More Thoughts on Educated Orgasms

I made a post here about this. If you don't want to follow the link, here's a snapshot of what it said:

Women with graduate degrees are more likely to reach orgasm than their less educated counterparts, a new Australian study suggests.

First, correlation does not prove causation. Maybe it's the other way around - Having more orgasms stimulates women to be more educated.

Knowledge is power - educated people have a better idea of what their options are. If a satisfying sex life is optional, wouldn't you opt for it?

Higher education is a goal, and achieving that goal takes perseverance. Maybe it's not the smarts, maybe it's that they're more goal-oriented.

Maybe it's their partners? I've noticed that people tend to date within their own socioeconomic class. That's where the people they know are, and it's where common interests lie. Perhaps better educated men make better lovers. Perhaps they're more knowledgeable in the sack and are more likely to care about their partners satisfaction?

Hell, maybe an active brain is active all over and a lazy brain is lazy all the time. How's that for mangled reasoning.

Sam Harris Needs to Make His Point Clearer

Cribbed from catalytic.

Sam Harris makes an interesting case for rationalism against religious beliefs.

But he doesn't go far enough.

Here's a synopsis of what he says: Religious moderates allow religious fundamentalists to flourish because they provide a buffer between the fundamentalists and the rationalists who would oppose them. By allowing religious beliefs to be considered different from other beliefs, we've put ourselves in the position of not being able to call them on their irrational beliefs.

Or to be more blunt, if someone said that 2+2=5 you would rightly call BS on them because what they believe flies in the face of mathematics. If they say "God created the universe in six days" we can't call BS because it's a religious belief.

Of course, I routinely call BS when someone says something like that to me. And what often happens is I'm admonished for it from my friends who want to seem inclusive.

So where does Harris go wrong? He doesn't make his point in the conclusion that we have to start calling people on their unsupportable claims, no matter what the subject is. If someone says the bible is the inerrant truth, call them on it. Point out the contradictions. Point out the archaeology. If enough people start to think "Hmm. There's evidence that the bible was actually written by a succession of bronze age tribesmen between 4000 and 2000 years ago" maybe they'll start to think that it isn't really the word of god after all.

It's important not just because moderates are protecting the crazies (whom, as Harris points out, are unapologetically intolerant of others views - that's right they simply don't play by the same rules). It's important because moderates can also be thought of as "undecided" in the battle between the would-be theocrats and the rationalists. These are the people whom we need to educate and win over. As this happens the fundamentalists will be further marginalized and they will dwindle in numbers.

The fundies will fight back. Of course, they're fighting back already. We can lay down and let them win, we can fight to tie (which is more or less what we've decided to do now) keeping the battle going indefinitely, or we can fight to win.