The Humble Empiricist

Annoying Technical Issues

2011-10-11T14:43:00.000-04:00

It was brought to my attention this morning on Twitter that this blog is not letting anyone comment. I don't know why this is and I've been fussing with the settings all morning to no avail. This is incredibly annoying and I have to apologize. I was starting to wonder why I was getting traffic, but not a single comment.

....Just a whiny post. Hope to figure this out soon. <3

Dawkins Drama?

2011-10-11T00:34:00.004-04:00

I've known for a while now that the Atheist community in Michigan has been far too quiet. This recent turn of events just goes to prove my point:

Richard Dawkins was barred from a planned speaking engagement for being an atheist. Apparently, the country club in Rochester Hills where he was going to speak discovered his lack of belief at the last minute and stated that they wanted nothing to do with him. Their source of information? Fox News.

They may not be as loud and proud as the wingnuts in Texas or Kansas, but there are definitely pockets of religious nuts of all stripes in my home state of Michigan. The difference between here and Texas is that there, they have the likes of Matt Dillahunty and Aron Ra to oppose the champions of wingnuttery. Michigan really is not a bright light on the map as far as the movement is concerned. This needs to change.

Clearly, if an intelligent, eloquent and well qualified scholar is barred from a scheduled lecture because of his atheism, we have problem.

One thing I am glad for, however, is the fact that not all hope is lost here for Professor Dawkins. He'll be doing a book reading on Saturday:

I'm happy to say that I'll be there volunteering for the U of M Secular Student Alliance. My hope is that we'll be able to give RD a much warmer welcome and become more aware of the fact that we as an secular group need to become more active so that things like this incident don't happen again.

JesusNotes Part 2

2011-10-08T19:26:00.004-04:00

An unnamed family member of mine wrote this comment on the facebook status of one of her friends:

"I am thinking about how I pray, it is me, me, me. I am reading a great book right now. "Slave" by John MacArthur. The Greek translation of slave has been turned into servant, but we are not servants of the Lord, we are really slaves. We were bought at a price. He owns us. Think about being a slave in 1st century Israel. Do we live like we are Jesus' slaves? I know I don't."

There really are no words. WHY IS THIS A GOOD THING?? I am constantly and consistently baffled by the tendency of the very religious to revel in their own... well... slavery.

Seriously. Why would you celebrate your god's INHUMANITY? Is god their murderer and rapist too? If your god was really so awful as to OWN human beings (and to CREATE them for his ownership, no less!) then even if he did exist, he would deserve not an ounce of worship or praise. Period.

My First SSA Meeting

2011-09-07T23:10:00.003-04:00

Tonight, I finally attended a meeting of Michigan's Secular Student Alliance. It was good to finally feel like I was among "my people" after feeling alienated all summer. I am constantly amazed at how horrible it is to feel all alone in the world. I hope that atheist organizations like the SSA will continue to serve as a community support system for atheists. I really hope to be able to contribute more to the community and the movement this year. The world is one big opportunity at this point. Let's do this...

"Free Will" Can Get Stuffed

2011-09-01T21:53:00.003-04:00

Lately, my brother and I have been on a Law and Order: Special Victims Unit binge. Just a few minutes ago, I finished watching an episode from season 10 entitled "Hell". The case in this particular episode revolved around former child soldiers from Uganda. Predictably, the premise of the story brought me to tears. Near the end of the episode, when one of the Ugandan characters attempts to shoot himself, having been threatened with deportation, he makes an especially powerful problem of suffering argument as to why God had "forsaken" him.

As I watched pictures of real Ugandan child soldiers flash by at the episode's conclusion, I was reminded why I despise the "free will defense" so much. I mean, I do think the argument itself is logically flawed on several levels, but this is also one of few arguments that I truly abhor. As I noted in my first post on the free will defense, I've noticed that few people who claim that evil is the result of human "free will" have ever really suffered. I'm sure that at least some of them have experienced troubles and tragedy in their lives, but I can assure you that almost none of them will ever experience the horrors that happen in countries like Uganda.

We're talking about children who not only had to watch their families brutally killed, but who were forced to kill people themselves. There were women and children made into sex slaves, etc. These are atrocities that no one asks for or deserves, especially not children. If there is a god out there who could do whatever he wanted but decided that the free will of some to commit atrocities was more important than the victims of said atrocities, he isn't a god worth worshiping.

I despise the free will defense because it demonstrates a lack of empathy and consideration for suffering innocents. It paints a blood washed portrait of a cruel and unfeeling god using the hands of followers so determined to defend their pet god concept that they would conveniently forget how awful the world can actually be. Free will, to the extent that it actually exists, is a luxury only offered to those of us lucky enough to live in a free society. Certainly, you and I can choose how we live our lives in order to minimize evil and suffering, but many of our fellow humans can only dream of being so fortunate.

My solution to the problem of suffering is simple: stop praying and start working. Our "first world" society wasn't always as privileged as it is now. People worked tirelessly to make it this way. Real human beings busted their backs and shed their blood to find cures for diseases, end slavery, dethrone tyrants and build healthy alliances. Some continue to work even to this day. It is our responsibility, if we are able, to put our talents and our strength to good use to improve the world we live in. We must make it our duty to eradicate suffering. Our gods certainly don't seem interested in helping.

Finally, Some Semi-Good News

2011-08-31T21:19:00.002-04:00

I was slightly cheered up to see this article.

For some reason, the Atheist community in Michigan is fairly quiet. There are a quite a few of us that I know of, especially in the more liberal cities like Ann Arbor and, to some extent, Kalamazoo, where I'm from. Despite this, we definitely have our share of fundies and other assorted religious nuts. I was glad to see a sign like this go up, especially in the Grand Rapids area where our presence certainly needs to be felt.

Kudos to the Center for Inquiry for fighting the battle and putting us out there. :)

2011-08-29T23:30:00.001-04:00

Crap happens. Avoid getting forcibly outed. It's really, really not fun.

As For The Moderates

2011-07-26T14:47:00.001-04:00

There seems to be a divide among skeptics and atheists today as to what should be done with regards to less radical religionists. After all, it would be unfair and inaccurate to say that all Christians are fundies and that all Muslims are terrorists. The recent bombing and shooting in Norway has been a sobering reminder to all of us that there are crazies everywhere, even if they aren't as hyped by the media or vocal as Al Qaeda. Some have stated that the responsibility for religious radicalism falls on these radical individuals alone, not on the moderates. There are a good number of atheists and skeptics who believe that we should respect religion, as long as the believers aren't blowing anybody up. I used to feel this way as well.

My mind has recently been changed.

Most of my recent blog entries have been related to each other in a way. They have addressed the danger of allowing oneself to be manupulated by other people, whether we're talking about Christian politicians with weasel words or theologians twisting their snakeoil sermons to sound convincing. These people have real, undeniable power over their followers. The problem is that not a scrap of that power is legitimate. Spiritual leaders give council on many topics, ranging from how to structure your family, to whether or not abortion is ethical, to whether or not evolution is true, the list goes on. I can assure you that most of these people are not qualified to speak authortatively on any of these subjects. It is doubtful that a person whose highest degree was from a theological seminary would be able to give ANY technical information on an embryo, forget whether or not an embryo is a person. I am highly skeptical of any celibate person who thinks he or she can give ANY good advice on marriage, sex, children or family. This isn't to say that religious leaders are stupid. Certainly, this isn't the case. The point I'm trying to make here is that there is a lot of garbage that comes flying at us from the pulpit. I have Christian friends who truly believe that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because that's what they learned in Church. A good Jewish friend of mine only recently learned about the documentary hypothesis and was disappointed that the rabbis at the elite jewish high school he went to taught him that the Torah was written by Moses. These facts are not just false, they are embarrassingly so, as their falsehood has been known for centuries. Yet we believe them.

One might ask "how could my spiritual leader be wrong? /why would he lie to me?" The answer is simple.

Because we ask them to.

As long as there are people demanding simple answers, others will step forward to give them. We want to hear that someone cares about us, we want to know that we'll see our deceased loved ones again, we want to know that those who do wrong will ultimately be brought to justice. So people tell us that. Religious leaders fill us with all the mental candy we could ever ask for at the price of our intellectual freedom. They would have no authority if we chose not to recognize it.

Yet, as a society, the illegitimate authority of religion is one that we tend to question the least. We show deference to priests and rabbis, even if we aren't of their persuasion, without a thought about what kind of person they might be. We assume that a minister is a good and/or person simply by virtue of his position. We see faith as a good thing, a virtue to be striven for. "He is a man of faith!" is a compliment that many pride themselves on.

In the midst of all this pride, we forget that the hijackers on 9/11 had more faith than any of us. I have yet to find someone who would label them virtuous. We continuously hear stories of priests (not just Catholic ones, mind you) who choose to take advantage of their positions and abuse women and children trusted to their care.

Am I insinuating that these extreme cases speak for all believers? Of course not. But we cannot deny the fact that one of the major reasons why these pedophiles have access to children and why extremist leaders have access to moldable minds is because we are taught to trust them implicitly. As long as moderates and ordinary people continue to go to church, give money and seek advice from such people, those people will continue to have authority. Authority, I'm sorry to say, that is all to often abused.

I think one of the biggest mistakes people make is in thinking "my people would never do that". The other night, I was explaining Scientology to my mom and in the middle of the Xenu story, her eyes got wide and she exclaimed "people actually believe that??" The irony, of course, is that she's a Christian who honestly believes that a person rose from the dead. Ressurection is just a ridiculous as an evil space lord. I'd say it's more ridiculous. At least we know that other planets exist. We can't even say that much about heaven or souls. It should be also noted that my parents are not fundamentalists. My dad reads Carl Sagan and laughs at the idea of ghosts, ESP and other supernatural claims. Yet religion doesn't get this kind of scrutiny. It's treated as a sacred cow, something "special" that doesn't belong in the same catagory as crop circles. This is precisely where the false authority comes from.

This is why I simply cannot see "moderate" religion as harmless.

If you are an atheist or skeptic who cares about truth, I do not recommend shying away from any bogus religious claim, no matter how harmless it seems. As truth seekers, it is unethical for us to encourage or legitimize falsehood. If you are a moderate religionist, I urge you to ask yourself why you believe what you do. I can assure you that no one needs to be religious in order to be happy, healthy or moral. Even if you only practice out of habit or tradition, ask yourself what the cost of this is. You may be wasting your one, precious life and reliquishing your one precious mind in exchange for comfort. Wouldn't that be a shame?

