AAARRRRRGGGGG.
If I were the defendant in this trial, I would appeal. The jury prayed over their decision.
Actually, this makes me wonder about a "jury of my peers". If I found that the jury prayed over whether to convict me or not, they are not my peers. If I were found guilty, I would certainly appeal on that ground.
The article quotes a juror:
Kissam [a juror] said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove Cook [the defendant] behaved recklessly.
“Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) being correct,” Kissam said. “He did all he could do.”
Criminy, where to start? The juror based their decision on evidence, but still prayed? Why bother?
And why bother anyway? Prayer doesn’t work. If they are willing to base their decision in a trial on evidence, why not look to the evidence that prayer doesn’t work?
June 13th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
And I’ve just been drafted to appear for jury duty.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Perhaps you could ease up a little.
Suppose instead of praying, the jury took ten minutes to silently meditate, taking deep, cleansing breaths together and visualizing a moonlit walk on the beach. Suppose their stated purpose was to calm down together, removing all emotional baggage and helping to concentrate on the task at hand. Suppose they further stated that they hoped to fully realize the expectation of Justice that Humanity and the Community had placed in them.
Would such appeals to nonsensical Capital Letters get your ire up as much?
Even if I posit that prayer has no intercessory value, as you loudly state on every possible occasion, what harm can it do to concentrate people’s attention on the significance of their actions? If people have Right and Duty and Justice and Mercy uppermost in their mind — things that have no real existence, just like God — and it helps them reach better decisions, how could that not be a good thing?
June 13th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Just to worry the point a bit more — there is a difference between praying for an election outcome, which requires that millions of people across America vote the “right” way, and praying for strength to complete a task, which requires only that the people within earshot take their job seriously.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Why on Earth would you appeal an acquittal???
June 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“Why on Earth would you appeal an acquittal???”
To learn all the good things God is teaching Kent Hovind in prison.
http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=75
June 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Also, upon reading the article, it doesn’t look like their prayer had anything to do with the verdict. They prayed for the girl’s family, who have suffered a tragic loss, and the defendant, who’s been through a lot recently himself.
I’m with the above poster: lighten up.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I’m inclined to agree with Ross Presser on this one. I read bad astronomy blog often (was pointed this direction by Tony from astronomy buff). I’m not particularly religious myself, but for lack of better words….take it easy.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Prayer isn’t about getting god (or whatever powers that be), to do what you want- if you go by that (and far too many DO people go by that), then yep, prayer doesn’t work. I view it as a “covering all bases thing”. More of a hope issue. If later you think you made the wrong decision, you can still say that the Powers that Be deemed it.
As for this trial, well… they did aquit him. If a group of people you considered evil decided you weren’t guilty of something, you wouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I sure as heck don’t want my fate depending on the superstitions of other people.
They probably don’t even believe in me!
June 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
He got off. I also find God Botherers a PITA and wish they’d just keep their beliefs to themselves but I’ve got to side with the posters who think maybe this one wasn’t worth blogging about. There are just parts of the US where people carry on like this, it’s sad, but there you go. Just be happy if you don’t live there.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Prayer isn’t about getting god (or whatever powers that be), to do what you want- if you go by that (and far too many people DO go by that – we may have free will, but I don’t see the point of an all-knowing diety running a democracy), then yep, prayer doesn’t work. I view it as a “covering all bases thing”. More of a hope issue. If later you think you made the wrong decision, you can still say that the Powers that Be deemed it.
As for this trial, well… they did aquit him. If a group of people you considered evil decided you weren’t guilty of something, you wouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
So some of you are suggesting that we don’t speak out against delusion and ignorance only when such antics are not beneficial to us? Had the bus driver been found guilty then there would be a reason to question obvious superstitious activity?
The article said : “God led us to make the right decision,” juror Cedric Kissam said after the verdict. “It was an accident. It wasn’t reckless driving.”
How terrible it would have been had “god” told the jury that someone had to pay for that accident regardless of the evidence? If I could point out an extreme case of falling back “god’s will” in the face of evidence – The Salem Witch Trials.
Honestly people, your skin doesn’t crawl at the thought of someone’s fate being decided based on superstitious beliefs? What if the jury had said “We gathered together to read the results of the thrown chicken bones and they told us this man was innocent.” Or perhaps you’d accept throwing the accused into water – if they sink and drown they were innocent, if they float and survive then they are guilty.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
See, I’m with Rick on this one.
Much more eloquently said, Rick.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Meditation != Prayer
Prayer in this case is an appeal to a higher (and nonexistant) power. It is saying “tell me what to do!” not “I’m trying to clear my mind so I can make a good decision”.
And they did pray over what verdict to return – it said so clearly in the article. The problem with praye being used by any part of the judicial system – and jurors are a large part of that system – is that it can open doors that can be used to blind people to the facts. Take the Salem witch trials as an example – or more recently, the Taliban implementation of justice in Afghanistan. Religious thought is powerful and often overcomes reason in it’s adherants – and the judicial process is supposed to be all about reason and blind to influences like religion. And, yes, before you point it out I do relaize that many of our laws can be traced back to a basis in religion – so? They have progressed far beyond that base.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
OK, now I hadn’t seen Rick’s reply when I made mine… but hey – Salem is a shining example now isn’t it?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
According to the article, the prayer was used as a means of calming their emotional state so thet they could make an evidence-based decision instead of succumbing to the “urge to punish him”.
There is no suggestion that they used prayer as a substitute for evidence.
So it looks to me like in this case prayer was working for rationality, and not against it.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I wonder, what exactly is a “jury of your peers”? In my case, I would consider a “peer” to be someone of reasonable intellect, an atheist, a star trek fan, and someone who can whip up a mean meal from scratch:). To me, that is a peer. Not some right wing religious nut job who thinks they are Doing God’s Will On Earth By Putting Someone Behind Bars Who Does Not Have The Same Religious Beliefs As They Do.
They don’t let people with severe learning disabilities serve on juries do they (I hope not:P)? But what is the difference between someone who cannot learn, and someone who refuses to learn? In the end, they have the same mental capacity for reasoning and analyzing information. And in the end, I wouldn’t want a religious zealot, who was proven by their acceptance of religion that they are incapable of reason, on my jury (should I ever commit a crime, which is unlikely). I wonder if there is some reasonable way to filter out people who have proven incapable of accepting reality? Who have proven themselves incapable of sentience (which is defined by basic observational skills and the ability to draw inferences and deductions from what is observed. Something religious people as a whole are completely incapable of.)?
I sometimes wonder how many people on Earth can truly be defined as “intelligent beingsâ€.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
BTW, I wasn’t speaking specifically of this article, but of the topic of religion in courts in general. I didn’t read the article, and I have no idea what was going on there.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’m with BA on this one. Whenever a rational decision is needed and those making the decision turn away from facts, logic and reason, then civilization is no better off than it was in the Dark Ages. I don’t care if it is an appeal for divine intervention or a simple effort to CYA, the introduction of superstition is a major mistake.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
As soon as the quoted juror said that, “god led us…” they absolved themselves of any responsibility to the facts and a rational examination of them. Using that quote as a basis, I could go and commit a crime but as long as I can say that “god led me” I’d have a pretty good chance at getting off with this jury. I”m with Phil (as I so often am), this was out of line and nonsensical.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Lab Lemming – Here’s the quote: “God led us to make the right decision,”
That does not say “God calmed me so I could make a rational and informed decision”. It says, quite literally, that their decision was influenced (led) by a deity. This scares the heck out of me, personally. It is way too easy for somebody to lead a group engaged in this sort of thinking down a path the leads to Very Bad Things. Yes, in this case it looks like the right thing was done – it appears it was a horrible accident but not a criminal act… but it could have just as easily gone the other way. Make decisions based on facts, not decisions based on what you believe a deity wants you to do. History is filled with atrocities commited by well meaning people who ignored the evidence in front of them in favor of what they believed a deity wanted… and I promise you it always started with a just a few folks who believed they knew what god wanted.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I refuse to accept that there is NO God because I just don’t KNOW. And neither do any of you. However, (and this is a BIG however) I believe that while God MAY have created the universe; Man Definately created religion. Because of that, everything religion-based is, in my mind, highly suspect. The very idea that an entity powerful enough to create all that there is, would care one nit what I do in my everyday life, is completely absurd. I mean really people, think about it! At best, God began everything with the big bang and made sure that the laws of physics were set up to allow the possibility of life and then he sat back, popped a beer, and waited to see what would happen. Does anyone really believe that the infinately powerful creator of this entire universe (if such exists) would really take time to make sure your spare tire is in good shape when you get a flat? Or would take an active hand in the future of some poor schmuck who was in the wrong place at the wrong time? I truely think NOT.
Here’s the thing; There’s only one way to KNOW if there is a God…croak.
And since we can’t come back to let the living know what the reality is, leave religion and God out of things that effect an entire population of people who are supposed to be free to think what they want, go where they want, and diddle themselves all they want. (in private please)
June 13th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
This is an excellent example of why the separation of church and state was a brilliant idea and remains so today.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
The BA wrote: “If I found that the jury prayed over whether to convict me or not, they are not my peers. ”
Yea, but where are you going to find 12 arrogant astronomer-turned-writers in the same county?
I’m sorry Phil. I’ve been a fan of your since the day of the old board and “He Who Shall Not Be Named”, but I am finding your fanatacism harder and harder to swallow. You can think I’m a moron, but try to refrain from saying it to my face.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Sorry… the name should have been “Matherly”. I post as “Mondoz” on a diffrent board.
Carl
June 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Ahh,
While I do agree with Phil on the amount of evidence showing that prayer does not work, and while I also agree that I would feel the same way if I were on trial here, it seems that these jurors were indeed the right group in this case:
“Prayer also took place outside the courtroom: Cook and his family prayed with their attorneys moments before the verdict was read.”
My guess is that the defendant was deeply religious, and therefore, so were his peers.
B-)
June 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
For what it’s worth, “jury of your peers” is not enshrined anywhere in American law. It’s a British common law concept, and it originally meant “peer” as in nobles, as opposed to the King being the final arbiter. The 6th Amendment to our Constitution promises an “impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” and that’s it. It’s amazing how often I hear people cite the “jury of your peers” as if it’s an actual right bestowed on American citizens.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
The problem with having a jury of my peers is the quality of peers is fairly low as it is. I can’t imagine it was much better when this was first drafted by the US founders though (I’m not one of those “golden age” nuts). The sad thing is, these juries seem to be selected to be especially easy to manipulate, as that apparently benefits both lawyers, and not selected to be especially rational and critically minded, which if you asked me would also benefit both lawyers in a different way, and further would benefit the pursuit of truth.
As The Monarch would say. “How DARE you? This mouth breathing lot my PEEERS?” (I’m paraphrasing, as I have a hard time remembering exact quotes.)
June 13th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
This one’s tricky. I can understand (and, indeed, sympathize) with jurors praying for strength to make the right decision, to look at the evidence and not be swayed by emotion, or anything along those lines. In that instance, the end result is the same as if the jurors had meditated beforehand.
If it weren’t for the comment that these jurors prayed to God to make the right decision, I’d be fine with what they did. With that in mind, however… I don’t like it.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I notice that several people have invoked the Salem Witch Trials as an example above. Just for historical accuracy, here’s what actually happened:
The whole period that encompassed the “trials” was only nine months, from August 1692 to May 1693. Hundreds and hundreds of people were accused (mostly by people mad at them), but only one hundred, more or less, were actually tried. Of those that were, if you plead guilty they did not execute you, they just had members of the clergy and laity pray for your salvation, and “poof” you were “cured” of the witchcraft.
If you plead innocent, you were, obviously, suspect and most were found guilty (although they were only guilty of pleading innocent!). However, most of the guilty were given jail time, and only 16 were executed. No, not by burning; that was an old European custom. Fifteen of them were hanged and the last, an ornery old man who refused to enter a plea or even acknowledge the charges, was “pressed.” This means they piled stones on him until he was crushed to death. Normally that took less than a day, but this guy lasted three, and every time they demanded that he acknowledge the charges he’d say, “buzz off,” (or whatever the equivalent 17th century phrase was), “just add more weight!”
If you ever find yourself in eastern Massachusetts, spending a day touring Salem is definitely worth while. Be sure to stick around for the “Haunted Homes” walking tour. It’s a hoot. Not just the tour itself, but watching all of the people on it that take this seriously!
- Jack
June 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
“…the quality of peers is fairly low…”
Then spend more time educating people. Education is generally more effective if you don’t first insult the people you are trying to inform.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I’m somewhat amazed by all the people who, while claiming prayer is a useless waste of time, also seem to imply it impaired their judgement. Consider that the same people, in the same situation, would’ve made the same decision with or without prayer. It’s not like they got divine intervention either way.
Sure, they may say that God led them to their decision, but since there is no God, they’re clearly wrong, and thus while they may think God was involved, they actually made the same decision they would’ve made anyway, all by themselves. One can point out the Salem Witch Trials as evidence that religious thought can foment violence in the public, but we all can name any number of secular and atheistic brainwashing campaigns that was just as successful in causing the murder of innocents. To claim that religious thought is somehow special in this regard is rank bigotry.
Which brings us back to the point that whether they prayed or not is ultimately irrelevant. Which means that the actual problem isn’t that they prayed on a jury, but that people who *would* pray were put on a jury. Which ends up being a condemnation of anyone who is religious (or, hell, let’s go wild and say “Not an atheist”) as being incapable of making a fair decision. I expect that, in deference to the rigorously intellectual standards of this find organ, we’ll now be treated to any number of entries which boil down to “A person who is not an atheist made a decision. He is incompetent to make that decision because he is not an atheist, and only atheists are fully rational and reasonable human beings.”
Oh, and in response to the statement; “Honestly people, your skin doesn’t crawl at the thought of someone’s fate being decided based on superstitious beliefs?”
