. Much pleased by their own originality, they take their mishaps as the martyrdom of the bold intellectual pioneer, and they have produced a group of arguments that should probably be taken apart.

One is that religious ideology is a unique inspirer of terrible wars. In the current perspective, such an opinion sounds plausible. But anyone with an historical sense will recognize that the few hundred people who die each month in religious conflicts are absurdly dwarfed by the tens of millions, almost all of them religious believers, who died, within living memory, under the savage atheistic regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and the various dialectical materialist dictators of eastern Europe. We have seen what atheism looks like on the large scale, and it is not pretty: the Holocaust, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields. Religion has indeed been a cause of appalling slaughter during the course of human history; but it must take fifth place behind atheist ideology, nation-state aggression, mercantile colonialist expansion, and tribal war in the carnage sweepstakes.

Another argument brought by the village atheist type is that to base one’s life on faith is intellectual suicide. This argument might be persuasive if there were any alternative, but there is not. Reason is not a basis for thought, but a method of thought. Kurt G