If You're Geeky Enough to Get This, I Love You

2011-07-18T23:34:00.001-04:00

Hehehehe

2011-07-14T16:48:00.001-04:00

Check out the promoted video on the side of this Atheist Experience video:

Is YouTube trying to say something about the hosts of "The Atheist Experience"? Is it God sending a message??? I wonder.... :)

Oh, Pascal

2011-07-13T12:14:00.002-04:00

While surfing the 'nets today, I ran across a blog post entitled "Why I Am Not An Atheist" by a blogger named BlueKat. Well, naturally, I have to respond to it in full. :)

I am not an atheist because I am not arrogant enough to think that I am so wise as to know that God does not exist.

Aaaand, I need to stop this one after the first sentence. Most atheists (at least, most of the big names in atheism) don't claim to know that God does not exist. In fact, most of them don't believe in absolute certainty at all. We simply lack a belief in God. Some may believe that no God exist, but rarely, if ever, is this belief expressed as a statement of knowledge.

Ever since I posted on Pascal's Gambit (or Wager) I have found numerous references to it in forums and on blogs, etc. Usually it is being used by atheists in various ways, always claiming it to be fallacious or easily refutable or otherwise faulty. However, in order to do so, they invariably change Pascal's assumptions to suit their purpose and then declare "Eureka! Wager disproved!"

It doesn't work that way, folks.

For it is based on certain assumptions, and one primary assumption is that God is good and rewards believers with heaven and punishes non-believers with hell.

You cannot change the assumptions in order to disprove the wager.

Right, and this is a very bad assumption. It is precisely this assumption that makes Pascal's arguement so weak. But let us continue...

However, you can think of it this way:

If you believe in God, and he does exist, when you die, God does whatever he wants to do with you, and the possibilities are infinite.

If you believe in God, and he does not exist, then nothing happens, and the possibilities are nil.

If you do not believe in God, and he does exist, when you die, God still does whatever he wants to do with you, and the possibilities are still infinite.

If you do not believe in God and he does not exist, then nothing happens, and the possibilities are still nil.Ok, what? How is this an arguement for belief at all? Yeah, if God exists he'll do what He wants with us whether or not we beleive. We all know that. Why should we believe?

Either way, the odds are always in favor of the House (or God), because our belief or non-belief in him has no bearing whatsoever on his existence or non-existence. If he exists, he holds all the cards.

If you are turned off, or disillusioned by the Christian God concept because of fundamentalists or whatever, that's fine. It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter what form of God we're talking about here. An active, prescient God who directs us all in everything we do. An inactive, detached God who set everything in motion and then disengaged. A good God who has a nifty little heaven set up for all believers and a nasty little hell set up for all non-believers. A God who transforms us into another reincarnated being after death. A God who does nothing whatsoever with us once our time here on earth is finished.

No, no, no, no. It absolutely DOES matter what God you believe in. Al most every single monotheistic deity requires belief in Himself ALONE. Idolotry is enough to send you to hell. If you choose to believe "just to be safe" in one God, then there is still a gigantic chance that you will end up in the hell of another God. No matter what you choose to believe or disbelieve, there is no advantage. Besides, what if the God that exists, for some reason, only wants to punish believers? What if Pascal's assumption that God is good is completely wrong? Pascel's wager is a horrible wager because it fails to account for the infinite number of possibilities we could have in relation to an unknowable, supernatural entity.

Also, this blogger seems to assume that the theism and atheism are automatically by default both equally plausable positions to hold. I would argue that this is untrue. There is no evidence for the existance of God. By definition, God, as transcendent being, is an unknown. Any statements of belief require faith. Atheism requires no faith or assumptions. It is purely a lack of belief and a lack of assumptions about the supernatural. I do not choose to be an atheist just because I want to. I choose not to believe because I cannot in good conscious make dishonest statements of knowledge.

IT JUST DOES NOT MATTER, PEOPLE. Whatever you think, whatever you believe, whatever you've been taught, whatever you've read, whatever you've envisioned or prophetized or proselytized, it JUST DOES NOT MATTER.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? You, me, the preacher, the priest, the rabbi, the master, the bodisattva... we are all just little bitty human beings running around on a teeny tiny planet in a gi-normous, unending Universe and it does not matter what we believe.

Right, but while we're here, PEOPLE matter. Religion almost always a divisive force. People kill, discriminate, make unjust laws and commit countless other ills in the name of religion. It does matter. It also matters because, if there is no God, every single person who prays daily, goes to church or temple frequently, sacrifices a portion of their salary or even their life has wasted their existence on a falsehood. I care too much to allow this to happen unknowingly.

We don't know that there is not a God. We don't know that there is a God. God doesn't flicker on and off like a neon light depending on what one little human is thinking one second as compared to what another little human is thinking the next second.

We cannot prove whether or not some higher intelligence might exist, this is true. BUT I think it is possible to prove that ancient myths about Gods like Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, etc. are just that, mythology. We know that they were written by primitive peoples who borrowed myths from their predecessors. Many of the gods they propose have logically contradictory qualities that, by definition, cannot exist (e.g., being both infinately just and infinately merciful, being omniscient and having free will, etc.) It's safe to say (though, as mentioned earlier, without absolute certainty) that these being probably do not exist.

God either exists or not. What we think has no bearing on his existence. Just because you imagine there is a God does not make God materialize. Just because you think there is no God does not make God disappear.

If there is a God, when you die, God will do with you whatever he will.
If there is no God, when you die, then nothing will happen.

Nope. This is a false dichotomy. Even if there is no God, theoretically, something could happen. Maybe our conscious minds fall into some sort of transdimensional wormhole and continue to exist in another universe. I made that up, obviously, but if we're listing things that COULD happen without the help of an intelligent deity, it'd say it works as an example.

I've studied Buddhism pretty extensively, and the problem I have with reincarnation is that something has to set that in motion which means that there would have to be a God. And, if there is a God, then he may or may not reincarnate you because it will be his choice what to do and he will do as he will. So, you can have no true assurance of reincarnation.

Ok, as with all first cause arguments, this one about reincarnation is flawed. Just because something had to be set into motion, doesn't mean that a God did it. Even if a God DID start the process of reincarnation, it doesn't men that He continues to effect it. Carrying on.

No matter how well educated you may be, or how intelligent, or how knowledgeble, you, my friend, are not all-knowing.

You can feel self-assured all you want, but you can have no assurance of anything except that one day you will die and on that day, and not until that day, you will know the truth.

No one is claiming to be all knowing here. Neurologists can tell you easily what happens when you die. Your brain stops working. There is no reason to believe that we have souls or consciousness apart from our brains. I'd say that the truth is probably that, when you die, that's the end of any life you'll ever have. Do I know absolutely? Of course not. But, as I've stated three times already, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

In the comment section of the blog post in question, the author made several posts indicating that she believed Pascal over any objectors because Pascal was smarter than any of them. Bull. This is a shameless appeal to authority. If you want to hear more about flaws in Pascal's wager, I recommend this video:

The Westboro Bapist Church > The Family Leader

2011-07-12T21:52:00.000-04:00

Upon rethinking the thunderf00t video on which I commented yesterday, I came to a stange realization. If all fundamentalists were like the Westboro Baptist Church, the world would be a better place. Not just Christian fundies either. Whenever someone wants to give an example of an extreme fundamentalist sect, they mention the WBC. I think this is a mistake. In all practical terms, the WBC poses no threat to anyone. Here's why.

1. They don't want to convert or change anyone.
They may be jerks who picket funerals. Their beliefs may be insane by anyone's standards, but they don't demand that anyone believe or live as they do. In fact, it is part of their beliefs that most people won't live as they do. Their proud slogans only serve to alert people of their certain doom and, in some perverted way "celebrate" what they see as the glory of God. The WBC also make full use of their right to freedom of speech. You'll never see them demanding that an Atheist billboard be removed. They may picket and protest, but I have never heard them attempt to silence those who disagree with them. They live their lives, everyone else lives as they will. This fits perfectly into their religion and I doubt this will change.

2. Members of the WBC are 100% honest as to what they believe.
Sure "God hates fags" is a nasty thing to say, but it's simple, direct and, again, honest. They don't use weasely buzzwords like "family values" attempt to redefine the word "love". They say exactly what they mean even it makes them seem less appealing. One of the problems with the more extreme members of the Christian right (e.g. Sarah Palin, the AFA, etc.) is that they believe in most of the same theology as the Westboro Baptist Church. They are simply very talented at making the philosophy look good. Is anyone going to deny that the bigots from the American Family Association crusade against homosexuality and abortion because they believe that these are sins punishable by eternal torture? I can guaruntee you that they agree with the WBC on this. Yet this and other organization make it their business, not only to hold such dispicable views, but to spread these views to the rest of the world. They use words like "family" and call upon the "founding fathers" to weasel their way into the hearts and minds of even the less vocal and more moderate Christians.

If you haven't read the Family Leader's "Marriage Vow" pledge that Michelle Bachmann agreed to, I highly recommend it. It is one of the most repugnant documents I think I have ever encountered. It is bigoted, divisive and I found it personally offensive on several levels. What's worse is that there are powerful people, such as Michelle Bachmann, who seem to be living in a Christian lala land in which meddling in the personal lives of free citizens is more important than the job market, terrorism or the national debt. These are the people we should worry about, not the Westboro Baptist Church. The Phelps family is obnoxious, but when I hear similar rhetoric being spewed by people who actually hve power, I become truely frightened.

Brainwashing, Yay!

2011-07-11T14:27:00.002-04:00

I've found that a good way to keep oneself safe from manipulation is to understand the methods people use to manipulate others. An introductory course in Sociology alone is sufficient for a basic understanding of just how easy we are to "brainwash" and just how valuble critical thinking skills are. Mind you, I'm not talking about some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy nonesense here. I'm talking about very ordinary attempts at socialization and resocialization we see everyday, often from religion.

Thunderf00t's most recent video is a short interview he managed to get with two women from the Westboro Baptist Church. These loud mouthed coiners of the ever-popular "God hates fags" slogan have come to epitomize religion gone wrong for believers and skeptics alike. Many must wonder how these people can spout their bile so freely without a shred of guilt. Is it really possible for one human to smile at the thought of another human being tortured forever? Thunderf00t's video reveals exactly how this is possible.