That just depends. If their superstitious belief is all creatures were created equally by a loving and merciful God, and that anyone that is to be judged shall be given a fair and impartial hearing so that justice may be found whether he is your most beloved brother or your most hated nemesis, I’m pretty okay with that. Now, if my fate were being decided by a secular, atheistic system such as phrenology or social darwinism, I’d be considerably more upset. I’m assuming everyone else here would be fine with it, though, since it doesn’t involve that evil G-word.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“Yea, but where are you going to find 12 arrogant astronomer-turned-writers in the same county?”
Quote of the year.
Phil, if you spent half as much time providing us peons with an answer to the “Why is there anything?” question as you do Googling yourself to cross-reference and re-promote yourself, society as a whole would be better off.
This blog has gone steadily downhill since you started ranting about religion, politics, and debunking tv commercials to prove you have no sense of humor.
Congratulations.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Amen to T. Paine.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
David Gian-Cursio said; I’m somewhat amazed by all the people who, while claiming prayer is a useless waste of time, also seem to imply it impaired their judgement. Consider that the same people, in the same situation, would’ve made the same decision with or without prayer. It’s not like they got divine intervention either way.
Um, no. Jury trials are all about examining the evidence and seeing if it leads to a particular conclusion, and as such, they require the active effort of thought. Praying for a conclusion is, in most cases, a direct admission that one has no thoughts to apply to it – it means the person is stumped for an answer.
Sure, they may say that God led them to their decision, but since there is no God, they’re clearly wrong, and thus while they may think God was involved, they actually made the same decision they would’ve made anyway, all by themselves.
Hardly. Praying for an answer means that people end up going with their gut feelings, or sudden “insights.” It has nothing to do with treating the evidence in a fair and objective manner. That can only be said if the person is fair and objective in the first place, and I sure as hell (Ha! I funny!) wouldn’t want to bet my future on that. Trials are meant to instill this effort within the jury (despite what any particular attorney might be aiming for). It is pretty clear it failed in this regard – the jury resorted to “signs” rather than trusting their own minds and concentrating on the evidence as presented. Would the sentence have been the same if enough jury members had indigestion? If the defendant looked untrustworthy? If he admitted to being an atheist?
One can point out the Salem Witch Trials as evidence that religious thought can foment violence in the public, but we all can name any number of secular and atheistic brainwashing campaigns that was just as successful in causing the murder of innocents. To claim that religious thought is somehow special in this regard is rank bigotry.
Heh! Or it means you know more than a passing amount of history. I’m game. Wanna make a list?
Which means that the actual problem isn’t that they prayed on a jury, but that people who *would* pray were put on a jury. Which ends up being a condemnation of anyone who is religious (or, hell, let’s go wild and say “Not an atheistâ€) as being incapable of making a fair decision.
Ah, Hyperbole and Extension, where would debate be without you two lovable rogues? The issue is not whether someone religious made the decision – it is, very specifically (you can read it to make sure), about the fact that they admitted to praying for a decision.
I admit to being more than a little concerned if someone devoutly or fundamentally religious makes a decision regarding my welfare, but I’m more concerned that they do it with regard for the factors that directly relate. Objectivity. That’s the whole point. Preconceived notions do not belong. And like it or not, when you pray, that’s all you’re gonna end up with.
I think it’s a rather disturbing mark on our society that a group of people could freely admit to such a crapshoot without feeling ashamed of it. You prayed for a decision? Thinking comes that hard for you?
Let me put this another way: You pick up your child from daycare, and she has a bandage on her arm. You ask what happened, and are told she cut herself badly on the playground. The daycare counselor then tells you, “I prayed for guidance on my actions, and gawd told me to take her to a hospital.”
Yes, right answer, but does that make you feel more comfortable with someone who couldn’t resort to common sense in such a case?
Admittedly, court decision aren’t always “common sense,” but this should make absolutely no difference. Where does the evidence lead? That’s the only question. If you have no firm conclusion, that simply means acquittal. It doesn’t mean, “Did I get that right, Magic Sky Pony?”
That just depends. If their superstitious belief is all creatures were created equally by a loving and merciful God, and that anyone that is to be judged shall be given a fair and impartial hearing so that justice may be found whether he is your most beloved brother or your most hated nemesis, I’m pretty okay with that.
Nice to know. So, how do you determine this is what they believe? And, now that you have me curious, which religion proposes this system?
June 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Jack Hagerty: The whole period that encompassed the “trials†was only nine months,…
In Salem, yes. In Europe, not quite. We do tend to be a little Yankee-centric in our knowledge of history, so Salem gets invoked more while being relatively mild in comparison, but this shouldn’t take away from the main point of witch hunts in the first place.
That said, I’ve been thinking about checking out one of the local (more or less) ghost walks here, which means Blackbeard-related stuff. Could be a hoot. From what I’ve heard, it can be entertaining to ask the guides (apart from the group if you can) about the best questions they’ve been asked.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Phil, I subscribed to the Bad Astronomy Blog, not the Ranting Against Religion Blog.
Please keep your non-astronomy-related anti-Christian posts to yourself, or start another blog for those posts. That’s not what I came here to read.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I’m an atheist, but from what I read in that article, I didn’t read anything in particular that would make me prefer other jurors. The fact that they prayed has an emotional significance to me. It tells me they were taking it seriously on an emotional level.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
It’s the “God led us…” part that most of the posters, as well as, I conclude, BA, find disturbing. Yes, the act of prayer can be equated to an act of meditation or relaxation in some people, but those people usually use phrases such as “at peace to make a decision”, or “given the contentment to reexamine the evidence with a clear mind”, or some other phrase that makes it clear that they seek God to find inner peace and the ability to continue in a clear-headed way. It is much more common to find people who explicitly state that, when they pray, God is spoken to and responds in a physical way, be it by an audible voice, or a “revelation of truth”. These people, if sincere, are disturbed, if not insane. Berkowitz also heard divine orders, and followed them.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Folks, we have been through this before. It’s my blog, and I will write about what I care about. If you don’t like it, there are literally hundreds of millions of other blogs you can read. Telling me what I can and cannot write on my own blog is pretty silly.
And it’s not arrogant to say that I don’t want people who ascribe to a method proven to be useless to be on a jury pondering my fate. I never said these people were stupid, nor did I say they were beneath me. I said they were not my peers; that is, people who are on the same ground I am about such things.
I inferred from the article — brief as it was — that prayer swayed their decision, as well as evidence. That’s what I am writing about. If someone cast Tarot cards to make their decision I would be no more or less unhappy.
I didn’t know “peers” was a holdover from England; that’s interesting. I assumed it was a right. I checked, it isn’t.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
It should be a mistrial because the jurors did not properly consider the evidence and instead relied on divine guidance.
They weren’t put in there to ask God for an answer. They were gathered together to examine the evidence presented in a critical way. it doesn’t matter whether or not they believe in God, but it does matter if they’re effectively deciding a case based on an invisible voice in their heads instead of the evidence at hand.
Maybe the guy did deserve to be acquited. But really nobody will know because some people let their invisible spirit decide instead of fulfilling their civic duty.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I was more bothered by the fact that this Diepraam character seems to have prosocuted someone who was obviously innocent in the first place. Maybe looking for the spot-light, career progression?
I also don’t have a problem with BA’s anti-religion posts. If you want to promote science and logical thinking, you have to show all the different angles you see where people fall back non-logical means to come to their decisions. No jury should be praying about a verdict, at the least it would seem to be a violation of the sepration of Church and State.
I imagine these blog responses would take an entirely different attitude if they had prayed and found him guilty. Which leads to the conclusion that they should not have been praying about it in the first place. If you must pray, pray for the greiving family, pray for the defendant to get through this terrible time, but don’t ever pray for guidance in the verdict.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
The point of mentioning the Salem trials was an example of how people check their rationality at the coat rack when it comes to anything religious. Those people believed in witches and demons and curses and because of the accusations of young girls people died.
But if bringing up the Salem trials is considered tired and over-used then I’ll mention a few other situations where depending on ones religion to make a decision isn’t always the wisest thing to do.
How about miracle cures and convincing people to not seek true medical attention because they believe god will heal them?
How about birth control when people of faith believe that it is a sin to use? This attitude is directly responsible for so many unplanned pregnancies, teenage pregnancy, and the contribution to the spreading AIDS epidemic in Africa. Cry abstinence all you like, but by doing so you are simply refusing to face the reality of human nature.
Another one is people murdered in the name of faith for loving the wrong person. This still happens today (as recently reported in the Middle East with the stoning of Du’a Khalil Aswad.)
Religion and the abortion issue with the contradiction of “thou shall not kill” while at the same time blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors.
The Westborro Baptist Church (need I say more?)
David Gian-Cursio said : “but we all can name any number of secular and atheistic brainwashing campaigns that was just as successful in causing the murder of innocents.”
Do me the favor of pointing some out. Please don’t try and use Hitler, he was a Catholic, regardless if religious people try to claim he wasn’t. He contributed to the Roman Catholic Church, he was never denounced by them, and he wrote in his book Mein Kampf: “Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s Work.” Perhaps people of religion don’t like having him as a poster boy and try and denounce him now, but that does little to disprove that he had some kind of belief.
I will also put to you that there is not one recorded instance of a person being killed in the name of atheism.
Using religion to make decisions has a very poor historical record, especially when the entire concept of religion hinges around the concept of “faith” which requires one believe or accept something regardless of the evidence on hand. That is my problem with people in a jury using prayer or religion in any way to come to a decision.
“If their superstitious belief is all creatures were created equally by a loving and merciful God, ” – “I’m pretty okay with that.”
Except that religion does not treat everyone as created equally. I think you are confusing the Bill of Rights with the Bible. The bible teaches that homosexuals are deviants and that the woman’s place is below that of men and that slaves are acceptable. It also records many people invaded, murdered, and eliminated because they had different beliefs. While my Islamic scriptures are a bit weak, I recall it condoning the killing of infidels (non believers). It simply seems that religion doesn’t exactly teach that all people are created equally.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“I’m an atheist, but from what I read in that article, I didn’t read anything in particular that would make me prefer other jurors. The fact that they prayed has an emotional significance to me. It tells me they were taking it seriously on an emotional level.”
Well said. If I hire a Druid tree surgeon who prays to the spirit of a tree before he works on it, I may not believe in the spirits to which he prays, but I may be reasonably sure that I have hired a tree surgeon who takes his work seriously.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Now this is something to really get upset about, IMO:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6557679.stm
“Iran’s Supreme Court has acquitted a group of men charged over a series of gruesome killings in 2002, according to lawyers for the victims’ families.
The vigilantes were not guilty because their victims were involved in un-Islamic activities, the court found.
According to their confessions, the killers put some of their victims in pits and stoned them to death. Others were suffocated. One man was even buried alive while others had their bodies dumped in the desert to be eaten by wild animals.”
June 14th, 2007 at 12:25 am
The Bad Astronomer
Says:
Folks, we have been through this before. It’s my blog, and I will write about what I care about.
Now Phil, that’s an extraordinarily selfish thing to say. I demand that, if you don’t write about what we want you to write about, you immediately refund us our subscriptions!
And what we want, is entertainment. We don’t want any ideas that challenge our preconceptions and make us think! Show us pretty star pictures! Or better yet, pretty celebrities! That’s it, I demand that in future this blog feature only Paris Hilton stories, or I want my money back! </snark>
June 14th, 2007 at 12:38 am
“Of those that were, if you plead guilty they did not execute you,”
Gee, that was nice of them.
“but we all can name any number of secular and atheistic brainwashing campaigns that was just as successful in causing the murder of innocents.”
Perhaps you could uh, educate us then.
And to all the over-sensitive types complaining about “anti-christian posts”, I disagree. Phil hasn’t said anything bad about religion or the people who believe in it, he has simply pointed out where the use of it is inappropriate.
“Some people looked at it because a little girl was killed and wanted someone to pay,” he said. “But nobody wants to put someone away for an accident.”
Then if the incident was an accident, then a jury going in with a rational mindset, looking at the evidence objectively, they would come to the same conclusion – that the man was innocent. It’s that simple. No prayer required. And yeah, there is also that separation of church and state thing.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Instead of quoting a whole bunch of responses, I’ll just do one representative sample:
“It should be a mistrial because the jurors did not properly consider the evidence and instead relied on divine guidance.”
The article is clear: they did NOT do this. They most certainly DID make their decision based on the evidence (Kissam said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove Cook behaved recklessly. “Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) being correct,” Kissam said. “He did all he could do.”). What they prayed for was, basically, rationality (fought the urge to punish him for the “tragic accident” and prayed instead for guidance).
I guess a fanatical opposition to religion can be just as blinding as religion itself. Especially if it leads one to the extremely dangerous conclusion that an ACQUITTAL can be deemed a mistrial!
June 14th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Hi all,
Just want to note that I’m all with BA on this. Whenever people says “a god led me to…” or “a god told me to…” I get kinda scared at least on their behalf.
Praying might be usefull as a tool to calm ones thoughts, I have no problem with that, but people very often pray for someone to get healthy, to find someone (Madeleine, Natascha Kampusch), to succeed in something and they very often credit their branch of a god with all the good outcomes regardless of doctors, police, other people making an effort or even the people themselves. I find that belittleling (sp?).
A lot of people put away reason and evidence and that can lead to bad decisions. People die because they let go of medicine and puts crystals under their pillows instead. And what if in the next trial the jury has some prejudice against the defendant and they throw the dice in their heads with a prayer?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Paris who? Sorry, head in the clouds trying to avoid all the people dumping on Phil.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:10 am
>>>BA quite often you are so silly… a preayer can be a form of meditation, a way to clear ones mind, its not a big deal, if one prays it doesn’t mean ones judgment is clouded.
but, in a case if one prays INSTEAD of analyzing evidence, well… only in America lol
anyways jurors often times are inadequate, not because of their religious practices, but … lack of education, lack of intelligence etc
June 14th, 2007 at 1:25 am
One of the commenters here has a point: stick to ASTRONOMY and SCIENCE, otherwise your blog will become less and less interesting, not everybody wants to read about OBVIOUS bs here…
June 14th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Xenu, as the BA has already mentioned, if you don’t like what he blogs about, you are free to choose from thousands of different blogs. This is the BAs blog and he writes about what he thinks is important enough to make him touch his keyboard.
Besides of astronomy and science he has decided that anti-science is one of his topics. So either live with it or just ignore these entries.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:51 am
FARK!
June 14th, 2007 at 3:01 am
“What they prayed for was, basically, rationality”
Before you go and give us your religious martyr complex “waaaaa, they’re picking on us!”, I’m not an atheist, and I have friends who are religious who don’t NEED to pray to be rational. If I did know people like that, I think I’d be scared of them. And I’d ask them to pray as often as possible…
Xenu – Don’t like it? Don’t read it. Simple. (shrug)
June 14th, 2007 at 4:01 am
“What they prayed for was, basically, rationalityâ€
Ohhh, the irony!
June 14th, 2007 at 7:09 am
The BA wrote: “And it’s not arrogant to say that I don’t want people who ascribe to a method proven to be useless to be on a jury pondering my fate.”
So… you want a Religious Test to qualify for participation in a public service?
This seems to fly in the face of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. So much for seperation of church and state…
June 14th, 2007 at 7:09 am
As a scientist-in-training, I find your blog to be a very good read. I fully support your efforts to debunk various insanities science has picked up over the years. I applaud your purpose, even if it seems to get lost sometimes.
As a Christian, I find the whole chip-on-your-shoulder, holier-than-thou attitude you’ve shown again and again that you have toward religious people and religion in general to be insulting. You of all people should know that this is the EXACT attitude that drives people away from one’s cause, whether it’s coming from the religious or non-religious side.
I’m disappointed.
But you’re right. This is YOUR blog, you can write whatever you want in it. Fine, this is your right as owner of the blog. I hate to say that you’ve lost this reader, but as you said, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:17 am
I fear there’s no way for us to check if we’re gonna have a jury that will decide to pray over your fate. And unfortunately I believe that’s dangerous. If the person decides to use what the voice in his head says instead of what the evidence says… Owch!
And damn it folks, it’s the BA’s server, it’s his PROPERTY. It’s not as if you pay him for it so you can’t complain. When you don’t like something, don’t read it. I’m annoyed by his global warming articles, but do I write up in comments that he’ll lose all his readers and that he should just stick to astronomy because holy I believe so? Heck no. I just don’t read the post and don’t comment on it.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Especially if it leads one to the extremely dangerous conclusion that an ACQUITTAL can be deemed a mistrial!
I live in a place (Canada) where the Crown can appeal, and yes, sometimes acquittals are retried due to miscarriages of justice or events that bring the administration of justice in to disrepute…
… such as the jurors consulting invisible spirits to make a decision.
To be fair, it’s hard to say what really went on based on that short article. However, I’m pretty sure that if a jury came out here and said “After consulting with the FSM, we find the defendant not guilty” the Crown would almost certainly appeal and if it went the other way the defendant would appeal.
The Crown having a right of appeal helps prevent scumbags from getting off because of a corrupted or otherwise unfair jury. The defendants right of appeal helps prevent innocent people from being wrongfully convicted by corrupted or otherwise unfair juries… such as juries that talk to invisible spirits for guidance.
The statement that tweaks me is this:
It is my hope that logic and reason led him to make the right decision. If he believes God led him somewhere, it he might as well have flipped a coin believing that God would make it land the right way.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:23 am
ESquid summed it up for me. Why have 12 jurors when they’re just going to ask God? Why not be judged by 1 priest and save 11 people the effort of showing up?
By the way BA, I think it rocks when people put the boot to organized religion. You can’t promote science while giving a pass to irrational thinking. If you make it up to StarFest (our local star party in Mount Forest ON), there’s a beer waiting for you.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Brittany said : “As a Christian, I find the whole chip-on-your-shoulder, holier-than-thou attitude you’ve shown again and again that you have toward religious people and religion in general to be insulting.”
And there it is. Whenever people stand up against something doing with religion then the believers begin to scream persecution, arrogance, and intolerance against religion. Never fails to appear.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Phil: I’m with you most of the way on this one, but I think you’re being a bit rough on the idea of prayer. When you make a generic statement like, “Prayer doesn’t work,” well, sure it does, in a manner of speaking.
Of course the bogus experiments that some claim to have done that “prove” that people can pray for others, and, even if they don’t know others are praying for them, they will improve — well, that’s just nonsense.
However, people may do better if they know someone is praying for them. Why? Most likely because a kind word helps the psyche. No sources here. Sorry — and I know that’s not right.
But meditation is a very healthy activity. The Zen and Taoist traditions can be trendy for some, but taking time to slow down and learn quieting techniques are very beneficial. Whether one is communing with a divinity is another matter entirely. But these relaxation techniques are important, and under-employed in the West, IMO.
I’m personally far more concerned about this story:
Video Identifies Papacy as the Dreaded Beast of Bible Prophecy
Give me a break.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:38 am
That’s a most worthy statement.
It seems obvious enough that at least part of the purpose of this blog is to shine light into the darkness that is irrational thought (religion is in that darkness). But what can you do when the very people you most need to shine the light on prefer to put a black velvet cloth over their heads, plug their ears, and shout “LALALALALA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU” ?
It is impossible to use logic and reason on the religious because they counter with their faith-based irrationality.
If you choose a more aggressive approach, they get insulted and go away.
So how do you reach these people?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Rick wrote: “And there it is. Whenever people stand up against something doing with religion then the believers begin to scream persecution, arrogance, and intolerance against religion. Never fails to appear.”
????????
So… Phil is to be lauded for “standing up” against religion, but Brittany is to be chided because she said Phil’s opinion insulted her? Does the word “hypocrit” mean anything to you?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:43 am
>>> So some of you are suggesting that we don’t speak out
>>> against delusion and ignorance only when such antics are
>>> not beneficial to us?
There’s just a lot of better targets. Google “radical Islam” for an example. You may have heard of it.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:49 am
>>> Folks, we have been through this before. It’s my blog,
>>> and I will write about what I care about.
Well, I’m not one of the “stick to astronomy” types, but several of your recent entries have left me with a feeling of “I can’t believe he’s complaining about that when so much worse is going on.” I still dig ya, though. We all have our peeves.
>>> If someone cast Tarot cards to make their decision I
>>> would be no more or less unhappy.
How about magic 8 ball?
“Verdict hazy. Sequester jury and try again later.”
June 14th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Wow. I came here expecting another BA angry atheist circle jerk. There was actually some balance to the responses. Balance? Reasonableness? Come on. Snark it up. Don’t you people realize that this is the Internets?
June 14th, 2007 at 8:10 am
That is not true.
God need only show up and perform a verifiable miracle. Say, change the sun to plaid, or move the Andromeda galaxy out of the constellation Andromeda and into Orion in a split second, or make all the planets immediately spin backward without destroying them, or instantly create a human out of dust in front of witnesses – no smoke, no mirrors, no curtains
There’s an infinity of ways a god could falsify the hypothesis that there is no god, and absolutely no requirement whatsoeve that anyone die to find out whether or not there is a god.
The argument that you must die to know whether or not there is a god is among the weakest of the theistic arguments.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:26 am
L Ron Hubbub
Says:
Wow. I came here expecting another BA angry atheist circle jerk.
Hey, give us a break! We atheists don’t have regularly scheduled Sunday circle-jerks to attend, so we have to find them where we can.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:44 am
The Bad Astronomer said: “It’s my blog, and I will write about what I care about. If you don’t like it, there are literally hundreds of millions of other blogs you can read.”
Have it your way. I find it amusing that the last time I left a site in this way, it was because the proprietor turned out to be an arrogant fundamentalist Christian who believed that holding a philosophy that was not exactly the same as his was unacceptable. Now, history has repeated itself in a mirrored form. I hope someone else appreciates the symmetry, as well.
I’ve found that live and let live is a fine philosophy, but it only works so long as others apply it.
I’ll try to remember this place as an education about the world around me, starting with that fantastic debunking of the moon hoax claims, and not as somewhere a person would be written off as a loon for so much as mentioning the words “prayer” or “luck.”
I’d sign this “goodbye” or “farewell,” but you’ve made your position on good wishes abundantly clear.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Wow.
As far as I can see, the BA said that prayer doesn’t work (linking a study). He aslo said that he would prefer that juries used evidence instead of prayer, particularly if he was the defendant.
If you wanted to criticize the study linked, well, that would be reasonable. Or you could take the side that prayer is better than evidence. Or, like some did, that prayer means different things to different people and such.
But where did someone get insulted? If the jurist had said he used astrology to make his decision, the dog-pile would be huge.
To be a scientist you must be particularly skeptical of the things you guard in your heart.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:57 am
But then there is the Anthropic Cosmological Principal which atheists came up with which showed how the universe is in harmony with humanity. When I first came across that it seemed to shout God is the great architect / builder. And this was in the 1980’s long before that theological dead end called Intelligent Design.
But I digress
I am still here
It always behooves us to look at more than one source and in this one http://www.click2houston.com/news/13462549/detail.html it says
The idea that a quick prayer and suddenly the verdict is brought in, does not seem sustainable from that account. According to other accounts, they spent 4 hours, then spent the night in a hotel and continued their deliberation. During that time they had prayers. I suspect the reason they did this can be found in James 1:5 where if you want wisdom, then ask God. It was therefore a request for wisdom to carry out their jury duty, not the casting of bones.
Incidentally the Chron.com account looks suspiciously like this one http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070612/27925_Jury_Rules_Bus_Driver_Not_Guilty_after_Prayer.htm
An obviously biased source. I have seen this kind of thing before, it is lazy journalism. Someone has copied, but I am not sure who copied who, but I suspect it was the Chron.com who copied from the Christian newsletter as it would seem sensational in a tabloid, but “So what” in a Christian magazine.
Phil’s ire needs to be directed at sloppy reporting
As a matter of interest, there was a murder case in the UK that was appealed, and one of the grounds for the appeal was that during the deliberations, some of the jurors had tried to hold a seance to see if they could contact the murder victim. I did try and look this up, but could not find it. I vaguely remember that the the accused was convicted on a retrial, but don’t quote me on that.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Why is my post awaiting moderation, what did I do wrong?
June 14th, 2007 at 9:06 am
@Brittany (and any other believers):
Mr. Plait has insulted you, to your perspective, but let’s look at that more closely. When someone insults me, I take a closer look at why I find what they said insulting. I analyze it, figure out what they said was wrong, and then proceed to point out the problem with what they said. If they apologize, fine. If not, at least I put in my proof as to the opposite of their insult. If I cannot find anything wrong with their argument, other than I found it insulting, it turns out they may have been right. In which case I acknowledge it, and try to do better.
Now, you feel insulted because Phil had negative things to say about prayer. As others have pointed out, what if the story had been about tarot cards, a ouija board, or some other such nonsense? Even worse, what if the jury had decided that 98% of the evidence was wrong, because their prayers told them so? Then, that bus driver would have to appeal, and continue on with the process (possibly, while in a prison cell).
Like Mr. Plait, I find people using the terms “prayer” and/or “miracle” offensive. Most of the time it dismisses the hard work of the people who were actually involved in the outcome. Maybe the bus driver actually had a good defense lawyer, or maybe the prosecutor just didn’t have a case. Personally, I find prayer insulting, in such cases.
Praying for strength is fine. However, if you’re praying for guidance, I might suggest an easier method, that’s better for your knees. Pull a quarter from your pocket and flip it.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:08 am
eewolf,
I believe the percieved insult came from the way Phil said that the fact that the jury prayed ment they weren’t his peers. The (I think accurate) assumption was that Phil was insinuating that they were inferior to his circle of peers.
(Note: I’m not saying that was what Phil ment- he is best equipt to address that. I simply am trying to expain how someone could feel offended)
June 14th, 2007 at 9:08 am
(Now, I’m finished with my rant)
Hey, if believers keep leaving, does that mean we can go back to eating babies and killing puppies… or is that killing babies and eating puppies? I can never quite figure out what I’m supposed to be doing because I don’t believe in God.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Before you leave I’m hoping you, or someone who has voiced similar views, could explain your stance to me. In short: what exactly do you want Phil to do?
No matter what he rags on he is going to get complaints. If he says psychics are frauds, the believers complain. If he dumps on astrology, the same thing happens. So he made a decision, one that every reader is aware of, to concentrate on anti-science and promote critical thinking, regardless of what others say.
So here is where I get confused. You wouldn’t complain if he was posting about jurors who consulted a crystal ball for a decision, even if it was the right one. You would expect him to ignore complaints from those who believe in psychics. All religion, by definition, is similarly anti critical thinking. So why do you expect him to head your complaints when you felt he shouldn’t from astrologers, alties, psychics, etc? In other words, why do you feel you are not being hypocritical?
I’m really asking; I really do want to understand.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Because it’s OK to make fun of the “untrue” philosophies. But if someone goes against the philosophy that some god says is true, then the dissenter is obviously wrong.
And it torques them up because it’s difficult to make supportable arguments against atheism.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:30 am
“It is impossible to use logic and reason on the religious because they counter with their faith-based irrationality.
If you choose a more aggressive approach, they get insulted and go away.
So how do you reach these people?”
Perhaps you aren’t being agressive enough.
If ‘believers’ are irrational, how different is this from someone ranting on the street corner who believes God is speaking to them through the mailbox? That person may not be a harm to anyone, but what if they then proceeded to get violent or make decisions based on what the ‘hear’ from the mailbox?
What would cause someone to value a faith-based approach over reason?
A biological reason? Predisposed to belief? If so, this should be treatable with medication or in fervent cases, incarceration in a facility designed to treat them. If it is a genetic issue, then how different is if from schizophrenia which requires medical treatment and institutionalization.