It is no accident that most of the content of this interview consists of personal attacks on Thunderf00t. Insults like "little boy" are obvious attempts at making another person feel beneath you. I can't tell whether or not these particular women are attempting to demean Thunderf00t on purpose or whether it's just out of habit. Either way, the demeaning or dehumanizing of a person is a hallmark component of a process called resocialization. As the word itself suggests, resocialization is the changing of the personality or practices of a person by controlling their environment in specific ways. Organizations such as prisons, mental institutions and the military resocialize people all the time with (usually) good intentions. Unfortunately, cults and religious groups (Scientologists and the WBC in particular) use similar techniques to gain and maintain followers.

The process can be summed up simply. There is generally some degree of isolation (if not complete isolation) from people outside of whatever group is doing the resocializing. People joining the group often undergo "mortification", which generally involves tearing down one's previous life and persona. After the he has been made vulnerable, it is quite easy for the values and practices of the group to be used in order to rebuild the mortified person.

Many people are very succeptable to this kind of manipulation without meaning to be. This is the reason Scientologists are told constantly in the beginning that they must be "cleared" of all of their supposed personality flaws before they can continue through the ranks. It is also way so many people "find religion" after periods of emotional vulnerability and why "raising a child" in a particular religion is so important. Faith schools provide segregation that is useful in the instilling of ideas.

This is not to say that all groups maliciously brainwash their followers. We're all socialized in some way or another. Most of us are uncomfortable with public nudity because we were raised in a culture that frowns upon such things. Such social conventions are relatively harmless as long as they don't discriminate against, abuse, etc. other memebers of the society.

One thing we must be able to do, however, is call this kind of behavior when we see it. When Ray Comfort lists the Ten Commandments and says that we've all broken them in some fashion and are thus sinful, we should be able to take his claims with a grain of salt. Is "lusting after a woman" really the horrendous crime he makes it out to be? Does that pencil we "stole" in the third grade say anything about us as adults? Of course not. But if we were convinced that there was something dreadfully wrong with us and that the only way to fix that was to picket funerals and chant "God hates fags", we'd probably do it.

The best protection we have against these groups is critical thinking. Don't believe everything you hear, even if it comes from the mouth of a supposed "authority". Whether it's "you're a filthy sinner" or "evolution is a fact", run every assertion through your head and, if nessasary, ask for justification. If you've already been convinced by the likes of Ray Comfort, the Church of Scientology or any other religious or politcal body, take a moment or two really consider what you believe and why you believe it. Keep in mind that "I need this", "That's what I was taught" and "It makes me feel good" are bad reasons to hold a belief. Remember, the truth will come out in the wash if you make the effort to seek it objectively and without bias.

I think it's safe to say that it's too late to "save" the members of the WBC. However, we have the ability to prevent those like them from gaining power. We all have the cure within our own minds. It's only a matter of making use of it.

So...

2011-07-10T23:35:00.000-04:00

Some random people have been subscribing to my blog and Twitter lately. I thank you, but I feel guilty because I most def don't deserve it. haha. Note to self: stop being so damn emo all the time. :)

2011-07-10T19:50:00.000-04:00

Next semester, I decided to drop my religion class and take biology. I know what you're thinking. It's just something i've been really drawn to lately. The only problem is that I'm a little nervous. Ok, a lot nervous. My brother is the most science-minded of the two of us. That much has always been obvious. Everyone has always hailed him as the smart one, mostly because he's incredibly good at math. I've always just kind of accepted this and came to terms with the fact that I could never be a scientist. But lately, I've really felt the urge to study biology further. Well, biological anthropology, to be specific. At Michigan, in order to take AnthroBio, you have to study biology. I know it's gonna be hard. As always, I'm scared of failure. Yessir. For some reason, I have sucked at making bracelets lately. I did do this one this morning:

How Do You Like Your Sagan?

2011-07-10T00:11:00.001-04:00

My Childhood!

2011-07-10T00:00:00.000-04:00

Anybody remember this shizz?

My brother is now playing it and it's giving me major nostalgia. I was an expert at this game in elementary school. To this day, my mastery of this game is my one and only claim to game fame. :)

JesusNotes

2011-07-09T10:47:00.000-04:00

I have several family members who like to pretend that they're profound thinkers. Come to think of it, I'm probably one of them. I did, however, ant to draw attention to one in particular who enjoys writing what can only be described as JesusNotes. Here are two examples:

"A lot of people know the first part of John 3:16 but not the second part. "For God so loved the world that He gave His One and only Son, (here's the important part) that whoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall not perish but have eternal life." Eternal life means imitate knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and life with Him after physical death. This promise of eternal life is conditional. One must believe and receive Jesus as Lord. Unbelief is rejection of Christ and leads to hell after death. What is your destiny?"

"Who I have become in You, is grace beyond all measure. In the light of all you are, who am I to found here? Raised to life and crowned with love, Jesus, Yours forever. Majesty and Mercy leads me in this moment, how can it be that I have been chosen by the King? There's no greater honor, there's no greater treasure, then to be known and loved by You, I am highly favored." MWS &AG

Does your life reflect all the love you have for Jesus? If not, why not?"

Let's makes one thing abundantly clear: just because you can talk about a supposedly transcendent force does not make you a philosopher. It helps to learn how to spell "intimate". BUT. Let's skip to the content.

Writings like this really make me wonder why so many Christians claim that atheists are "arrogant". The statement "I am highly favored" isn't arrogant? It certainly is a dick thing to say. The idea that you KNOW what will happen after someone dies is also arrogant, especially when you claim to know the mind of an omnipotent being. *sigh*

Interesting

2011-07-08T20:01:00.001-04:00

Two subjects popped up on my Google alert for "atheist" more than anything today:

This story about New York atheists complaining about a religious reference in a new street sign.

This story concerning pilots who refused to fly the 4th of July Atheist banners. And

This little report on the removal of an atheist billboard.

Admittedly, I think the complaints about the street sign are overkill. That's another story.

What I find interesting is the difference in reactions between these situations. When atheists complain about a religious sign, most average people have an eye roll reaction to "those atheists", always offended by religious references. Even other atheists roll their eyes and post comments that often begin with "I'M an atheist, but..."

When people request that atheist signs be done away with or reuse to post them altogether, the only people who care are... well, atheists.

Cultural bias? Proof that atheists DO need to be more open and vocal? I wonder....

More on Morality

2011-07-08T15:51:00.001-04:00

I have a google alert that emails me everytime the word "atheist" pops up somewhere on the internet. As one would expect, this often leads me to some relatively interesting articles on belief and nonbelief, many of which grind my gears. It seems strange that my gears are so easily ground by theistisc claims these days, as I hear them constantly. Honestly, I think the fact that these claims ARE so common are the annoying part of all this-- every single time a theist makes a claim in support of their religion, it's the same nonsense we hear constantly from every other theist regardless of religion. It's almost gotten to the point where I just want to tell every theist who posts on my YouTube channel, "Before making a claim, please go make sure it's not on Iron Chariots. If it is on Iron Chariots, feel free to read all of the reasons why you're wrong. If you can't find your arguments on Iron Chariots, go ahead and post".

But I'm getting off track. I was reading an SOS (same old shit) theistic blog entry by a Christian on the subject of morality today. Believe it or not, this article was spurred by the recent "Elevatorgate" debocle in the atheist community. (I'd once again like to give a sarcastic "thanks" to all of the nincompoops (INCLUDING Watson and Dawkins) who turned this little, personal incident into a scandal, thereby, making all atheists look worse than they already did.) We now must answer to the theists, like this one, who are laughing behind our backs. Let's get started, then.

This article starts off with a rather long quote from a guy named Craig Hazen (who is, apparently, the editor for the journal of something called the "Evangelical Philosophical Society". Note: Red flag here.). Hazen writes that Christians should challenge the assertion that "there can be good without God" by asking three questions of Atheists:

"• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, help me understand what a moral value is (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of objective moral values? Did the big bang really spew forth “love your enemy?” If so, you have to help me understand that.
• What makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference? What makes it truly binding or obligatory? Why can’t I just ignore it? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?"

Sometimes, I wish people could just say what they mean. There three questions can be summed up simply: "What are morals, where did they come from and why should we follow them?" If Hazen had phrased his questions as such, they would be perfectly valid instead containing a false dicotomy and a strawman that reveal Hazen's own brazen ignorance of the subject.

First of all, Hazen seems to be under the impression that either A. The source of morality MUST be a God (specifically the Christian one) or B. Everything must be subjective.

This notion is wrong on several levels. Ifactions are moral or immoral because God said so, then they are NOT objective. By this logic, God could command literally anything and it would automatically become moral, no matter how atrocious the action would be. Whether or not God would actually command something atrocious is beyond the point. The mere fact that morality is arbitrarily decided by some being makes for subjectivity on some level. Besides, if you believe in the Biblical God, you cannot deny that your God, if He exists, sometimes commands atrocities. Read Hosea 13:16, to start. Also, even if morals DON'T come from divine command, it doesn't mean that they're just "someone's opinion". Certainly, there are personal problems, the solutions to which might very well be based largely on the situation. However, big issues such as rape and murder are almost universally condemned for very good reasons. But I'll address that further in a moment.

The strawman in these questions is the notion that atheists belive that the universe came into being "by accident". All I can say to this is "read a frickin' science book". You can't ask questions about "how something could have possibly arisen naturally" if you don't have a fundamental understanding of how nature actually works or you'll make yourself look like an idiot. Figure out what happened between the big bang and the arrival of human civilization and THEN come back to us with these questions.

The rest of the article focuses on how evolutionary means couldn't possibly have given rise to morality, therefore God done it. It includes such gems as:

"You can’t get love from selfishness. You can’t get marriage from survival of the fittest. Not rationally, anyway. And when the chips are down, and obligations clash with self-interest, reason has a major part to play in determining how we will act. Either you ground morality or you cave in to selfishness, and marriages don’t last when you have no reason not to be selfish."

My only reply to this would be simple You. Are. An. Idiot.