A learning issue? The facts have been explained to them with reason and they still don’t want to understand? Society has those people now, the rules are known, yet they ignore or break the rules, and are incarcerated with the hopes that they learn the rules again. Re-education camps sound horrible but if not done, then ‘they’ are allowed to roam the streets with impunity. Ignoring reason, the ‘rules’ for how things are.
Lock them out of the decision making processes? If they are stuck in their beliefs, then do not allow them the ability to make decisions that affect others. Laws are made only after careful consideration and upon the latest and best evidence. Not the imaginary whims of an invisible diety. In the case of the jury trial, is someone saying a person is guilty ‘because I believe my shoe told me’ any less of a tragedy than ‘my diety told me?’ Surely someone who believes like this is a danger to others and capable of causing great harm even indirectly.
The only issue here is then there are a large number of disaffected people who have no say so over how their lives are run. This could spell disaster, so again…incarceration?
Is it then not a modest proposal that those who profess religious belief be required to take anti-psychotic medications and, if failing to be cured, be admitted into a facility to ‘treat’ their condition until such time as they are no longer a danger to either themselves or others?
June 14th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Much smoke, little substance. Critical thinking is a skill, difficult to acquire, harder to retain but absolutely essential to our continued survival as a species.
BA, No matter who you knock for their lack of criticality, some will take offense. Just keep on trucking, Bro. We shall progress, one small step at a time,,,
Gary 7
June 14th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that the BA insinuated inferiority to anyone personally? He stated clearly that he thinks prayer is inferior to evidence. If anyone is insulted by that they would need to be insulted by the constitution, too.
Maybe the chip is not on the BA’s shoulder at all.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:56 am
My issue is not with the fact that someone thinks religion is dumb. My issue is with how that stance is being presented. If someone says it in a mocking, condescending manner, which is how I perceived this, and past, blog posts to be (forgive me if I’m wrong, text of course loses most the nuances of a spoken language), then that’s not doing anyone any good. I’m sure many of you have come across this in religious people, telling you you’re idiots for not believing, fire and hell and brimstone and all that. Of course that only gives you negative thoughts about that religion, and biases your future encounters with religion.
If, as some of you have suggested, the jury used crystal balls or Ouija boards or prayed to Allah or had an astral alien guide tell them what to do, and BA decided that was worthy of a blog post in the same manner as this one, yes in fact I would still be extremely upset. Just as I get upset when Christians (for example) start pounding on science. It doesn’t do anything except make people angry, and where does that lead? Further misunderstandings and bitterness and in the end, no good is done to anyone.
I have dealt with enough of this ‘righteous’ anger from people over the years that honestly, I don’t want to have to wade through it to find things that interest me any more.
I realize my position of ‘walking the middle line’ and trying to make peace between the difference stances is not appreciated by most, especially in a place like this. I’m sorry for any feathers I’ve ruffled with my previous comment, or this one. Signing off.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Man, I love all the “Screw you guys, I’m going home” comments!
June 14th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Matherly, where is the hypocrisy? BA pointed out an unacceptable occurance (replacing rationalism with faith) and Brittany (as well as others) are annoyed/angered that BA would dare to say something against their beliefs. When did disagreeing with something and making that view public suddenly become “chip on your shoulder” or “holier than thou”. Just because I disagree?!
As I pointed out quite early on (and now mirrored by many others) had the trial jurors based their decision on some other inane source such as chicken bones, water tests, Ouiji Boards, or Magic Eight Balls then they would have been fine with BA’s comments. Heck I bet even if they would have invoked Allah most would have been just as shocked and criticized them for that. But because the assumption it is THEIR belief system then suddenly believers are angry, outraged, and insulted.
Perhaps you are right and there is some hypocrisy here after all …
June 14th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Ok, Brittany… here are my questions to you, and I sincerely solicit your enlightened opinions:
1. Do you think it is reasonable, logical, or appropriate for a jury to decide the fate of the accused based on any or all of: crystal balls, voodoo magic, spell casting, the positions of the stars or planets, or the tech passed on from Xenu through the writings of L Ron Hubbard?
2. If the answer to the previous question is “no”, then do you think it is reasonabl, logical or appropriate for a jury to decide the fate of the accused based on any guidance from an invisible spirit that we can call “God”, for the sake of a short name?
3. If the answer to 1 is “no” and 2 is “yes”, then rationalize your opinion since such an opinion is inherently contradictory. How is guidance from “God” distinguishable from, say, schizophrenia?
4. If your answer to 1. is “yes”, then rationalize how this can be so given that it has been demonstrated time and time again that such methods are no better than random chance.
If your answers to 1 and 2 are both “no” then we agree.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am
“Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that the BA insinuated inferiority to anyone personally?”
Initial comment from blog entry: “If I found that the jury prayed over whether to convict me or not, they are not my peers.”
Peer definition in dictionary.com
1. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one’s peers.
2. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
3. something of equal worth or quality: a sky-scraper without peer.
4. a nobleman.
5. a member of any of the five degrees of the nobility in Great Britain and Ireland (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron).
6. Archaic. a companion.
4,5,and 6 are out so that leave 1, 2 and 3. Definition 3 seems to indicate a thing not people. If definition 1 then this is incorrect since belief in prayer doesn’t mean a person is considered less of a legal citizen of the US. Unless the ‘modest proposal’ I suggested earlier ever comes about.
Definition 2 then seems most likely and since the blogger doesnt consider them peers or equals then they must either be more or less. From the blog it seems unlikely that they are considered MORE equal, so they are less equal and hence, inferior.
If another person believes they would pray over a verdict they had to render at a trial, should they not infer from the blog that the blogger considers them inferior for their belief in prayer?
June 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I did a post on this and it said it had to wait to be moderated. Is it now a case that only certain posters will be allowed to post without prior vetting?
If my post ever gets allowed, it will not be read because everyone will have moved on.
So what was my offense?
What ever it was I’m sorry, I did not mean t offend anyone.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:22 am
First off, let me state that the BA is certainly entitled to his opinion of people who hold religious beliefs, and can post whatever he wants in his blog.
That said, I do not agree with those commenters who say that anyone posting a dissenting opinion should point their browsers somewhere else.
Someone once told me that the internet will eventually degenerate into a place where people holding same opinion reinforce it by reading ONLY each other’s blogs. IMHO, I think that is the last thing the BA would want.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Probably BA’s bald assertion that “prayer doesn’t work” is what is at the heart of the issue for believers. After all, prayer is one of the pillars of Christianity given that it is supposed to be a Christian’s direct line to the Almighty.
There are many Christians who don’t believe in the “big miracles”, like wrathful earthquakes, faith healing, divine deliverance, etc, but they do still believe that prayer works on a smaller level. That can be anything from praying for strength to get through a troubled time to praying that others would see the error of their ways. What believers tend to forget is that this would still involve some sort of miraculous intervention, albeit on the level of tweaking a few neurons or slightly modifying the flow of hormones though the body. If you say that prayer does not work on that level, then you are essentially saying that prayer has no power to do anything of significance.
Given that Christianity is supposed to involve an intimate relationship which a personal deity, then if prayer doesn’t work, ever, it directly implies that Christianity is nothing but a sham since you might as well be talking to an imaginary friend. I can certainly see why some Christians would take offense at this comments.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:29 am
gerrsun,
So let me get this straight. The BA references “jury of peers” and you bounce from the legal definition (1), to the second definition because it doesn’t quite fit. Instead, you might assume that he used the term incorrectly, but clearly meaning it in the “legal” sense.
In fact, that was done early in the comments and the BA replied that he was unaware of the exact legal definition. I have found Mr. Plait to be quite honest with his own mistakes. It is refreshing.
You have traveled a long way to be insulted here.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I can see why they might take offence, but wouldn’t it be in their best interest to enlighten the poor, lost atheist with the logic and reason that differentiates how praying to a personal deity is different from talking to an imaginary friend, rather than saying “well you suck, you’re picking on me” and storming off to talk to the imaginary friend and ask that said friend save the atheist from / speed the atheist to some punishment?
June 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Sticks, The blog software the site uses has certain filters that result in automatic moderation of posts – it can be hard to figure out exactly why a post gets sucked up by those filters. Sometimes it is vulgarity, sometimes a link, sometimes a problem of some sort with the e-mail address of the poster, and sometimes it’s unfathomable. The idea of the filters it to prevent spam and over the top vulgarity (depending on how you’ve configured them of course).
I would be highly suprised to find that the BA has marked you for censorship – that really doesn’t seem to be his thing. He’s kind of about the open sharing of ideas – even if those ideas prove to be specious. Of course, should the idea espoused be pure hogwash you can also count on having that pointed out to you.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I’m not insulted at all.Not possibly.
I only clarified the definitions of a ‘peer’ and which definition was meant. Definition 1 or 2 are the only two that seem to fit. If 1 was what was meant then the implication is that they do NOT have the same legal status because of their beliefs in prayer. This seems to be a matter for the court to determine.
I’d be interested in it as well as it opens all sorts of issues up.
If it’s true then if you close your eyes during a jury verdict are you required to state that you are just resting your eyes, or meditating else you will be struck from the jury pool?
Will a jury pool have to be monitored before a trial to detemine if they are indeed ‘rational’?
As for traveling, life is a journey not a destination. Or is it a highway?
June 14th, 2007 at 11:16 am
>>>Laguna2, Darth Robo
It;’s not a matter of me liking it or not. Its a matter of it being interesting or not. Never mind. The main point is: im surprised how an adult, educated man like BA is quite often so silly about OBVIOUS stuff. Like a 15yo discovering how our world and society are strange… I mean come on. It’s so …American. Hence the more and more popular saying in Europe: you Americans are silly. LOL
or me its on the same level as the GOP candidates taking the Bible literally, or the (reported) fact, that more than 60% of republican senators do NOT consider evolution to be factual. again – LOL
June 14th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Wow. The conversation sure seems to be all over the place on what seems to me to be a rather simple issue.
The jury was supposed to base their decision on the facts and the law. The end.
They didn’t.
That is a problem.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:22 am
To me, the jury’s prayers are a sign of kindness and sincerity – of compassion for both parties and a wish to do the best they could. The members of the population will never all agree about everything (in fact, about anything), so I look for honest effort, which these people seem to have given. Let us not flagellate each other over every point of disagreement. Furthermore, in light of their feeling that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof, they reached the legally correct verdict.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:37 am
But does compassion have any place in the courtroom, justice is suppossed to be blind, is she not?
And what of compassion for the family who lost a little girl? They are to be resigned to ‘Bad things just happen.’ closure?
If the facts show the man guilty, then he is guilty is he not? The implication from the news article are that the man would have been found guilty if not for the compassion of the jurors. The article is just a summary of the outcome so we can’t know the entirity of the trial but that is the implication.
So in this instance, the jurors used compassion borne of their ‘beliefs’ to aquit someone irregardless of the facts.
So their beliefs provide them compassion where the law is to have none?
June 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
2nd Attempt at repost (I am unable to provide sources a it seems all my supporting evidence links are banned so have pointed out where they are banned – please use google to try and find them since I am not permitted to post any links where as other can with impunity.)
It always behoves us to look at more than one source and in this one at click 2 com (Link BANNED)
it says
The idea that a quick prayer and suddenly the verdict is brought in, does not seem sustainable from that account. According to other accounts, they spent 4 hours, then spent the night in a hotel and continued their deliberation. During that time they had prayers. I suspect the reason they did this can be found in James 1:5 where if you want wisdom, then ask God. It was therefore a request for wisdom to carry out their jury duty, not the casting of bones.
Incidentally the Chron .c om account looks suspiciously like this one from the Christian Post
(Link BANNED)
An obviously biased source. I have seen this kind of thing before, it is lazy journalism. Someone has copied, but I am not sure who copied who, but I suspect it was the Chron . com who copied from the Christian newsletter as it would seem sensational in a tabloid, but “So what†in a Christian magazine.
Phil’s ire needs to be directed at sloppy reporting
As a matter of interest, there was a murder case in the UK that was appealed, and one of the grounds for the appeal was that during the deliberations, some of the jurors had tried to hold a seance to see if they could contact the murder victim. I did try and look this up, but could not find it. I vaguely remember that the the accused was convicted on a retrial, but don’t quote me on that.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
First, let me preface my comment – as if anyone could stop me at this point – by writing that I’m neither a lawyer (haven’t played one on TV, either) nor am I involved in any legal profession. Also, I tend not to be as analytical and detail-oriented as Dr. BA and others who are regular posters to this blog. (Yes, I’m saying in my own circumlocutory way, be gentle when I don’t have a reference to cite… because I don’t, just my Swiss-cheese-like memory.) Now that I have that out of the way…
The way the term “peer” is used in legalisms such as “jury of peers” and the way the the general population uses it differ quite a bit. I won’t pretend to speak for everyone at large, but the way I would use “peer” would be to refer to someone with my socio-economic background, my educational background, life experiences, my professional background, beliefs and age, among many other types of population descriptors and discriminators. In other words, someone I would consider more or less like myself. If I remember correctly, the term “peer”, as used when referring to jury composition, assumes a much narrower definition and refers only to those in one’s general geographic area, regardless of any differences among population discriminators.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Okay, let’s look at it this way:
and then this:
If someone is “ninety-eight percent” innocent, according to the evidence, the remaining two percent must be pretty damning for them to have to pray for guidance in a verdict. I haven’t seen what that evidence was, but everyone seems okay with the verdict, even the prosecutor. In that case, the whole thing was a miscarriage of justice. If the prosecutor didn’t care if the man was freed, why did he attempt to prosecute him in the first place? If everyone is so happy about the verdict, why did they have to pray for guidance during the deliberation?
And Sticks, those are direct quotes, from one of the jurors. It doesn’t matter what the media says, if juries start convicting a freeing according to their religious convictions, there goes justice. The verdict should be according to the evidence presented to you, not the voices in your head.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Since this string has turned into a semi-civics course, it is worth rememebering that in addition to the term “jury of your peers” not appearing in the Constitution, neither does the term “separation of church and state.” Instead, the 1st amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In other words, the Constitution is neutral on religion, not averse to it, as many seem to presume.
Also, BA, please move out of Boulder. It is indeed a beautiful location. But its inhabitants are, to be perfectly fair, total freaks. Living there too long leads people to believe that the world thinks the same way they do (kinda like an infection).
June 14th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
gerrsun,
Apparently, the article left you and me with different impressions. I got the impression that the defendant would have been found not guilty by any reasonable jury because there was little or no evidence of fault on the part of the driver. The judge would have instructed the jury about the “beyond reasonable doubt” criterion.
“Kissam said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove Cook behaved recklessly. ‘Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) being correct….He did all he could….nobody wants to put someone away for an accident.’”
There seems to have been a lot of doubt about the validity of the charges right from the beginning. “Diepraam came under fire early in the case when he indicted Cook for murder in the girl’s death….Diepraam said it was a difficult case from the get-go.’” I took “difficult” to mean “weak.” Diepraam goes on to say, “But to honor Ruth we had to try….”
If I had had the impresssion that the jury had thought the driver was culpable but had acquitted him based on their prayers (possibly what you thought), I would not have written my previous post.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
The Court of Appeal case Sticks was referring to is R v Young [1995] 2 W.L.R. 430, the defendant appealed against conviction on two counts of murder. In considering their verdicts, the jury were required to stay overnight in a hotel. Four jurors met in the hotel and purported to communicate with one of the victims by means of an ouija board. Three of the jurors were upset by the proceedings and the matter was discussed with the other jurors before they returned to court. A unanimous verdict of guilty was returned on each count. Later one of the jurors provided a solicitor with a written statement. As a result the defendant, Young, appealed on the ground that there had been a material irregularity at the trial under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s. 2(1)(c) . Leave to appeal was granted to determine the limits of investigation under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 s. 8 . The appeal was held decreeing that (1) the prohibition contained in s. 8(1) of the 1981 Act applied equally to the Court of Appeal so that no inquiry could be made as to a jury’s deliberations while in the jury room. However, the court was entitled to inquire as to what happened at the hotel as this represented a hiatus between sessions in a jury room during which the jury as a whole was deliberating and (2) what occurred was not merely objectionable but amounted to a serious irregularity. There was a real danger that some jurors may have been influenced by it and that the appellant was thereby prejudiced. The conviction was to be quashed and a retrial ordered.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Which is as much about Juriors deliberating on their own and concerting facts not in evidence as anything else
June 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Chris JT, where did you find that, I tried the search engine on the BBC news site and got Zip (I suppose 1995 was around while the only browser was Mosaic – remember that!!!)
June 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Mark Y re: Separation of Church and State…
Hold on there just a minute fella. Let’s make sure we have the full story here.
True enough, those words do not appear in the Constitution, but the principle is most certainly there, and Jefferson most definitely said so not once, but at least twice…
“…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, 1802
“State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” – Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)
June 14th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Trial juries are usually chosen by the parties involved, not assigned without any input from the defendant. I’m not sure if anyone has ever tried to screen a jury for things like “Would you pray about the right descision to make” or whether questions about a juror’s religion are allowed or not allowed (and in which places). They should be allowed, in my opinion. If such quesitons are allowed then you could still get stuck with jurors you don’t like, though, so I suggest finding a Cousin Vinny.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Hey Sticks, i’m a law student so have easy access to law case reports!
June 14th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
JanieBelle, the problem with these quotes is that in their expanded context Jefferson is, if I remember correctly, always talking about the state not establishing a state church (think the emporer Constantine, or Henry VIII, and so on). It is reasonable to think that this is what he means by “separation of church and state.”
June 14th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
JanieBelle wrote “True enough, those words do not appear in the Constitution, but the principle is most certainly there,”
Many point to the “No Relgious Test” clause in Article VI, Section 3 as a clear endorsement of the sepration of church and state.
A bunch of American guys wrote: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
June 14th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
ok, I skipped a bunch of posts (I’m being naughty at work).
forgive me if these have been addressed.
1) the jury as a whole prayed for guidance. They didn’t pray for the victim or the defendant – they prayed for the answer. In no way does this belong in court proceedings. I’ve got no problem if they pray for somebody’s soul or any other imaginary life-form attribute, but in a legal proceeding involving a jury, the final determination is *supposed* to be based on findings of fact.
I think that’s why BA is irate over this. It doesn’t matter that they’ve probably have acquitted anyway – they still sat down [i]as a group[/i] and performed an act that is outside the bounds of proper jury behaviour.
Individuals can pray in the same manner, as part of a jury. While I think such an action is questionable, I don’t think it’s possible to prevent juror 5 from sitting back and praying in the confines of his head.
2) I agree with Stark… meditation != prayer. His reasoning is pretty solid, too.
3) LabLemming (and others)- the article specifically states they prayed for guidance. That’s not an attempt to become calm and rational, that’s asking The Big Blob In The Sky for the answer, evidence be damned.
4) ShaneKillian – as a defendant, sure. If I were the judge, Prosecutor, or anybody on the victim’s side of the aisle, I’d be screaming to have a mistrial declared
5) JustAl – I was going along fine – but I think you got one little thing wrong. Near the end of the post, you state:
[quote] That’s the only question. If you have no firm conclusion, that simply means acquittal.[/quote]
If you can’t decide, that leads to a hung jury and the DA’s decision on whether to re-try the defendant.
6) and finally, Those of you hammering BA for what he writes: get over it. This is *his* forum. He can say what he wants to say, the way he wants it said. As it happens, at least 75% of the time I agree with him. What disagreements I have are not worth getting upset over. I either write to him personally (which I’ve never done over a disagreement), or ignore it entirely since it’s a matter of opinion and I know he’s wrong – but I’m not going to change his mind anyway
So, instead of attacking him personally for loudly declaring his anti-superstition stance, you are quite free to go read other blogs, or, heaven help us, start your own!
(Come to think of it, Dr. P probably doesn’t need me coming to his defense. He’s at least as smart as I am, and probably more so. But it makes ME feel better.)
June 14th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Please allow me to differ, Nate. Jefferson held a very dim view of organized religion in general, and Christianity in particular. It is quite clear from his writings that he most definitely thought that religious meddling in civil affairs was the bane of The Republic, and the establishment of a State Church was just the tip of the iceburg.
The common thread to all of his writings on the subject is that no one should be judged civilly by the religious views of another, that mysticism and superstition are at odds with reason, and that while every person should be free to believe whatever silly thing that person wants, no religion should have legal ascendancy or preference to any other, because they are all horsepuckey.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Y’know, for all the bitchin’ about the BA writing about topics other than strictly astronomical events, it sure seems like this is the type of post that always gets the most comments, and presumably the most interest by extension.
Just a thought.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
While quoting TJ, this one is from Positive Athieism.org site.
“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it’s benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.
– Thomas Jefferson, to Moses Robinson, 1801, ME 10:237″
So TJ likes Christianity over others as long as the Jerry Falwell types weren’t involved? He’s got MY vote in the next election.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Screeww the SSI and the blue day MOOOOn. Just fix the G-damed Hubble you terd brains!
Sheesh!! who do you have to shag to get a friekkin rocket scientist to pay attention?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I don’t know for sure, but you might consider starting with the rocket scientist.
Just a thought.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Late to the dance again.
Personally I agree with the B.A. totally. However I can see why there is some hostility. The jurors seem like nice, honest, ethical people. And for once we actually got to hear about a group praying for the wisdom to do right despite their emotions and rage, rather than a group praying for the strength to “do what has to be done.” They actually prayed for the strength to follow their consciences instead of the strength to ignore them, the latter being all too common in America these days. The jury was just, so I can see where pointing out their irrational means for achieving that justice would sting a bit.
Though as others have pointed out, the fact that it may be viewed as insensitive doesn’t make it wrong. I am a pretty vocal non-believer, quite annoying to some people I know. I wonder what verdict I would have received through the power of prayer. What would the power of prayer have in store for anyone else but a fellow good christian?
Also, almost totally off-topic, but related. In our “free” society, many things beside religion are subject to all manner of hysteria. If the driver had tested positive for even a trace amount of marijuana, even if he hadn’t used in weeks and never on the job, he would be spending most of the rest of his days in prison because of drug hysteria. And no one, not good christians, not the hardest skeptic, would give a pair of dingo’s kidneys.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I have taken your advice, and removed you from my bookmarks. Best wishes. I will pray for you.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I love it when they absolutely feel the need to say that they won’t read you anymore.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
And now we see the beauty of religious ostracizing. Since you don’t agree with their beliefs then they will boycott your site and refuse to listen to another word. A perfect example of the throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Anyone else see the irony of people chucking the whole site because Phil points out an unacceptable action of supplanting rational thought with prayer?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Wow, I’ve got 25 post to read to catch up, but before I do, I wanted to post my two cents.
I’ve been coming to BA’s site for years. I remember back in college (sometime in the late 90’s) coming here and reading up some great articles, agrueing with hoax belevers in the forums, and trying to figure out what the frak Hub was always trying to say. I’m a longtime fan of the site. I’m also a Christian. I don’t plan to stop reading the BA’s blog anytime soon. It is his blog and he has the right to say whatever he wants to say (I may be a Christian, but I’m also a libertarian, as well as a poor speller, so expect misspellings).
Most of my issues aren’t really with BA. He’s come out several times to say that his beef isn’t with Christianity, but with the fundamentalist who insist on using it to subdue the masses and push their agenda on everyone else. That being said, there are several people who post here regularly that beleave that any religous beleif at all is a sign of unintelligence or woowooism.
To all those that think that all beleavers are nutsos: There are many of us out there, and I’m sure some on this board, who don’t follow a literal interpretation of the bible. We understand science, we accept it and we embrace it. But deep down, there is something in us that accepts God as well. We don’t fudge science to meet our expectations of God, we instead hope to come to know God better by understanding his creatation. I, and many others like me, would be prefectly happy to keep God out of science class rooms. I feel that Christians would do much better service to humanity and to god if we spent more time showing the compassion that Christ showed towards all people, instead of trying to force feed our religion down people’s throats.
Which brings me to my final point. To all those Christians getting fumed by BA and all these post, keep this in mind: BA and many of those like him, would not have to take such a hardline position on these issues if it were not for decades (or more likely centuries) of our “borhters” who feel that they should subject everyone to our beliefs against their will. Somewhat ironic for people who worship a God who obviously felt that free will was of great importance to the make up of human beings.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:55 am
“I have taken your advice, and removed you from my bookmarks. Best wishes. I will pray for you.”
Shawn, I have no idea actually if Phil is an atheist, agnostic or theist, but either way, what makes you so special to comment on someone else’s relationship with the almighty? Remember the saying – “That’s between you and your God.”
JanieBelle:
“Wow. The conversation sure seems to be all over the place on what seems to me to be a rather simple issue.
The jury was supposed to base their decision on the facts and the law. The end.
They didn’t.
That is a problem.”
Spot on.
And spot on Aerimus.
June 15th, 2007 at 5:38 am
I’m a simple girl.
June 15th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Interesting. The post I made refuting the bolded Thomas Jefferson quote was removed.
June 15th, 2007 at 6:25 am
JanieBelle: The jury…supposed to base their decision on the facts and the law.
First imaginary Christian: Christians are supposed to do as the Bible commands and instructs.
Second imaginary Christian: God shows you what to do if you are sincere.
Imaginary Muslim: Muslims are supposed to read and obey the Koran.
Imaginary atheist: People are supposed to use their brains and intellect.
Oprah: People should follow their hearts.
What does one do if there is a conflict, as there inevitably will be? Where does one place one’s deepest trust and loyalty? Do we have different heirarchies of “supposed to’s”, differences that can even lead to war and mayhem?
Is this the heart of the current discussion? I am trying to get to the core of the issue (forgetting about the whole “peer” part).
June 15th, 2007 at 9:28 am
gerrsun– I didn’t remove any posts, and didn’t see anything in the moderation queue. I hate mysteries like that, but there’s not much I can do about it. Sorry.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:18 am
@gerrsun:
Is this the one you’re speaking of?
If so, it appeared two after the one from Janiebelle that you were refuting.
Just one small point, though. If you remove the “rags”, wouldn’t Christianity become a secular movement?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Lost one in the queue, Dr. BA. Coudja fish it out for me?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Hmm.. Might be because I used a bad word. Feel free to edit.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Odd, in that the comment was on the blog for several hours yesterday but missing today. It came right after JanieBelle’s comment with the bolded Jefferon quote
In short, this link
http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html
indicates that at least as far as the Monticello Library is concered it is an unfounded quote. As they remark, Jefferson must have found some value in Christianity as he put together several bibles.
I also searched for other references to it and a site called explicit athiest also indicated the quote could not be found anywhere and recommended it not be used further.
There was also a link from the Monticello.org link to a page about Jefferson religious beliefs. Perhaps an over-zealous filter or moderator toasted the comment because of that.
MY second post on Jefferson seems to indicate that he felt Christianity a blessing, if can use such a word on this site, to freedom of thought and liberty.
In short it really doesnt matter much, this link is on the second page, and give nthe short attention span of most web users….
Moving on…
June 15th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I didn’t see anything in the queue, JB.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Moving back…
And Berlzebub, I’m no Christian scholar so my answer would only be as I see it and likely very very poor. Also, Im not sure how much theolgy can exist on this board before it implodes. So message me if you’d like my answer. Im gerrsun on the forum too.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
crap. Thanks anyway, Dr. BA.
Thanks for the link and the heads up, gerrsun.
My lost comment was short and fairly inconsequential anyway. The long and short of it was something like:
The Big TJ was down with the J-Man, “Do unto others” and that kind of stuff. It was the voodoo that was added later to control the masses that He had a problem with.