Do people honestly think that there has been no progress in biology since Darwin? A link provided after the article cutely titled "I wonder where this link leads" demonstrates that this may be tragically so. Let me break this down into chunks so that it might make a little sense:

Human beings evolved as a part of SOCIETY.

A single human being is essentially USELESS without other members of SAID SOCIETY.

There are certain anti-social behaviors that could potentially lead to the DOWNFALL OF SAID SOCIETY.

As social beings, most of us instinctively DO NOT KILL EACH OTHER.

This is not that complicated, people. Read up a little on evolutionary psychology. Read "The Selfish Gene". Read "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution". Heck, have these people ever heard that there were secular moral philosophers even before Christianity was even a thought? Even if there are certain cultural "moral" values we don't know of instinctively, there exists powerful societal pressure for us to behave in accordence with the rules and mores of our civilization. Violators are thrown in jail or killed. Again, THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED.

Morality in a stable, first world society is not subjective. Don't believe me? Read a book. Or watch "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists: Part 29".

The other think that irked me in this article is Hazen's bit about God inscribing morality "on our hearts". He claims that it's important, even if we don't need to believe to be good, to at least acknowledge the existance of the one who made you good. This notion is just as much utter crap as it was before this article. Even if we didn't understand as much as we do about the evolution of social behavior in animals, it would not mean that a God created morality. Not knowing how or why something works does not mean that we can make something up and call it a true answer. Indeed, you cannot assert that God does ANYTHING until you've proven that such a being even exists.

Some would reply to this by saying that morality itself is proof of God. Good try, but no cigar on this argument. To say "we know God exists because we're moral" and then saying "we know we're moral because God exists" is just as circular as saying that the Bible proves the Bible true. God cannot be proof of something that is proof of God without outside evidence that there is a God in the first place.

On another note, is anyone else bothered by the fact that theists are not called out by more people for questioning the morality of an entire segment of the population?

Oh, Censorship

2011-07-08T07:56:00.000-04:00

Because I work for Kalamazoo Public Schools, I have to use a work computer that censors the internet for inappropriate content. Today, when I tried to access a news story about Michelle Bachmann's pledge to ban porn, the net work barred me from the news site because it used the word "pornography" too many times. Thus, through censorship, we have demonstrated one reason why we should NOT support censorship.

2011-07-07T18:23:00.000-04:00

Elevatorgate

2011-07-06T22:21:00.000-04:00

All I can say about this Skepchick/Dawkins drama is this: come on, guys! This is starting to make YouTube drama look normal, and that's saying something. Skepchick had every right to feel uncomfortable and creeped out by what happened to her in Dublin. Other people should have left it at that and not made this into some huge debate on feminism. Dawkins probably should have thought twice before making his little comment and should probably come out and clarify exactly wtf he was talking about. In any case, there is no reason to completely discredit Dawkins. Heck, I always preferred his biology work to his personal opinions.

This is all so silly. Certainly, I think that the "atheist community" could use a little more estrogen in general, but the way these issues are being discussed here is unproductive and emotional. Please stop.

An Open Message from a Compassionate Atheist to a Theistic Don Quixote

2011-07-06T19:52:00.001-04:00

You know who you are. You almost inevitably break my heart every time we have a conversation. You'll probably never realize this fact and, even if someone were to tell you this, I doubt you'd fully understand why this happens. Truthfully, it is this precise lack of understanding that feels like a kick in the stomach every time I see it demonstrated.

I make a concerted effort not to judge other people too harshly for beliefs and practices that they were taught and simply never thought about. Yet it is so difficult, so terribly heart wrenching to see a person whose beautiful mind is so restrained by the cage of dogma that they cannot think independently. What's worse is when thinking independently is taught as a negative or unnecessary ability.

Whenever I hear you say that the only reason you are good is because your religion tells you to be, I am overcome with both sadness and fear. On one hand, the idea that any person could ever tell another person that they would not be as virtuous a person without them, without their religion or without their God makes my stomach churn. The idea that a person would actually think himself unworthy or lacking without another person, without a religion or without a God makes me want to cry. Many if not most people can learn to stand on their own as an individual and, at the same time, live for others. Those who have learned to do this are the most satisfied and, often, the wisest of people. When I see you and realize that you were never even given the opportunity to become a freethinking individual tears me up inside.

On the other hand, I am frightened by the prospect that someone I love might honestly not know the difference between right and wrong. What's even more frightening is the fact that there is no more reason to believe that God keeps people moral than there is to believe that elves keep people moral. A part of me is very wary of a person who is only held back from killing me where I stand by the the supposed will of an invisible, unmeasurable, mythical being. I want to love and be comrades with you, but I cannot afford to risk my own life and the lives of my loved ones. I have no way of knowing whether or not this fear is justified. That's what makes said fear so deep and awful.

Upon hearing someone I love openly and brazenly adhering to a distorted view of reality, knowing full well that their view is distorted by faith, I feel like a failure as a human being striving for truth and betterment. I write, make videos and brood tirelessly over how I can encourage people that I have never met to open their minds, free themselves from the chains of "what's always been believed" and soar into the vast expanse of "what will be known". Watching you is like watching my best friend from middle school, sinking deeper and deeper into the hole that was her own depression. I tried time and time again to reach out to her, but time and time again, she would refuse my hand. It's a sort of indescribable helplessness that comes with having to care for a caged human who knows not of their own confinements.

I think that, perhaps, the worst part of all of this is that the reasons for your entrapment are based completely on false premises. The arguments you have heard and the "facts" you have been taught are false almost in their entirety. I could take each one and knock them down myself, but I cannot, I dare not for fear of causing you pain. If you were to question my beliefs and ideas, I would be fine. My position of atheism holds no emotion for me. Yet you have put so much personal stock into these cherished ideas that there is no way to extract them without extracting parts of you. There are moments when I see the real human mind behind that curtain of bronze-age mysticism. Moments when you are warm and kind and when you thirst for knowledge and empathize with other people. Then he always retreats behind the black curtain of false mystery disguised as morality. Sometimes I just want to scream and wail and pound the walls as if rattling the bars of a cage could somehow break them.

I know that I sound cold and condescending here, but I don't mean any of this sentiment in malice. Nor to I expect my overwhelming emotions to convince you or any other dogmatic theist. But somehow, I see myself in you. I see the person I once was and I remember that I didn't know what I didn't know. But I had one thing in my favor-- my parents, though theists, were freethinkers and my grandparents before them. They built their lives on hard work and truth seeking. It was because they helped me to be courageous and question everything that I managed to break the shackles of dogma and to love the universe unconditionally.

In the end, I can never be you and never fully understand this reality you seem to think you live in. This is the heartbreaking truth. I want to share the world with you, but I cannot when one of us chooses to live in reality despite its harshness and the other prefers to create a quixotic world of his own.

False Witness Much?

2011-07-06T16:45:00.000-04:00

Just for funsies I decided to take a peek at the website of a Christian college that I friend of my cousin applied to. Here's a lovely gem from their mission statement:

"Rejecting relativism and secularism, it fosters intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development consistent with a commitment to Christian truth, morals, and freedom. Rather than political,

ideological, or philosophical agendas, objective truth continues as the goal of liberal learning [at our college]."

Does anyone else notice the bald faced lie in the second sentence? If your institution is dedicated to instilling the values of a particular belief system, it is BY DEFINITION not free of ideological agendas. You are also NOT searching for "objective truth".

I mean, found your institution on whatever principles you want, but for goodness sake, don't lie and make it this obvious. If you're not lying and simply too blind to notice the blatant contradiction in your own mission statement, you probably shouldn't be in the education business at all.

That is all.

Ad Stalinum

2011-07-05T11:53:00.001-04:00

The next time I hear someone use the "Stalin was an atheist" arguement, I am going to explode. I guess it's not entirely an individual's fault when they think this is an accurate point to make. Afterall, the "godlessness" of the communists was a fact that was emphasized in America during the Cold War. But as is often the case, propaganda differs from reality. To quote Matt Dillahunty in his debate with Orthodox priest Fr. Jacobse, "atheism is niether nessasary, nor sufficient [to commit Stalin's atrocities]". This statement seems a bit confusing, but it is simple to expalain.

Would you place many buddhists and secular jews in the same catagory as Joseph Stalin?
Would you say that the terrorists on 9/11 were motivated by theism?

Most sane people would answer "no" to both of these questions, even though many buddhists and reform jews are indeed atheists and the 9/11 terrorists were indeed theists. In reality, niether theism nor atheism on their own are enough to inspire actions, good or bad. In order for people to commit atrocities and/or acts of charity, there must be some sort of other ideological motivation behind these actions. Christians often run charities because, not only do they believe in a god, but they believe that God wants humans to care about each other. The 9/11 terrorists not only believed in a god, but that God wanted them to attack their percieved enemies. Stalin not only didn't believe in a god, he had a separate ideology that included a supposedly "ethical" duty to eliminate those whom he saw as a threat to the State, including religious organizations.

If you wouldn't put buddhists and secular jews in Stalin's camp, you have no business putting the "new atheists" in his camp either. Freethinking empirical rationalists do indeed have different ideologies from Stalin, just as the buddhists do. All it takes to figure this out is a little historical research and a little time and effort to actually ask an atheist "what DO you believe?"

Since when is a virtual "ad hitlerum" argument not a logical fallacy anyway? After all, Stalin had facial hair. Remember that next time you see a picture of Jesus.

Convincing =/= Good

2011-07-02T18:34:00.000-04:00

C.S. Lewis made bad arguments. There, I said it. The skeptics' apologist, the eloquent, intelligent, reluctant but eventual coup de grace of the Christian camp made bad arguments. As always, I must begin with a "don't get me wrong" clause. I do like reading some of C.S. Lewis's fiction work. In my freshman writing seminar last year, we studied the novel "Til We Have Faces" and, I must say, I quite enjoyed it. I also quite enjoyed the ever popular "Chronicles of Narnia" series as a child. Yet when it comes to Lewis's arguments as to the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, he fails miserably. My intention in this case is not to dissect all of his arguments. I can debunk a few off the top of my head: the Lunatic, Lord, Liar defense presents a false trichotomy, he assumes the efficacy of the Bible when that may not be valid, etc. The Iron Chariots wiki begins (though there is still much to be done on the article) to debunk the entirety of "Mere Christianity" if you want to read more of that. However, I'm more interested in the fact that, though he presents less than solid arguments on a regular basis, hoards of people consider him a great Christian philosopher.

Quite frankly, I think that Christian apologists are so widely beloved, not because they make good arguments, but because they make CONVINCING arguments. The two are not always the same. One might reference my previous post as an example. If the Insane Clown Posse has said "the wonder and power of attraction exhibited by magnetic force remains, to mere mortals as ourselves, a mystery. They can only be explained through the wisdom of divine revelation and intervention", they would probably have sounded a lot more respectable than they did when they rapped "f*ing magnets/ how do they work?" in their song "Miracles". Yet, upon examining the two statements, they are, in fact, saying the exact same thing. We have to admit though, the most famous Christian apologists aren't idiots. Most of them, like C.S. Lewis, are pretty good writers. It seems natural that they would at least give us pause to think about what they're saying. I think I can speculate further as to why so many people not only stop to think about what apologists say, but fall for their platitudes hook, line and sinker. There are two major factors that I hypothesize contribute to the convincing nature of apologetics:

1) A lack of critical thinking.
2) A pre-existing desire to believe.

The two probably go hand in hand, but I think each reason deserves attention.

How many times have we heard the story of the skeptic's conversion. "I DID have doubts," the theist inevitably says. "But I thought about it/read about it/ talked to my religious leader about it and all of my questions were answered!" This story crops up so many times, it's practically a meme, but I am sure that these things actually happen. Religious apologists always have answers. Always, always, always. The real question is "do they have GOOD answers?" Are their answers supported by the weight of evidence and logically sound? I can assure you almost without hearing them that they will not be. Let's face it, there are only so many arguments for the existence of God and they appear over and over again in different forms. Not a single one of them is sound and/or evidentially supported because all of them make fundamentally erroneous assumptions (generally, that "there must be something"). One might ask why the heck more people don't realize this fact. Simple. People don't generally put god claims to scrutiny. Even intelligent, critically thinking people often treat god claims as if they were sacred cows. Some may even make the same erroneous assumptions as the apologetics themselves. Because they all tend to agree on said erroneous assumptions, they don't examine them very well. Why? Well, this leads me to my second factor.

I've heard before that, in order to be convinced the Christianity is true, one must begin with a desire to believe. This is a major, major red flag. When a person is predisposed to believe something, they'll take what they can get. It's very easy to see a well written argument for God's existence, nod one's head in affirmation and block out any criticisms of that argument if all you want is a reason of some sort to believe. Even C.S. Lewis admits that, when he was young, he wanted God to exist. Thus, he has no business calling himself a "reluctant convert". In the end, when we desire to believe something, we are not looking for truth. We're looking for ad hoc justification. This leads us to throw critical thinking to the wind and fall for false premises and phony philosophy. Every single claim we can say we know to any degree of certainty had to endure a barrage of criticism from people who wanted to do anything but believe. Why do we expect anything different from God claims? We shouldn't. End of story.

Bad arguments are only as convincing as we want them to be. Can we stop searching for affirmation and start caring about what's factual? Can we stop lending credence to patently absurd notions just because they make us feel better?

"F-ing Magnets, How Do They Work?"

2011-06-30T20:35:00.000-04:00

Is anyone except me slightly irked when people legitimately make things up and, when ask for an explanation, treats their made up idea as if it were some sort of profound mystery? This complaint is related to, but not the same as yesterday's post about philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Humans have a natural curiosity that drives them to solve mysteries, this much is clear. What I consistently fail to grasp, however, is our insistence upon creating "mysteries" and "miracles" where there needn't be any at all.

Let me give you a simple example. The phrase "God works in mysterious ways" is one of the most irksome cop-outs I have ever encountered. When entering into discussions about God giving humans free will for example, we often hear questions asked about why God supposedly intervenes a certain times in the lives of humans or why God allows certain "natural evils". This line of questioning generally comes back with the "mysterious ways" reply. I rarely know how to respond to this nonsense, not because it's a good reply, but because it's a supremely bad one. In such a situation, the theist is making an assertion that things happen for a reason, that is, God's plan. When asked about the rationale behind said plan, however, the best the theist can do is give an elegant version of "I don't know". How the heck does this explain anything? Why not simply admit that you don't know in the first place? What's the use of tacking on random claims of divinity that are no more than pious assumptions? And of course, when natural disasters are explained in purely materialistic terms, the miracle squad will inevitably cluck endlessly.

There were some who did not understand why certain rational minds made ICP's song "Miracles" into such a big deal. It's just a song, right? Wrong. Though the Insane Clown Posse's messy lyrics demonstrate a juvenile view of the world combined with willful ignorance, they do, in fact, display an attitude that is depressingly common among believers in the supernatural today. The difference between the ICP and theologians is that theologians are far more eloquent and thus, sound much more convincing.

That may seem like a very harsh claim to make, after all, there are a good many very intelligent theologians out there. However, I don't think the comparison is undeserved. I was recently reading an informational website run by a certain religious group who shall, for the time being, remain nameless. The subject was the inspired nature of the gospels. After a very long (and admittedly poetic) description of the depth and mystery of God's hand in scripture, there was a rather short and snippy paragraph about how scholars who use "scientific" methods to investigate scripture and thus, question the traditional interpretations, are only seeking to mislead the public. The origin of scripture could only be divine.

The sad fact is that the sentiment expressed in that essay was IDENTICAL to that of the song "Miracles". The ICP raps defiantly, "f*cking magnets, how do they work?/ And I don't wanna talk to a scientist/ ya'll motherf*ckers lying/ and gettin' me pissed!" What is the cause of this rampant anti-intellectualism? At least most people that I know of think the Insane Clown Posse is nuts. But people actually TRUST priests, pastors, rabbis and imams. Sometimes I wonder if people actually listen to what their religious leaders say or if they just see and hear pretty words strung together such so that they can't possibly be wrong.

Sadly, no matter how beautiful an idea is, that idea could still be wrong.

There is a simple answer to why parts of the Bible contradict each other and/or make no sense. As far as we can tell, it is simply a book written by scores of people over thousands of years. Please note, PEOPLE. There is no secret divine mystery to any of it and there needn't be one. Sure, there are things we don't know about the origins of the Bible, Qur'an and Torah, but that's exactly why we looks to historians and archaeologists. These people dedicate their lives to discovering these truths. Many of them are believers with no intention of "lying" or "misleading" people. No matter how much of it you do, pulling ideas and pure logic out of the air will never lead you to truth. Not without evidence, that is. Yet this is all apologetics is and ever will be. So let's stop making excuses.

I always loved the House quote about how, if the wonder of something disappears once that something is explained, there never was any wonder to begin with. It's so true. We need to stop adding Gods and spirits where they don't belong. We need to stop clinging to ancient ideas simply because they're beautiful or profound-sounding or... well, ancient. The more I read about ancient wisdom, the less wise it sounds to me. What use are imagined mysteries when there are so many real ones?

And remember, no matter how many assumptions we add to an argument, we know what will have the last laugh:

Mystical, Philosophical Babble

2011-06-28T19:02:00.000-04:00

One of the more interesting courses I took last year was a philosophy of religion course. One of the big facts I learned indirectly about philosophy was that philosophy is about as useless as it is fascinating. Don't misunderstand, I like philosophy. It's a good way to get ideas flowing, to learn how to conduct logical discussions, to learn how to think in different ways. However, I can't help but notice that when it comes to accurately describing, explaining or conveying reality, pure philosophy almost inevitably fails. Certainly, many of the ideas we hold true today began as mere philosophical treatises (political ideology and the like). However, there are also a good many philosophical ideas that we hold to be false. How do we choose which are true and which are false? It all comes back to whether or not that idea or concept is demonstrably true. I'll give you an example. How many times have we heard the phrase "communism looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in real life"? Now we could debate all day as to whether or not this is actually true, but the fact still stands that many citizens of the modern world believe this statement to be somewhat true. After all, there are many still alive today who were able to witness just how corrupt Lenin's conceptualization of communism became. Yes, yes, I understand that there are different types of communism, etc. My point is simply that soviet style per Lenin was once a viable idea, philosophically for large numbers of people. Reality told a different story. Lenin turned out to be dead wrong in many ways, despite being philosophically sound.

Back to philosophy of religion.

There are those within many (if not most) religious and spiritual traditions who assert that there are parts of "truth" that science cannot touch. Some would say that there are elements both inside and outside the universe that defy empirical and rational explanations. Therefore, we must turn to faith and philosophy in order to understand them. Whenever I hear someone make this assertion, I find it hard not to exclaim how ridiculous the assertion is. Without any sort of evidential support for its premises, a philosophical argument is indistinguishable from an opinion pulled out of thin air. I like to use the following example that I heard on non-prohpets once to illustrate this point:
I start by asserting that 2+2=5. This means that 4=5. By subtracting 3 from both sides, we find that 1=2. The pope and I are 2 people. Therefore, the pope and I are 1 person. Therefore, I am the pope.
Obviously, this is ludicrous. However, my logic was perfectly sound. My fatal error was in starting with a very bad, unverifiable premise. This is problem with pure reason and philosophy. There is no guarantee that such arguments will lead us to anything that's real. They may give us pause or make us think for a second, but they are useless for all practical purposes.

Unfortunately, every argument for the existence of any supernatural quality or entity is almost directly comparable to the 2+2=5 argument. This is because all of them start with a premise that no person or group of people can possibly justify: the premise that there MUST necessarily be something other worldly, supernatural or spiritual about the universe. Something beyond the material that explains or controls forces that humans simply cannot. Heartbreaking as it may sound to the already convinced, there is absolutely no practical reason to believe that this premise is true.

Sure, we may WANT there to be something other. We may HOPE that there is something other. And yet, being as we are, the universe owes us absolutely nothing. Our wants and hopes have no effect on physical reality. Some might point out that I'm attempting to use logic and evidence to approach something that is not logical. Fine. The problem with this point is that, if you wish to argue for the existence of anything in particular within this supernatural realm, you shoot yourself in the foot. Once you assert that something is beyond logic or evidence, you have placed it in the realm of the unknowable and have no business asserting anything specific about it. Anything specific you do choose to assert about it is, again, indistinguishable from ideas pulled out of thin air.