I figure today he might call it “Extraneous BS” (that was the bad word), but I’d hate to put such common words in His oh so eloquent mouth.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
JanieBelle, you crack me up! I love smart women. You rock!
June 15th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Well, I suppose I haven’t much to add. Over the past couple of days, I’ve thought of several things I wanted to address, but I see (after taking several minutes to get caught up through all these posts) that a lot of what I’d planned to say has already been said by others.
Still, my brief two cents:
Why do people who hate the fact that Phil has (GASP!) opinions about various things, and treat him like some sort of criminal for having those opinions? Even if, for the sake of argument, an opinion of his seems distressing to a reader, does that make all of the other factual information he’s posted in the past moot, or wrong?
I can sympathise a little with some posters who’ve pointed out that there are a lot more opinion-based posts here than in the past, but there are still a lot of science posts that aren’t rendered unreadable because of that. In other words, the facts presented are still just facts; focus on them, instead of the opinions!
Sheesh. Everyone wants freedom of speech & religion, as long as it’s their particular speech & religion, but woe (and dare I say damnation?) to anyone else who might exercise those same rights. That’s nonsense. Whether I agree with Phil or not, I will defend to the end his right to opine as he sees fit. Whether I read those opinions or not depends upon how civilly he voices those opinions, but I’ll still not make some pious claim that he shouldn’t be voicing opinions.
Oh, and like JanieBelle, I also find it interesting that these opinion posts end up getting the most responses, and the most divisive responses at that, usually ending with an announcement of boycotting this site.
Hmm… so much for being brief.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:45 am
To ‘lighten up’ Phil will need to go stand on a planetary body that has less mass than the moon. Bah, weve already sent man to the moon. Phil, heavy up! Write like you have a vacation home on Neptune! Write like your laptop is experiencing 5G’s! You are here to point out BAD SCIENCE, and all of the religions of this world have serious evidence pointing in that direction.
We need to hammer all forms of poor thinking when ever, where ever we find it. Silvia, Uri, the Pope, Mohamed, Jesus, even the moderate leader like Dali need to be shown how their ‘beliefs’ have no place in the real world. We need to unite, teach, learn, be compasionate but firm in our denunciation all bad science.
Heavy up Phil
June 16th, 2007 at 6:56 am
You should ease up a little. You know, the same way religious folks do when it comes to gay marriage, prayer in school, stem cell research, abortion, tax funding for faith based services…
Now be a nice atheist and sit quietly in the corner while we pray over what to do about you.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:01 am
A winged monkey stops by and says…
It’s impressive to see someone pointing out a principled position on a situation that most people would ignore.
My compliments on your attempts to provoke thinking.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Well, if, as one of the jurors states, 98% of the evidence points towards acquittal, why the need to pray at all? Sounds like the jury was looking for a way to convict the guy anyway, to satisfy their sense of revenge. Maybe they were hoping god would tell them to open up a good ol’ can of biblical whoop-ass on him.
In any case, I would be extremely miffed if I were on that jury and they expected me to go along with their “prayer for guidance” nonsense. A couple years back, I was a jury member in a murder trial, and only one person brought up any reference to religion. She was a bit vague about it, but it seemed to me that if she followed her religious beliefs, it would have led her to convict, when the evidence was pointing towards acquittal. The trial I was on was also in Texas, so it was perhaps a bit surprising that religion wasn’t talked about more. Even though it was a fairly diverse group, I’m pretty sure I was the only atheist in the room. In any case, if any felt the need to pray over it, they did it on their own time.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Hey Phil – I’m sorry you’re taking some flak over this. I’m right with you on this one. I wish someone had reminded the jury that the evidence is supposed to lead them to a verdict, not god. :S
June 16th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Those of you who are attacking BA for saying ‘prayer doesn’t work’, should pause, and imagine how you would feel if, rather than ‘God led us to make the right decision’, a juror had said:
‘We tossed the finger bones of the spring child 3 times, and 3 times they pointed South, the direction of innocence. And thus we acquitted the accused.’
June 16th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Phil – this country needs a lot less prayer and a lot more thought. Good post.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Funny how not a single one of the god-botherers have actually offered to defend the idea of prayer. Seems on some level they know it’s ineffective mumbo jumbo, they just don’t like having to be reminded of that fact. “Please, Phil, don’t point how the silliness of my superstitions! If you don’t, I’ll be forced to shut me eyes and stick my fingers in my ears and not read your blog anymore!”
June 16th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I support ya Phil!
June 16th, 2007 at 7:34 am
I’m going to pray for all religious types to find peace and freedom from the whims of an imaginary creator by embracing atheism.
So, look out!
June 16th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Given God’s track record in the Bible, no one should be praying to that psychopathic deity-bastard.
Praying to an entity that is only known by hearsay, at a trial that is about getting beyond hearsay, is not a good idea.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:41 am
I’ve read the article twice now and it disturbs me as well on several levels.
Primarily I am disturbed because in coming to a decision, a jury is supposed to evaluate the facts laid before them using reason and logic. Praying is not using reason and by definition it defies logic.
I also noticed that the defendent, who was seen “praying with his attorney” before the verdict, is apparently (I’m guessing) a Christian like those on the jury. Would this outcome have been different had he been an avowed Muslim… or Buddhist… or how about an atheist? The fact that they revealed their faith and religion and used it in this court case opens up the possibility that religion (specifically the faith of the defendent) may have played a part in there decision to find him not guilty. That is not reason, that is bias.
Finally, what if there had been an atheist on the jury, or perhaps someone of another religion who felt uncomfortable about the prayer? Would the opinions of that person been given equal voice in this matter after his or her religious affiliations (or lack thereof) had been discovered? I would hope they would but I doubt it. I know that under those conditions, I would have probably not revealed that I am agnostic for fear that my words and arguements would carry less weight with the God-fearing Christians in the group. This fear is not baseless. I experience it all the time.
There is a separation of Church and State for a reason. Our justice system is part of that “State”. It is part of our government. For the protection of all, religion and faith, and the prayer that is part of it, can not be part of the legal deliberation process.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:48 am
It is worth noting that the concept of “freedom of speech” only means the government won’t get on you for spouting bollocks. Regular citizens are more than entitled to put stupidity in its place, irrespective of any notions of “free speech”.
Many people forget that little reality.
So if you’re a religious yahoo, the government can’t put you in jail for saying that atheists go to hell, but Joe Atheist might call you a nasty name and comment unfavourably on your parentage… or even kick you off a message board.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Really are these yokles serious? They shouldn’t have prayed. If thats the case, then I hope that I get a jury like this should I ever wind up on the wrong side of the law.
Of course when I see crapola like this, all I can think is
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I agree with Phil, and I’d also like to comment on all these drama queens that have to make a point of coming on the blog and posting ‘I don’t like it when you make fun of something that I believe in, so I am leaving. You should only write on your blog what I want you to write on your blog.’
Kind of reminds me of when Isaac Hayes quit South Park. He had no problem when they made fun of every other religion, but when it was his he took his ball and went home.
How very mature of you all.
I suspect its an ego thing, they either want you to beg them to stay, or they want to think of you being in some way upset that they’ve gone. If it wasn’t an ego thing, then why do they go out of their way simply to post that they won’t be coming back? And why do we all know that they do come back to read what people may have written about their leaving?
Take your ego and go ya big baby.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:41 am
So far as I understand it is simply illegal in the US for a jury to let themselves get influenced in their decision by a person not belonging to the jury.
So as long as this ‘God’ was not elected as a jury member (and it certainly would not be a ‘peer’), if you believe in it to make a decision led by ‘God’ would be as much a crime as to make the decision led by ‘Al Capone’.
Of course if one considers that this ‘God’ does not exist and that it is impossible to be led by a non existent being it would only be an attempted crime.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Wait a minute. Prayer doesn’t work, right? So if these jurors were really led by their prayers rather than the evidence, shouldn’t we expect their decisions to go every which way, according to their individual gut instincts, rather than toward a unanimous verdict?
Given that they deliberated for several hours and that one of the jurors pointed to what 98% of the evidence pointed to, it looks to me like the jurors did make their decision using evidence and their own reason, but gave God the credit anyway. Not the best thing, but a far cry from consulting a ouija board or crystal balls.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Jurors who want to use prayer to arrive at a verdict should be dismissed. Religious practices have no place in legal trials.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Maybe if they weren’t encouraged by swearing on a bible, this sort of nonsense wouldn’t be an issue?
June 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Geeze, it’s 2007 – are they actually letting mental incompetents on juries?? How can you trust someone to be fair and just if they’re consulting with The Tooth Fairy or asking themselves “What would Spider-Man do…?” This is just ridiculous.
If I’d been in that jury I’d have stormed out of there screaming “MIS-TRIAL!”
June 16th, 2007 at 11:06 am
People who are delusional should not be allowed to serve on a jury. Isn’t sanity a prerequisite for for jury duty? I guess not.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
J.J. Ramsey,
Please explain that comment. I don’t see the difference.
Each time I read the article it sounds even more like it could accurately be paraphrased:
“God told us he was innocent, so we ruled ‘not guilty’. Oh yeah, and there was some evidence, too.”
I’m not OK with that.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Sigh.
Thanks, Phil, for saying it.
‘Course there’s backlash. Whaddya gonna do? People are all good with superstitions being called superstitions, right up until you point out theirs…
June 16th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Phil -
I wanted to leave a few words of support. Obviously it is your blog and you may write in it what you want.
What would happen if the jury found out later that the defendant was really guilty? Does God lie?
June 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Rich
People who are delusional should not be allowed to serve on a jury. Isn’t sanity a prerequisite for for jury duty? I guess not
So you would have agreed with the old Soviet policy of saying anyone who followed a religion was mentally ill and sent them to the gulags in Siberia?
I have not criticized Phil for what he puts on his blog as he sees it, I merely advised that he does not get caught by sloppy journalism.
By some fluke of the process, a jury was constructed all of people from one specific religion, the attorneys on either side did not challenge this pre-trial. As a jury they took quite a while to deliberate and had to be sequestrated in a hotel, which sound like they were being thorough. To do this kind of task suggests that a fair amount of wisdom is needed, so being of a religious bent they followed James 1:5 to ask for this. Asking for wisdom, not an answer.
The scenario where they get an answer instantly does not seem to square with the account given, there is no account of being deadlocked. The story is reported by a religiously affiliated periodical, and thus makes great emphasis on the religious theme. This is then copied word for word by a newspaper, without removing the religious stuff. Then Phil spots it.
Sloppy and lazy news reporting on the part of the newspaper makes it look worse than it was.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“‘Not the best thing, but a far cry from consulting a ouija board or crystal balls.’
Please explain that comment. I don’t see the difference.”
Exactly. You either get it or you don’t, I guess. If you’re going to pray for the outcome of a trial, you might as well sacrifice a goat to Baal while you’re at it.
Thanks for simply what should be obvious to folks, Phil – but obviously ain’t yet. As someone else said, we non-believers shouldn’t have to sit in the corner quietly with our hands folded as this sort of nonsense gets slung around.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Recently, someone told me “I’ll pray for X“, to which I replied, “Why? What do you think will happen?” This story confirms my suspicion that I should probably make this a Standard Reply ™.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
One of the commenters here has a point: stick to ASTRONOMY and SCIENCE, otherwise your blog will become less and less interesting,
Quite correct. This is why Pharyngula must be the least read blog at scienceblogs.com…
June 16th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Thanks for simply saying what should be obvious to folks, Phil – but obviously ain’t yet.
- that’s what I meant to say above – doh!
June 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
That’s right, jw – I doubt http://richarddawkins.net/ gets many hits either.
June 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
As they remark, Jefferson must have found some value in Christianity as he put together several bibles.
Jefferson’s Bible cut out the religious dogma and supernatural elements out, including most of the Gospels and all of the epistles of Paul, Acts, and Revelations. While Jefferson was interested in Jesus, he identified himself as a Unitarian and didn’t seem to find most of the religion founded after the death of Jesus too valuable.
MY second post on Jefferson seems to indicate that he felt Christianity a blessing, if can use such a word on this site, to freedom of thought and liberty.
I don’t think the man who was constantly denounced by Christians for creating the West’s first law supporting religious freedom, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and who said that “the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses” thought Christianity supported freedom of thought and liberty. He also wrote that “Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christanity,” Jefferson wrote, “have been burnt, tortured, fined and improisoned,” the effect of which was “To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites to support roguery and error all over the earth.”
June 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Jeez. I’s like witnessing a drive by shooting here. With the perps circling the block. The man can blog about whatever he likes. Especially when I agree with him.
Back to lurking.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Man, what a boring way to make a non-evidence-based decision. The jury could at least have thrown the I Ching, spilled a sheep’s entrails over their conference table, checked to see if Eris was in the defendant’s ascendant, or offered libations of wine to Dionysus before engaging in a riotous bacchanal.
Better yet, do them all in order. That’s sure a better way to spend a Thursday afternoon than keeping your head bowed in reverential silence, and it has exactly the same basis in fact.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
JanisBlue “Please explain that comment. I don’t see the difference.”
Simple. In the case of using the ouija board or crystal ball to decide the case, the decision would actually hinge on the outcome of the usage of the ouija board or crystal ball. Here, the prayer seems to be immaterial to the decision on the case. Obviously, the jurors believe otherwise, but look at what they actually did. As I noted before, they deliberated at length, and one of them explicitly pointed out where the evidence led. This looks suspiciously like the situation in one form of the “Stone Soup” fable, where the stone (i.e. prayer) gets the credit for making the soup, even though it is entirely the product of what the villagers added to it (i.e. the actual efforts of the jurors). Calling their decision “non-evidence” based, as Blake Stacey did, is acting as if the soup were only water and stone, which requires a very selective reading of the article.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I agree with Rick above, and I side with Phil on this one. I think that every rational person here would agree that if they found him guilty based on “consulting god” rather than weighing evidence, you’d jump on it. But because he was found innocent, you think, the irrational behavior didn’t harm anyone. Let’s not forget that there’s a dead girl involved in this. What if a suspected serial killer was found innocent by a jury that simply prayed for the answer? Would you trust it?