What I truly fail to understand time and time again is why people become so disheartened by the idea that there may very well be nothing beyond the material realm. Why do we feel the need to tack on mysticism to a universe that is wondrously intricate without it. It seems to me like tacking random lace patterns onto this dress:

Sure the dress is simple, but it's lovely the way it is. There's no reason to believe that there needs to be any lace on it at all. Sure, it's not extravagant, but why does it need to be in order for us to appreciate it? The way in which my dress analogy fails is in that the universe IS extravagant, even speaking in purely materialistic terms. There is even less need to add mysticism to the universe than there is to add accessories to this dress. There are plenty of mysteries and complexities in the universe as is. We don't need to pull new ones out of our butts that only distract us from the real "spiritual" nature of the universe. Philosophical conceptions of reality are often fun and interesting, but, in the end, they might as well be no more than mystical babble. I say we stop babbling and start discovering. Or, at least, don't let our babble get in the way of our discovery. Let's stop pretending that there's something "deep" about concepts such as the "unmoved mover" or the "eternal watchmaker" when the real depth in the universe is deeper than any God or spirit we mortals could ever imagine.

Obsessed with Circumcision

2011-06-28T11:56:00.000-04:00

For some reason, I have heard so much about circumcision in the last few weeks that it's starting to put the Old Testament to shame. That's saying something. Ok, so maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I feel like a fair amount of people are giving a lot of attention to this issue, especially since the San Fransisco circumcision ban was proposed. I guess I should throw in my two cents on the issue.

My feelings on circumcision are largely mixed. First of all, I think it's dishonest to directly compare it to female genital cutting. Male circumcision consists of the removal of the foreskin of the penis, which is the equivalent of the clitoral hood on the female. Female circumcision involves, at the very least, the removal of the clitoris, meaning that the two would only be comparable in that sense if male circumcision involved the removal of the entire head of the penis. In addition, the circumstances, stated aims, methods etc. of the two procedures are very different. The way I see it, removing the skin around the head of the penis of a newborn for supposed health reasons or because the parents don't know any better is different than enduring a risky procedure to cut of a large portion of the female genitalia under generally unsafe circumstances in order to keep the girl sexually pure. If we have to resort to emotional appeals by comparing the two in those ways, we probably shouldn't be having this discussion.

That being said, I am not nessisarily in support of circumcision either. One fact that both male and female circumcision have in common is that the only real reason to have the procedures done in the first world is tradition. Appeals to tradition, as always, are fallacious arguments. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it nessasary or morally right. There have been assertions that there are health benefits to circumcisions and there have been studies (some of which were mentioned in a recent video by c0nc0rdance on YouTube) that, in AIDS ridden countries, male circumcision significantly reduced the rate of contraction. For a while, I was pretty convinced that, while I could never call myself a proponent of the practice, circumcision might not be SO bad if the health benefits are that positive. However, a recent blog entry by PZ Meyers has led me to rethink this notion. According to Meyers, the study was incomplete and inaccurate. Besides, in first world countries such as America, AIDS and STDs are less prevalent and relatively preventable with safer sex methods, such as condom use or responsible moderation of sexual activity. If this is so, then only one reason remains for circumsizing boys: tradition. This leaves me, again, with mixed feelings because tradition is never a good justification for something as serious as surgeries on the genatalia of infants.

In the end, I find it difficult to take a strong stand on the issue either way. If the procedure is virtually useless, I cannot support it. However, I don't think that I could support a ban on the practice either. There are a couple reasons for this. Firstly, circumcision is less risky, health wise, when done on infants than on older men and boys. The healing process is easier, and the child won't remember it, saving him from future pain and/or insecurities. These points would be rather irrelevant if circumcision weren't so prominent in the United States. The simple reality is that most people in the US choose to have their male children circumcised and I hypothesize that, because of this, many male children would make that choice when they became old enough to decide (even if only due to social pressure). That being as it is, people at this point in time should have access to the simpler infant procedure. I feel that this is one of those situations that needs to be worked out through education and further study rather than legal action.

This is an issue that merits further discussion, but I think the shouts of "human rights violation" and "anti-semitism" are not necessary at this point.

2011-06-27T19:45:00.000-04:00

Finally...

2011-06-26T11:01:00.000-04:00

...I am coming out of my week-long funk/illness. This is a good thing because I really hate being sick and in depressive funks. It always makes me more hostile than I'm comfortable with.

Last night, I finally got a copy of "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. I'm very excited to start it. I know that there are plenty of people who get on the cases of atheists for "worshipping" Dawkins. This claim is obviously ridiculous-- I don't worship Dawkins any more than Christians worship C.S. Lewis. Still, I have never read books on biology that made my jaw drop the way Dawkins' do. "Unweaving the Rainbow" was especially moving. The universe is such an incredible, terrible, beautiful, overpowering place. Whenever I read about biology, I always feel so humbled and so happy to be a part of it all.

I'm also very happy to have started working full-time last week. Currently, I'm a substitute secretary at Kalamazoo Public Schools. It wasn't exactly the job I was expecting, but it certainly is better than nothing. It's one of those jobs where I feel so powerful and so powerless at the same time. The ladies I work with and I are in charge of so much to make sure that the school system runs smoothly. Yet we hear so many stories, especially from kids who have to enroll in summer school, that are heartbreaking and that we can do nothing about. It really makes me wish a could adopt all of those troubled kids....

Convince Me

2011-06-12T18:37:00.000-04:00

Every once in a while (more than I'd like to, unfortunately) I hear theists of all stripes claiming that evidence for God is out there. Atheists, apparently, are just too blind/ignorant/closed-minded/stubborn/possessed by the devil to notice it. Some even claim that we DO see the evidence, we just pretend we don't so we can sin.

Obviously, these claims are excuses made in order to duck the immense burden of proof belonging to those who claim belief in the supernatural. However, I'll be friendly for once and I will describe in detail the type of evidence I would need in order to consider a belief in a God.

Consistency

If every person claiming to have been "divinely inspired" come back with the same messages, revelations and assertions, I might be inclined to think that there might be some truth to their claims. However, the types of divine revelations we see and hear about today are suspiciously close to what we would expect if people were just making stuff up or mistaken. Christians, Muslims AND Jews all claim that their texts are the inspired words of divine beings. Yet all of these "inspired words" say different things. Not only that, but every denomination of Christianity claims (oddly enough, for the same reasons) to be interpreting the Bible correctly while the others are distorted in their thinking. Why does this not seem fishy to most people? It's even gotten to the point where some of these churches actually distort history to make themselves seem like the "original" interpretations of Christianity. Both the Eastern Orthodox Christians and Fundamentalist Christians such as Jack Chick claim that their systems of belief were founded by Jesus Himself. In actuality, Jesus never founded a church. His original followers were all Jews. Christianity developed as a result of both evolution of certain beliefs and the attempts of more powerful believers to wipe out the ideas of the weaker ones. For all of this "divine inspiration", no one can seem to agree what these supposedly divine beings are saying. Either these beings suck at communicating or people are (consciously of unconsciously) making stuff up.

Now if aliens from the andromeda galaxy came to earth and they were undeniably Christian and they instantly recognized we humans as God's chosen species, I would give the religion another thought. Same goes for any other faith. However, all of this as yet to happen and I remain unconvinced.

A Demonstrable Miracle/Act of God

Miracles are yet another proof people claim to have that their deity exists. Yet somehow, every single religion boasts miracles, even though not all of these religions can be correct. Now all we have to do to find that many miracles are either intentional or accidental hoaxes is go to skeptics dictionary and look them up. In order for me to accept an event as miraculous, it would have to be completely unprecedented. The remission of diseases such as cancer can't count because spontaneous remissions are within the expected behavior of the conditions! The classic example of healing amputees comes to mind here. Now keep in mind that a single regenerated limb using prayer or Holy Water isn't enough. The event would have to be able to be tested and repeated under controlled conditions and the conclusions would have to be peer reviewed. This is not any sort of special requirement. This is exactly the process that every hypothesis must go through before we can consider it a truth about how the world works. Note that I include the "creation of the world by design" in this category as well. I do not consider this a miracle anymore than I do the spontaneous remission of cancer and for the same reasons. Besides, the world is amazing and I love it... but if it was "designed", the designer was not very intelligent. Don't tell me to "look at the trees" when I've seen those things fall and cause destruction.

A Sign of Divine Wisdom

This would be similar, but not identical, to the above demand. What I'm evoking here is the tendency for divine revelations to contain the same errors and prejudices as the humans who receive them. You know, how the Bible didn't contain any accurate scientific information and in "science" it did contain was dead wrong? I simply expect a creator of the universe to know how his own world works. I also expect prophecies to me more than just vague predictions that can be ascribed to any event in hindsight. When we find a Holy Book that, out of no where, gives us a detailed explanation of exactly what happened before the Big Bang, for instance, and that explanation turned out to be true, I might be inclined to believe it. Until then, consider me a skeptic.

In all honestly, one or more of these three things is all it would take to get me and many other atheists to lean towards belief. It really is not asking much. Oh yeah, and I refuse to take any of these huge theistic assertions on faith. It's against my principles, no matter how good pretending to know everything feels.

"What's the Harm?", You Say?

2011-06-10T17:50:00.000-04:00

With a little searching using the handy dandy Google, I finally managed to find the above video. It's part 1 of the one program on the Discovery Channel that succeeded in thoroughly scaring the crap out of me as a kid. I watched it again today and found that my feelings of fear had been replaced this those of irritation.

A six-year-old boy starts to exhibit distant and moody behavior which eventually escalates into full blown tantrums and flouting of his parents' authority. His mother is convinced that there's a demon possessing him. Yup, you heard right. She gets so freaked out that she hires a Native American Shaman to help perform a exorcism ritual on the house. ...Twice.

Now this is just a TV show supposedly based on hearsay. I don't know how much of it is true and/or remembered correctly. The superstitious mother is the only person interviewed at length. The father was skeptical in the beginning, but we get no testimony from him as to whether or not he saw fit to become a believer. Let's assume, however, that none of the events described are exaggerated.

Let's look at the facts we know:

Both the mother and father work long hours and rarely see their son during the day. They leave the boy with a nanny.
The boy begins to play with an imaginary friend.
The child starts to exhibit moody and erratic behavior as the situation progresses.
Throughout the time of this incident, the mother treats the imaginary friend as if it were a real person and chooses to become emotional about the bad behavior rather than discipline the child.
The only person who claims to see or feel anything supernatural is the mother, who was convinced from the beginning that the negative events in her life were a result of the paranormal.

Now, if we ignore the extravagant video editing and overacting in the show, we reveal that the child's behavior is something that you see on almost every episode of Super Nanny. Honestly, when stripped down to the bare basics, this story is more mundane than those on Super Nanny. If the mother and father are rarely home to care for their young child, of course the child won't respect their authority. Of course the child will feel distant from his family and turn to imaginary playmates if his family is rarely around. Notice that once the mother realized something was wrong, she started actively trying to be involved in her son's life, even if only out of necessity. That's when the son's behavior improved. Even after the first exorcism, the family went about their business and the behavior perpetuated. Why is this not a red flag for some people?

I also thought it was incredibly dense of the mother to assume that the boy couldn't have possibly picked up cuss words or a story about a kidnapping at his age. As long as the boy is exposed to television or other human beings, he's going to pick things up, good and bad. Also, the story the boy told about a child murder was not detailed at all. In fact, it sounded like the reasons my parents gave me for why I shouldn't "talk to strangers" when I was a child. If he had gone into elaborate details about child molestation, then I'd be worried. However, that's not what happened. Not only that, but the mother actually went and did research on child abductions in the area and found nothing. That should have been another red flag. If the child had indeed described an event that actually happened decades before he was actually alive, then I might raise an eyebrow. As it stands, there is no reason to draw from those facts the conclusion that there's a demon in the house.

...Unless one is already convinced.

That was the other fishy part about this story. The only person who ever saw, felt or heard anything out of the ordinary was the mother. The fact that she was so convinced and so emotional leads me to think that what she "felt" were the results of psychology. She only felt peace after the performed the native american ritual. Which brings me to another point. Most religions have some beliefs in demons and many of them involve the banishing of those demons. The ritual in the show was very different from, say, a muslim exorcism. Yet both she and muslim exorcists claim that their rituals work. Either both religions are right somehow, or the reason they appear to work is because they calm the minds of the people involved.

Here's what worried me slightly about these events. The family did absolutely nothing practical to help this child. No discipline, no research on erratic behavior in children, no consulting an expert. If this child had had a serious illness or psychopathy, they would be allowing this child to suffer and perpetuating his problem. What's the harm in these little superstitions? They are absolutely useless when it comes to solving legitimate problems.

Family Ties

2011-06-10T15:30:00.000-04:00

I had a long conversation with someone last night regarding the role of family in one's life. This is something I feel rather strongly about considering my own family background and my experiences reading up on child psychology as well as my personal experiences with my friends' families.

My grandmother on my dad's side had six children, most of whom chose to stay in Michigan after graduating from college. This was the conservative Protestant side of the family, so all of my five uncles and aunts followed the traditional "get married, have 2-3 kids and have big family gatherings on Christmas and Easter" pattern. My brother and I became very close to our cousins on that side and quickly realized the advantages to having a large supportive family. My mom's side was very different. She was the youngest of three kids, her parents were divorced as was her brother. As a result, we rarely saw the whole family together and I often heard about all the problems they had. My brother and I also learned what can happen when our family members screw us over.

Being a rather maternal person by nature, I still hold the importance of family up as one of my most treasured values. Still, I have seen so many people get screwed over because of family drama. I mean, everyone has family drama to some degree. Whenever you have a large group of people together who don't necessarily agree on everything, there are bound to be some conflicts. However, I keep noticing patterns of behavior that almost inevitably lead to trouble, yet somehow people never notice them. Perhaps I can provide a short list:

Lack of Acceptance

I have an uncle who literally will not talk to me because, of all things, I like to study Russia. He's definitely one of those guys who thinks that the Cold War is still going on. I can understand people being products of their time, but what I don't understand is the need to alienate people because you disagree with them. I see this with children as well. Parents will throw children out of their houses for something a frivolous as questioning their religious beliefs. Our family members, children included, do not belong to us. They are individuals in their own right. Sometimes, the people we love and live with are going to have ideas pr practices different from our own. Cutting ourselves off from them is detrimental to both people. The person we cut off is left without a relationship that may help them later on and we left arrogant, ignorant and set in our ways. Family is something that can be our safety net when things go wrong and can share in our joy when things go right. Tearing a family apart over petty disagreements is senseless.

People Don't Understand the Concept of Love

One of my criticisms of Christianity as it's practiced today, especially among fundamentalists, is the fact that it has twisted the perfectly noble and essential notion of love into something destructive. There is this idea that God loves us all... and yet He requires worship. It is said that God love His creation unconditionally... yet He allows the torturous domain of hell to exist to punish the unfaithful. In reality, unconditional love demands neither worship, nor retribution. Unconditional love involves putting the needs of another person above ones own. It's the kind of relationship we expect to have with our mothers. This kind of love is beneficial because it often becomes a source of support and comfort when all else fails. Unconditional love also involves accepting a person despite their quirks and flaws. Yet so many people turn their relationships into power struggles. We quibble with our spouses for not doing X and Y according to our expectations. We insist on using corporal punishment on our kids, assuming that, if we don't instill them with fear early on, they'll rise up and rebel against us in the end. When we have these attitudes, we are not in loving relationships, we're mentally and emotionally masturbating. If we focus so intently on how our partners fall short of our expectations, we forget that helping each other not fall short is why you're in the relationship. We also forget the fact that WE may fall short of THIER expectations. If we insist on being at war with our children and seeing them as rivals, we are shirking our duties as parents in that we need to give to them, not the other way around. Which leads me to my third point...

We Tend to See Parenthood as an Act of Charity

When we decide to have children, we are either knowingly or unknowingly accepting a job. This is one of the hardest and most important jobs we will ever do, but it is a job nonetheless. We are entrusted, either by choice or by chance, with a small, innocent human being. Once we accept parenthood, we must do everything in our power to help that human being become a productive member of society. Yes, we MUST do this, it is not some sort of optional, charitable sacrifice. Biology, society and, quite frankly, the law, require us to care for our children. Our children do not owe us for this. Asking a child to bear some sort of debt to you for raising them is like expecting your employer to pay you extra just for showing up on time every morning. It is arrogant and selfish. Even if we did have some sort of choice as to whether or not to raise our children, there would be no way our child ever COULD repay such a debt. All such a burden on a child does is trap them in an emotional sinkhole of feeling unworthy of their parents' love. When those parents die, those children will forever feel as if they weren't able to repay their parents well enough. Parental love should be unconditional. It has nothing to do with worthiness, nor should it. If a child grows up successfully, they should consider their successes payment enough for their parents. It is a sign that those parents did their duty in teaching the child how to make good choices. The parents should be satisfied with this and be able to let the child go. Obviously, these things are easier said than done. We need to start by realizing that our children are individuals. They are not our enemies, nor our crosses to bear. They are not burdens and they are not vessels for which to inject our values. We have a responsibility to them as the wiser, more mature ones. Those who need their kids to validate them probably are not ready to have kids. Full stop.

We Don't Laugh or Forgive Often Enough

Everyone screws up. Absolutely everyone. When living with family members, we are going to be involved in or witness a lot of screw ups. One thing I learned in Russia was that a sense of humor often helps lighten the mood when something goes wrong and makes us realize that whatever happened isn't the end of the world. Yet all too often, we take ourselves too seriously and become offended when we're on the victim end of the screw up. Sometimes, we choose to hold grudges that last for years. My grandma and grandpa on my mom's side got a divorce after my grandpa's issues with his mother overwhelmed him and caused him to make some stupid decisions. To this day, my grandma cannot forgive him. She lives her life in the hole she dug by living in the past and not letting go. It's a very lonely and unhappy situation for her. Forgiveness is hard, but it pays off in the end. But you knew that, right?

We Freak Out About the Wrong Damn Things

I cannot say this enough. We are so spoiled in this country that we have the luxury of worrying about things that really do not matter. I repeat the point I made in my post about gay marriage. Why on earth should we care who is marrying whom when there are so many worse things?? In the course of the conversation I had last night, my friend stated that, if there was a huge destructive pandemic that forced the world into a legitimate state of emergency, everyone would have to be a conservative because we wouldn't have the money for government programs or abortion on demand. I was floored. If there was a world-wide emergency, I would hope that no one would CARE either way about any of these things. They are so incredibly petty in the big scheme of things and yet we let them dominate our minds to the point where we ostracize people who don't share our views on them. This tears apart not only our friendships, but our families. I have relatives that I know nothing about because two generations back, a protestant married a catholic and both families shunned the couple. To an objective, rationally thinking person, this is utterly ridiculous. Both people were Christians! They followed the same religion! Yet a petty little difference of denomination caused a feud. A happy family life was denied these people simply because their family members couldn't get past their prejudices. My mom has a tendency to literally cry over spilled milk. All my grandma has to do is knock something over and my mom will start yelling. Is this reaction really necessary? Of course not. But we tend to not question our thoughts and beliefs. We tend to just let our emotions run wild. We all too often to this to the detriment of ourselves and others.

What is my point? My point is that families are not perfect and never will be. Still, by putting in a little effort and critical thinking, we can enjoy beneficial relationships with our relatives, close and far. Of course, creating such relationships involves giving of ourselves without the expectation of payment. This is difficult, but usually worth it.

"Glee" and Atheists In Popular Culture

2011-06-09T16:31:00.000-04:00

Today, I re-watched an old episode of the Fox TV show "Glee". This was the third episode of the second season entitled "Grilled Cheesus". This episode focused on religion and the role of religion in the lives of the characters.

First of all, I think this was a great topic. I in no way oppose public discussion of religion and faith in general. Exposing kids to the issues and viewpoints at hand isn't a bad idea. I also (generally) approve of the Glee approach. Glee always presents its story in an exaggerated and satirical way, which often lightens up what would otherwise be rather heavy.

As is to be expected, I did have some problems with this episode. These problems happen to be the same ones I have with almost every popular reference to atheists. I feel that the non-religious are often misrepresented, though I can almost understand this considering that "nonreligious" is a very broad term. I felt that, in this Glee episode, the religious characters were portrayed realistically and used arguments that I hear used often by theists. The atheist characters, however, we the typical atheist stereotypes who cite present or past trauma as reasons for their unbelief. The two atheists in the show, Sue and Kurt, both assert that their personal issues led to their lack of faith, Sue with her sister and Kurt with the fact that he felt persecuted for being a homosexual. While some atheists may have lost faith over experiences such as these, they are rarely the only reasons. Furthermore, such stereotypes only perpetuate the idea that atheists are inherently bitter, grumpy or angry people. Anyone who believes this needs to spend more time with atheists.