I think you have to be consistent in this and not let what the decision was or whether it was correct color your perspective. We need a system that is based on evidence that we can all see and evaluate.
I know for a fact that every one that has felt “insulted” at Phil’s complaint about their methodology would appeal the decision if a jury found themselves guilty of something based upon prayer than evidence.
About the “stick to science” comments above – that is exactly what Phil was asking them to do – stick to science, stick to what we can know, and forget the irrational. I find that people who find science the most personally unsettling are the ones that say that scientists are being “too opinionated.” Apparently, some people want their intellectuals to count beetles or asteroids and shut up.
Don’t shut up, Dr. Plait.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
LCR’s comment reflects one aspect of my discomfort with that article: the blatant religiosity displayed at the trial. The other is the blatant religiosity of the reporting.
The opening sentence of the article completely ignores the actual job of the jury (evaluation of evidence), and the whole concept of justice. Jurors “fought the urge to punish … and prayed to God instead … before finding him not guilty.” The writer is implying that divine mercy and/or Christian forgiveness played the primary role in the acquittal. Crappy journalism, misplaced religiosity, I’m not for it either way.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
That doesn’t follow. You can be both inferior and superior to me at the same time. For instance, you can be better at football and worse at hockey. The “peer” thing seems to be a grab bag of abilities and qualities and so on. In that case, anybody who is not a peer may be just different. (Though it takes a bigger man than me to not interpret that as ‘inferior’.)
(Re: the ouija board)
As for the second, you don’t know that, and as for the first I am sure the other jurors were (drum roll) present in spirit.
Not true. But all theists are irrational beings.
The Smalkowski case. From atheists.org:
June 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
So instead of asking God to tell them the verdict, they asked God to amp their IQ and tell them any information which might be useful in arriving at the verdict?
That doesn’t really seem any more reasonable.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Strawman argument.
Unless you believe that it is actually the hand of a ghost moving the pointer of a ouija board, the ouija board is as much stone soup as prayer.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Branko Collin: “Strawman argument.”
Not really. Everyone who has been arguing that the jurors were doing no better than consulting a ouija board, reading entrails, and so on, have been selectively reading the article and ignoring the signs that the jurors actually deliberated and tried to base their decision on evidence, prayers notwithstanding.
Branko Collin: “Unless you believe that it is actually the hand of a ghost moving the pointer of a ouija board, the ouija board is as much stone soup as prayer.”
You obviously missed the whole point of the stone soup analogy, which is that the credit for the soup’s nourishment was misattributed to the stone rather than to the villagers’ additions. The prayer is the stone, not the whole soup.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Speaking of astronomy, someone mentioned the Dalai Lama. Phil may well have covered this elsewhere, but it seems kind of relevant.
Apparently the Dalai Lama’s Buddhist faith teaches that the moon is a glowing light source. He relates that after looking through a telescope, he had to make a choice whether to believe the evidence after seeing the shadows of lunar mountains on the moon or to follow the authority of his faith.
He chose the evidence. Reference: http://tinyurl.com/yo4agr
Praying may make people feel better about themselves but it is still a sub-optimal way to make life decisions.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Im with phil on this one , superstition has NO PLACE in a court of law.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Nice post, Phil. It has certainly provoked discussion. You just got a new reader from Pharyngula.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
J.J. Ramsey said:
“Everyone who has been arguing that the jurors were doing no better than consulting a ouija board, reading entrails, and so on, have been selectively reading the article and ignoring the signs that the jurors actually deliberated and tried to base their decision on evidence, prayers notwithstanding.”
No, actually I do believe that the jurors deliberated over the evidence. I don’t deny that. The idea that they DIDN’T deliberate is to frightening to even consider.
But by the use of prayer, they have opened the door to the possibility that their interpretation of the evidence presented was colored by their faith. In other words, their decison was biased. Did the defendent’s religion influence their decision? Did the act of the prayer itself influence others on the jury in their decision? Religion and faith can be powerful motivators and we will never really be sure if they had an affect on the outcome of this trial. You may indeed be right, that their verdict was untouched by religious bias. Unfortunately, because they chose to incorporate prayer into a process that is supposed to be reason-based, not faith-based, the members of the jury themselves have created reasonable doubt in the soundness of their decision.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I’m amazed at the number of people who say they read your blog generally, read this blog entry, and got offended. Your Penn & Teller links didn’t get them earlier?
Thanks for a keeping up a good blog Phil. I enjoy reading it.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Wow. Phil stirred up a crapstorm … again.
Why is it ever so acceptable for Christians to disparage atheists, and our lack of belief, but when an atheist speaks up about nonsense and superstition, we’re supposed to respect their religion and not disparage the mythical god or his followers’ beliefs.
Lack of respect for beliefs (and non-belief) is a two-way street. Why SHOULD we respect the superstition? Because they’re the majority? Isn’t the Constitution clear on the fact that the American legal and political systems are predicated on the idea that the majority must protect the right of the minority to speak freely?
I say “Bravo” to Phil for speaking his mind!
June 17th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Addendum: If current population stats are correct (anywhere from 9-14% of Americans being non-believers), then at least a couple of those jurors were agnostic or atheist …
I’m wondering about THEIR reactions to being asked to pray for guidance?
Oh, wait. I forgot. Atheists are supposed to sit down and shut up.
Sorry, I’ll try to be a better infidel. Please, carry on.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Another strawman, because nobody here has been arguing this.
I understood the analogy, but my reply was sloppily worded. What I was trying to say is that the use of a ouija board to help channel their evidence based decision would be as much a ’stone’ as the use of prayer with the same outcome. Both are forms of superstition; neither do, in your analogy, shape the actual outcome.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:56 am
[...] even try to tell me that science and religion are compatible — Phil has just encountered a perfect example of why they aren’t. He’s irritated that the jury at a trial used prayer to help them come to a decision, and he [...]
June 17th, 2007 at 5:08 am
I read the article through a couple of times. It seems to me that the jurors agreed that all (98%) of the evidence indicated the driver was not guilty of any wrongdoing. What they prayed about was whether to punish him anyway.
That is very, very scary. They asked the god who told the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites whether or not to convict a man who hadn’t done anything wrong. I’m kind of surprised they decided he said no.
My thanks to Phil, and PZ, and everyone else who is not afraid to point out illogic, irrationality, and sloppy thinking wherever they see it.
June 17th, 2007 at 5:34 am
I have a hard time accepting that people think that they have the right to tell a blog-writer what topics to discuss. Phil’s a great writer and explainer, and anyone who has been reading BadAstronomy for any length of time will know that he has always been a skeptic – and skepticism can rightly be applied to religion.
And it should. If anyone is offended by a post that is skeptical of religion and points out stupid examples of its misapplication – then skip right by it and go to another one. There will be plenty of science posts, but man, think before you claim a right to censor Plait’s blog.
June 17th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Leslie C.: “It seems to me that the jurors agreed that all (98%) of the evidence indicated the driver was not guilty of any wrongdoing. What they prayed about was whether to punish him anyway.”
From what I’ve read, what the prayers were about is unclear, though when Kissam said, “Some people looked at it because a little girl was killed and wanted someone to pay,” it looks like the prayers had more to do with resisting the temptation to make someone pay, even if it was unjust.
Me: “Not really. Everyone who has been arguing that the jurors were doing no better than consulting a ouija board, reading entrails, and so on, have been selectively reading the article and ignoring the signs that the jurors actually deliberated and tried to base their decision on evidence, prayers notwithstanding.”
Branko Collin: “Another strawman, because nobody here has been arguing this.”
Ahem …
Berlezebub: “what if the story had been about tarot cards, a ouija board, or some other such nonsense?”
Blake Stacey: “Man, what a boring way to make a non-evidence-based decision. The jury could at least have thrown the I Ching, spilled a sheep’s entrails over their conference table, checked to see if Eris was in the defendant’s ascendant, or offered libations of wine to Dionysus before engaging in a riotous bacchanal.”
Blake Stacey in particular was guilty of doing what you say is a strawman.
Branko Collin: “What I was trying to say is that the use of a ouija board to help channel their evidence based decision would be as much a ’stone’ as the use of prayer with the same outcome.”
A ouija board, however, generally yields an answer, albeit a bad one. Prayer, especially of the “Lord, we pray for wisdom” or “Lord, be with this family” is far more open-ended, and doesn’t necessarily lead to any answer. It’s far easier for prayer to be a rubber stamp than it is for a ouija board or entrails reading.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:08 am
JJ Ramsey quotes: “Berlezebub: “what if the story had been about tarot cards, a ouija board, or some other such nonsense?—
Obviously Berlzebub was contrasting consulting tarot cards and ouija boards with consulting the Christian make-belief sky daddy, not with looking at the evidence. And I read Blake Stacey’s reply as “(looking at evidence) times (asking the invisible pink unicorn) equals (makeing a non-evidence-based decision)”.
To finish one of your own sentences for you: “Everyone who has been arguing that the jurors were doing no better than consulting a ouija board, reading entrails, and so on,” has been arguing that praying is the same as consulting a ouija board and so on. Now you may disagree with that, but that doesn’t automatically mean that people have been arguing that praying supplanted looking at the evidence.
Whether you believe in Jehova or not, and whether you believe prayer works or not, the jurors did something they shouldn’t have done, namely they looked or tried to look at more than just the facts before them. They specifically prayed for guidance. It’s comparable to a juror opening a window and asking passers-by for guidance; they may or may not receive an answer, the answer may or may not make sense, and they may or may not use that answer in reaching their verdict — it’s still wrong.
Not necessarily. Have you ever played with a ouija board?
June 17th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Shane: The article is clear: they did NOT do this. They most certainly DID make their decision based on the evidence (Kissam said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove Cook behaved recklessly. “Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) being correct,†Kissam said. “He did all he could do.â€). What they prayed for was, basically, rationality (fought the urge to punish him for the “tragic accident†and prayed instead for guidance).
Me: Why did they need to pray then? The evidence was there. Why not go with that? After all, that’s what they swore to do when they became jurors. Even if it didn’t satisfy their “urge to punish” (no doubt brought to them by their wonderful religious training), they promised to base their decision on the facts. Not on urges — this one or any other.
Nance
June 17th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Were the jurors just unable to trust their own judgement in the matter?
Nance
June 17th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Branko Collin: “Obviously Berlzebub was contrasting consulting tarot cards and ouija boards with consulting the Christian make-belief sky daddy,”
A word to the wise: Use of the term “sky daddy” is usually a sign that one’s criticism of theists is about at the level of “teh thiests is stoopid.” I don’t recommend it.
Branko Collin: “And I read Blake Stacey’s reply as “(looking at evidence) times (asking the invisible pink unicorn) equals (makeing a non-evidence-based decision)—
That would almost be a charitable reading of what Stacey wrote, except that it imputes some screwed-up reasoning to him. Let’s see now. One prays to the fill-in-the-blank deity for guidance, receives silence and maybe a warm fuzzy feeling in return, then makes a decision based on an appeal to the evidence, and this somehow adds up to a non-evidence based decision. Stacey’s not that silly.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Here is my point from up above. Read these and ask yourself if any of these comments made by jurors or the foreman might be indicative of a miscarriage of justice in progress:
At the most basic level, all four of those quotes are exactly equivalent, but I’m willing to bet that three of them would result in Crown appeals or whatever equivalent the US has. The fourth one should as well.
The jurors have given a perception that justice was not done, and that is always bad for any judicial system.
June 17th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Exactly right, Evolving Squid.
Now, had they said,
they would have rightly been labeled geniuses, great thinkers, wise beyond their time, intellectual giants of universal proportions…
uh… I got carried away again, didn’t I?
Sorry.
June 17th, 2007 at 8:29 am
If someone says it in a mocking, condescending manner, which is how I perceived this, and past, blog posts to be (forgive me if I’m wrong, text of course loses most the nuances of a spoken language), then that’s not doing anyone any good.
The problem is, there’s no presentation of an argument against the efficacy and positivity of religion that religionists like yourself won’t perceive as “mocking,” “condescending”, and “arrogant.”
It’s a double standard that you’ve completely internalized. Any statement of atheism that isn’t ridiculously deferent to the sensibilities of the religious is an “unbalanced, militant screed.”
June 17th, 2007 at 9:07 am
EvolvingSquid: “At the most basic level, all four of those quotes are exactly equivalent”
Errm, only three out of the four quotes are even roughly equivalent, since Cthulhu, Satan, and God are purported persons, while Scientology training is not. There is also the matter that Cthulhu and Satan have markedly different personalities from the one that God is usually purported to have. That said, you still have the same problem: The article indicates that the jury did produce a reasoned decision, even though they credited that decision to some benevolent imaginary being. That is hardly grounds for appeal, and this would be true regardless of what name was slapped on the being.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:10 am
“Were the jurors just unable to trust their own judgement in the matter?”
Apparently.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Ross Presser says, “Even if I posit that prayer has no intercessory value, as you loudly state on every possible occasion, what harm can it do to concentrate people’s attention on the significance of their actions?”
IF, as you say, prayer serves to “concentrate people’s attention on the significance of their actions” there would be no harm.
IF.
Actually, there is much more evidence that it DISTRACTS people from concentrating their attentions onto the facts. Obsessive prayer even appears to diminish a person’s ability to think rationally and tends to undermine their sense of free will and personal responsibility.
Its not that prayer “doesn’t work” as advertised. That’s been experimentally demonstrated countless times. (The jury might as well have rubbed their bellies and patted themselves on the head to as little effect toward concentrating their attentions). Its that prayer works to sustain an unhealthy and superstitious belief in supernaturality.
To the society within which we all have to live and work together and in its ability to deal rationally with natural real-world issues, that, sir, IS harmful. We see the consequences every day.
Prayer, in fact, doesn’t work. But that doesn’t mean its not harmless.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:01 am
…but what if they’d said
“Atheism led us to make the right decision…”?
Great post and good discussion.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Brittany says, “Of course that only gives you negative thoughts about that religion, and biases your future encounters with religion.”
Of course.
“I realize my position of ‘walking the middle line’ and trying to make peace between the difference stances is not appreciated by most, especially in a place like this. I’m sorry for any feathers I’ve ruffled with my previous comment, or this one.”
Why torture yourself? What’s to appreciate in a stance that stares in horror at contending belief systems and finds “walking a middle line” more important than acknowledging your own honest opinion?
I can certainly appreciate, however, your need for the equilbrium of peace. We all need that. But that’s not an effective way to make peace in the very real storm of intellectual discord surrounding you. Its just being scared to be you.
Join in the fun. Just be you. Say what YOU think, not what you think others might regard as some “neutral position”, which is really not an opinion at all. Don’t worry about whether your opinion offends anybody. Its YOUR opinion, and that’s what’s really important. Nobody gets hurt unless they unecessarily, as Chet says, “internalizes” it.
Come on out. Its alright. It really is okay if somebody disagrees with you. Promise.
June 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am
J.J. Ramsey said, “You obviously missed the whole point of the stone soup analogy, which is that the credit for the soup’s nourishment was misattributed to the stone rather than to the villagers’ additions. The prayer is the stone, not the whole soup.”
Yeah, but i found it in my kidney soup. No point missed.
June 17th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Arnosium Upinarum: “Actually, there is much more evidence that it DISTRACTS people from concentrating their attentions onto the facts. Obsessive prayer even appears to diminish a person’s ability to think rationally and tends to undermine their sense of free will and personal responsibility.”
I noticed that you switched from talking about mere prayer to talking about obsessive prayer, but the evidence would be against the jury engaging in obsessive prayer:
“Kissam declined to talk about the decisions made in the jury room except to say that he was impressed with his fellow jurors. He said there was no other discussion about religion, and he didn’t know the religious beliefs of any other juror.”
Arnosium Upinarum: “Yeah, but i found it in my kidney soup. No point missed.”
This does not improve your credibility.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
[...] But they could not decide on their own. So they prayed. [...]
June 17th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
J.J. Ramsey: “There is also the matter that Cthulhu and Satan have markedly different personalities from the one that God is usually purported to have.”
…and within the Christian religion, God himself has been interpreted to “have markedly different personalities”, depending upon the interpreter. So which version of God did they pray to? And, more importantly, why does this make a difference? The problem is the use of prayer and the religious bias this potentially introduces into the process.
Again, J.J. Ramsey: “That said, you still have the same problem: The article indicates that the jury did produce a reasoned decision, even though they credited that decision to some benevolent imaginary being.”
So, you believe everything you read? This article is unbiased? The author of this article had enough knowledge of the thinking of the group to know that there was no religious bias involved in the jury’s interpretation of the evidence?
You can argue all you want that we have no evidence that the prayer resulted in a faulty, biased decision on the part of this jury. The problem you refuse to recognize is that the prayer itself is evidence that a religious bias existed. And you have no evidence at all, other than this potentially biased article, that the prayer did NOT influence the verdict one way or the other. The doubt in the decision remains.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
LCR: “So, you believe everything you read?”
Obviously not. I don’t believe that the jurors really got guidance from God as they said they did.
LCR: “The problem you refuse to recognize is that the prayer itself is evidence that a religious bias existed.”
Except that’s not what we’re debating. We’re debating whether the prayer displaced evidence-based deliberation and thus had a material effect on the verdict. It would be trivial to argue that the prayer indicates a religious bias, but that hardly indicates whether the effect of the bias amounted to much.
If you really think that prayer had a material effect, show me a plausible scenario that would indicate how it had such an effect instead of ranting about the stupidity of theists. Really, I don’t see a plausible scenario that would fit the facts as we have them. If the jurors really relied on prayer, we would likely see a mistrial, since each juror would have different ideas on what God had told each of them and would not be able to agree on a verdict. We also would not likely see the appeals to the evidence. Judging from the article and my previous experience with Christians, the prayers in question probably were some rephrasing of “God, give us guidance,” which really doesn’t provide much actual guidance but is vague enough that any collective decision of the jurors would be considered a fulfillment of that prayer.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I don’t see what’s so silly about that. If you look at the evidence, and then put yourself through a process of interpreting the evidence using your gut feelings, you’re not making an evidence-based decision. When step 2 of your decision-making process is to step outside the world of evidence and keep only those data which are in accord with your inner warm fuzziness, the whole algorithm is faulty.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Phil Plait made the necessary point in the original post:
Introducing invocations of invisible pink unicorns into an otherwise evidence-based process is, at best, adding a source of random noise.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Blake Stacey: “If you look at the evidence, and then put yourself through a process of interpreting the evidence using your gut feelings, you’re not making an evidence-based decision.”
Remember that we have multiple jurors here. If they were interpreting the evidence according to their gut feelings, we’d probably have a mistrial, since those feelings would go every which way. Over four hours of deliberation also suggests more than a reliance on gut feeling.
Blake Stacey: “Introducing invocations of invisible pink unicorns into an otherwise evidence-based process is, at best, adding a source of random noise.”
The random noise in this case does not seem to be even close enough to drowning out the signal.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
J.J. Ramsey: “I don’t believe that the jurors really got guidance from God as they said they did.”
What criteria are you using when you decide what you do and do not believe from this article?
J.J Ramsey: “We’re debating whether the prayer displaced evidence-based deliberation and thus had a material effect on the verdict.”
Fine. And you are contending that it did not, but so far you offer nothing but your opinion and the words in this article that this is the case. That is not enough to support your argument.
J.J. Ramsey: “It would be trivial to argue that the prayer indicates a religious bias…”
Really? How so? It would not be trivial to me and to many of us on this thread.
J.J. Ramsey: “…but that hardly indicates whether the effect of the bias amounted to much.”
But that’s the point. There is no way to measure what the effect was. That, however, does not give leave for you to assume the effect was negligible. You have nothing to support that assumption. It is just as likely (and some would argue, given the influence of religion, that it is more likely) that there was a significant effect.
J.J. Ramsey: “If you really think that prayer had a material effect, show me a plausible scenario that would indicate how it had such an effect instead of ranting about the stupidity of theists.”
Excuse me, but I have not be ranting about the stupidity of theists. And I have explained how the prayer could have indicated an existing and effective bias in my earlier posts.
J.J. Ramsey: “Really, I don’t see a plausible scenario that would fit the facts as we have them.”
I realize that. Arguement from incredulity. That does not mean that such a scenerio doesn’t exist beyond your comprehension. You are not infallible. Many here have offered such scenarios, including me. We can not be faulted if you refuse to acknowledge them.
J.J. Ramsey: “If the jurors really relied on prayer, we would likely see a mistrial, since each juror would have different ideas on what God had told each of them and would not be able to agree on a verdict.”
Again, you have not read my posts. I never said that the jury relied upon prayer for a verdict. I’m saying that the fact that they turned to prayer at all indicates that their decision may have been BIASED by issues of faith (e.g., religion of the defendent) rather than depending upon pure reason to determine guilt or innocence. Evidence is supposed to be evaluated through reason and, ideally, without bias due to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The act of prayer by this jury opens the door to the possibility there was a bias due to religion. That is all that is needed to throw this decision in doubt. In my opinion, that should have been sufficient for a mistrial.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
LCR: “But that’s the point. There is no way to measure what the effect was.”
I disagree. You can measure it, for example, by looking at the jurors’ actions, some of the other things the jurors said about the evidence, and the response to the verdict. I have pointed to the first two things multiple times in the comments.
LCR: “Many here have offered such scenarios, including me. We can not be faulted if you refuse to acknowledge them.”
No, you have not. No one here has actually offered a coherent account of how the prayer could have actually affected the verdict, given what we know from the contents of the article (or any other pertinent source). I’ve seen indignation, comparisons to other forms of woo that ignore the jurors’ other actions, and handwaving about religious bias. No one has shown how prayer here has been anything but a Mostly Harmless(TM) waste of a few minutes.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
J. J. Ramsey said: “I noticed that you switched from talking about mere prayer to talking about obsessive prayer, but the evidence would be against the jury engaging in obsessive prayer.”
So what? I talked about prayer, then about lots of prayer. I didn’t talk about the jury. I talked about prayer. “mere” and “obsessive”. You make a snide distinction that isn’t there.
You say it “does not improve your credibility” in response to my discovery of a kidney stone in my soup. Well, then, fine. I suppose you like kidney stone soup. No accounting for taste…or the ability to make effective distinctions.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
J. J. Ramsey: “I noticed that you switched from talking about mere prayer to talking about obsessive prayer, but the evidence would be against the jury engaging in obsessive prayer.”
So what? I talked about prayer, then about lots of prayer. I didn’t talk about the jury. I talked about prayer. “Mere” and “obsessive”. You make a snide distinction that isn’t there.
You say it “does not improve your credibility” in response to my discovery of a kidney stone in my soup. Well, then, fine. I suppose you like kidney stone soup. No accounting for taste…or the ability to make effective distinctions.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
No, my point is that the prominent discussion of prayer to some invisible friend casts doubt on the the quality of the verdict rendered.
I’m not saying they absolutely did not reach a reasoned decision. I am saying that there is doubt, and the doubt is sufficient to give the appearance of a miscarriage of justice. That the potential miscarriage went in the defendant’s favour does not render it any less of a miscarriage of justice. Maybe they did reach a reasoned decision based solely on the evidence presented – that’s definitely a possibility, and indeed, it is their duty to do so. However, they talk about praying for guidance, and that suggests otherwise.
I’m also saying that if they’d mentioned some other imaginary friend than “God”, there would be loud and boisterous howling in the justice system, and I am suggesting that God be given the same treatment as Cthulhu, Satan, or the wisdom of an OT-7 and whatever Thetans he’s in communication with.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
If any or all of the jurors made the decision by listening to an imaginary voice in their head that they believed to be God, then the verdict was affected.
If any or all of the jurors considered any of the evidence differently as a result of imagining that they now had divine guidance, then the verdict was affected.
If any of the jurors felt uncomfortable, harassed, out of place or compelled to participate in the prayer such feelings could have impacted that person’s analysis of the evidence and thereby affect the verdict.
From the article, one can posit that any or all of those three things are not only possible, but some of them even likely to have occurred.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Sorry for the repeat post. Server got momentarily hung up somehow.
J.J. Ramsey says, “No one has shown how prayer here has been anything but a Mostly Harmless(TM) waste of a few minutes.”
Yes, “here”. Yes, “Mostly Harmless”. Mostly. Yes, “waste”.
There. THAT one. Over THERE. Point to it. Make SURE others see the distinctions you like. All others must check theirs at the hat room. Rules are important. Especially yours, when you bring your bat and ball.
Trouble is, everyone is already playing with their own FOOTBALLS or BASKETBALLS or HOCKEY PUCKS.
Okay, I’ll play a bit of fast-pitch with you. The defendant’s life was being decided by a jury that, it is implied, found the available evidence insufficient to convict or acquit. So, they prayed, as if that would assist them in doing the right thing. But wait: they DID find the evidence sufficient to characterize it as a tragic accident that cannot have been avoided, and they DID acquit the bus driver based on that evidence, however wanting it may have been.
They didn’t pray for guidance. They prayed to feel better. The harm IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE isn’t in the fact that this jury happened to pray. Nobody with any sense is suggesting this. The harm is in the larger implication that can stem from this: that many people will presume that the jury arrived at a correct decision by praying, not because they weighed the available evidence. That prayer is a legitimate means of arriving at truth. That it might even REPLACE evidence as a source of it. You know, like all superstitious nonsense aspires to.
Is everything okay now? Can you now see the many potential facets of harm? Or will you continue to focus on your limiting distinctions?
June 17th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
J.J. Ramsey,
Perhaps I was not clear. I will try again.
I have never contended that the prayer itself directly affected the verdict of the trial. Never.
The prayer was a symptom. It was an indicator that there was a problem. It was a warning flag that there was potentially a religious bias within the jury, a bias that could lead them to base their final decision on factors other than or in addition to reason and logic, specifically religious factors. This is an unacceptable bias in a U.S. courtroom.
And by the way, no, we can not measure the effect of this bias because we HAVE NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO. We have no control. We can’t run the trial again and tell them not to pray this time and see what happens. Again, I am not talking about measuring the affect of prayer, I am talking about the impact of religious bias in the case, of which the prayer was just a symptom. We will never fully know how much the religious views of the jury influenced their decision. We just know that religion was important to this jury because they felt the need to pray about their decision. Religion was undeniably there in an overt, inappropriate role and we have no objective way of determining how much influence this bias had over the ruling.
June 17th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I agree with Arnosium. The real harm done here is not necessarily the prayer in itself. It is that by saying “God led us to make the right decision” they styled their verdict as a judgment of God, like an ordeal.
And even if they used actually no superstitius means to accomplish this task, they still gave a bad example. They made it look ok to make a court decisision by judgment of God instead of human reason.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Well, it was a Texas jury. When someone is on trial in Texas, the fact that the jury is inappropriately given to prayer is probably the least of his worries.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Just Al said
‘Let me put this another way: You pick up your child from daycare, and she has a bandage on her arm. You ask what happened, and are told she cut herself badly on the playground. The daycare counselor then tells you, “I prayed for guidance on my actions, and gawd told me to take her to a hospital.â€
Yes, right answer, but does that make you feel more comfortable with someone who couldn’t resort to common sense in such a case?’
That pinpoints what is so frightening about this jury. A sane parent would not trust his/her child to the whims of that daycare worker any more than any sane citizen should trust justice to the whims of such a jury. It would have been totally different if the daycare worker had said “The accident was horrifying and I had to spend a moment praying for calm before I could remember my first aid training. After doing what I could I then took her to the hospital, which did a better job of bandaging the arm and said she would be OK.”