I also took issue with the fact that both Sue and Kurt busted their butts to silence the theists in the story. Again, this only perpetuates some very, very bad misconceptions. There are no laws against being openly religious in the public schools. The schools themselves simply cannot promote religiosity. In the case of the Glee club, the children were the ones choosing the songs and the religious pieces were performed for artistic, rather than promotional, reasons. This would have been just fine in American public schools. Yet the both the school and the atheists in Glee appeared to be persecuting the religious characters, something that only happens in the minds of the fundamentalists.

It also bothered me slightly that Kurt was portrayed during the church scene as being rather ignorant of Christianity (he crosses himself in a baptist church). Statistically, many people who choose to reject religious teaching don't do so blindly. Many of them are indeed familiar with the rituals and teachings of the various religions. In some cases, that knowledge is what led to their lack of belief. I was also irritated by the fact that Mercedes virtually chastised Kurt for not "believing in something greater" after Kurt specifically said that he drew comfort from strong people such as his father.

Don't get me wrong, I love Glee and I think that the topic was a good one. I just wish that the nonbelievers in the group had been portrayed less as angry victims and more as people who acquire peace and hope from the world around them rather than a world beyond. In the end, I think it's safe to say that we have the same struggles as everyone else, we just choice to deal with them differently. Should not our methods be given a fair representation?

Why Is This Even An Issue?

2011-06-09T14:59:00.001-04:00

Famines, floods, earthquakes, wars, terrorists, climate change, disease. Amidst this list of ailments, a significant number of Americans and their elected officials are expelling copious amounts of hot air on... who gets to marry whom. Quite frankly, I should not have to explain why this debate is infantile. The solution is simple: let people legally marry whomever they choose and live your own life. God forbid you have to actually share a planet with people whose views and lifestyles differ from your own! Apparently, this is too much to ask. At least, that's the conclusion I couldn't help but come to upon reading a post a blog entitled "Muslim Masculinity and Islamic Manhood" concerning "The G-Word".

The author of this blog (the title of which speaks for itself) claims to have a psychology degree from the University of Michigan. I find this rather depressing considering the fact that he appears to have been able to graduate with only a rudimentary understanding of biology. Either that, or he has either consciously or unconsciously chosen to forsake facts in the name of his religion. I don't know which would be worse. Either way, I'm going to post chunks from this man's rather brief blog entry on homosexuality and respond in an attempt to explain why attitudes like his are the epitome of what's wrong with the influence of religion is secular society today.

"My beliefs in terms of faith and principle are the foundation of my being opposed to the practice of homosexuality in both males and females. I understand and can sympathize that people can have feelings for others of the same sex. However the practice of same sex intimacy and relationships is where I am apposed to."

I wish to note two facts about this introduction to the blog entry. Firstly, he freely admits that his views are based, not on fact, but on FAITH. Keep this in mind. Secondly, this man claims to be against the "practice" of homosexuality. Specifically, "intimacy and relationships". This position truly, truly irks me. If this man actually sympathized with same sex "feelings", he would not be opposed to "intimacy". The very fact that he would deny intimacy to honestly loving individuals demonstrates an appalling lack of empathy. Note that this man is not even kind enough to take the softer position of "do what you want, just don't call it marriage". He appears to be against gay relationships full stop. Put simply, other people's relationships are none of his business! If he doesn't want to have homosexual relationships, that's fine. But to be openly opposed to such private choices made by individuals that have no impact on his life is unnecessarily bigoted. It's like saying you're opposed to people putting mustard on their hamburgers or running around their own houses naked. It has nothing to do with him, yet he insists upon passing judgment. What a truly lovely human being.

One of the main reasons is that there is a severe lack of perpetuation or sustainability of the Human race. No reproduction comes out of it.

This is where I assert that this blogger's education in both statistics and biology is severely impaired. First of all, I've seen a range of statistics for exactly how many gays there are in the population. I've seen the percentage anywhere from 3 to 10 to 30. No matter the actually number, none of these percentages are significant enough to wipe out the human race. The majority of people are still heterosexual and still having babies. They always will be. Secondly, we do not have a desperate need for more children. Many people want to have children for personal reasons, understood. However, there are so many unwanted little ones out there who need families. If you really care about the "human race" do something to help find them homes before you start mandating that people make more babies. Thirdly, being that humans are a social species, our relationships, homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise are about social cohesion as well as reproduction. This is just as biological as reproduction. Humans as well as other animals, such as bonobos and dolphins have sexual relations for the sake of bonding. Some of these relations are indeed homosexual. Other animals have homosexual relations in order to demonstrate dominance. The fact of the matter is, homosexuality is just as much a part of human biology as the birth process. If your going to use the "it's unnatural" argument, it's going to swing around and hit you in the face if you don't have a clear understanding of what "natural" means. I don't even think I should need to repeat the age old argument about infertile, elderly and electively childless couples. If you don't know it, google it.

"The clearest of proof is by simply observing your genitals. Your hands were created for you to use to grab things and eat. Your feet help you walk and kick and stand. Your nose is meant to smell things and your ears to hear and your eyes to see. Thus your penis was made to inject semen into a vagina, thus creating the beginnings of new life."

Again, you cannot just look at yourself and other people and think you understand biology. I used to think that boys had penises and girls didn't because God ran out of material when he was working on Eve. Look at how wrong I was. See my above paragraph.

"We have spiritual aspects that we must fulfill. Women are apart of that spirituality as they bring out something in us. They present us with the ability to test ourselves and our desires and strengths. The completion of Manhood and our destiny has to involve both men and women into that spiritual journey. "

You have no proof that we have "spiritual aspects" to fulfill. But religious stuff aside, has this guy ever stopped to think that it's possible to have a good, close relationship with members of the opposite sex without being sexually attracted to them? Do we not have mothers, aunts, sisters, cousins and friends? Also, if a man is gay, hang out with women isn't going to be much of a "test of his desires"... just saying.

"Now I have heard the argument many times. "There are so many kids out there who need parents and families they can go to; we already have plenty of kids to sustain Humanity." That argument may hold some wait temporarily because the vast majority of people are sexual exclusively with the opposite sex. Lets take this further though. What if most people were gay? What if everyone was gay? Humanity, due to lack of reproduction would eventually become extinct.

This blogger's entry skips back to the population thing at this point. He also forgets how to spell "weight". But let's ignore the writing issues for now. Sure, if most of the people in the world were exclusively homosexual, there would be a problem. Still, the fact remains that THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE NOT GAY. Furthermore, you CANNOT MAKE SOMEONE GAY. While it may seem like there are more gays running around now than there were 50 years ago, it's not because more people are turning gay. It's because homosexuality is becoming less taboo then it was back then. Homosexuality certainly always existed, both in feeling and in practice. The Kinsey Reports on human sexuality made this fact evident and, slowly, the taboo has begun to fade. There is no reason to believe that heterosexuality will ever die out unless the entire species dies out. The argument makes no sense.

Obviously, people have the choice to believe what they want. Even so, we must remember that when we get our values from centuries old "Holy Books" like the Qur'an, we often end up picking up the prejudices and misconceptions of the time. The reason why our society has progressed is not due to some mysterious hand of God. It's because human beings dared to question these age old ideas and many of them turned out to be dead wrong. It should also be noted that the Qur'an and Hadith do not explicitly forbid homosexuality, only anal sex. It's not just the Holy Book, it's the tradition and dogma that must also be questioned.

As far as the marriage issue goes, I say we should model our legal proceedings concerning marriage after those of Russia. In Russia, all marriages recognized by the state are, essentially, civil unions. Religious ceremonies are not legally recognized and vice versa. This way, people can choose to have only a legal ceremony, or have two ceremonies, one civil and one religious. If we had that here, gays would have the same legal rights as the rest of us and there would be no clucking from conservative groups about "imposing homosexuality" on them.

Ultimately, religions are like genitalia. Most people have them. Most people would feel lost without them. But please, don't whip them out in public and shove them in people's faces and avoid using them to make decisions that could negatively affect others. That's what brains are for.

Macrame Metaphor

2011-06-09T14:58:00.001-04:00

Recently, I've been addicted to making these macrame bracelets:

Now these are definitely no where near elaborate as it gets with this kind of art. Still, when my grandma saw what I was doing, she said that it was "miraculous" that these designs were appearing as I weaved the thread together. As soon as she said that, I knew I was one the brink of the dorkiest analogy I might ever use.

If my grandma had not seen me making the bracelets and instead only seen the finished product, she might assume that I had bought them somewhere, perhaps even that such seemingly complex designs could not have possibly been made without the help of a machine.

Obviously, these bracelets required no mechanical assistance and the designs are nothing more than patterns of knots. When she saw what I was doing and called it "miraculous", I proceeded to show her, step by step, how I made the bracelets. she was still impressed, but no longer convinced that there was anything especially impressive about macrame. At least, not miraculously impressive.

Theoretically, I could have gone a step further and heped her learn how to make the bracelets herself, but she had neither the time, nor the patience.

What on earth am I actually saying here?

Well, a macrame bracelet is really a small matter, but the reaction that my grandmother had to my project is identical to the one that most people have when observing reality. They see it as being so complex that there must be something "more" to it. Simple forces couldn't possibly have brought all of this together. They may assume that a God was responsible for our existence, just as a person might assume that the neat patterns in the thread were machine made.

Once we do some investigation, however, we find that the world, like the macrame bracelet, is complex, but not supernaturally complex. We can explain how it came into existence without the help from a machine, or, in this case, a God. Just as the pattern of knots is sufficient for creating an impressive design, natural forces are sufficient for creating a universe. In fact, it might be useful to not that the blue and gold bracelet, while it has a distinctive pattern to it, is indeed the result of almost random chance. I followed no blueprint to make it.

Now, I would be satisfied if most people understood the above statements. However, in an ideal world, everyone would be taught, not only the facts of how the naturalistic universe works, but the way to find more facts using evidence and critical thinking. Here, I make an analogy to learning to make ones own bracelet. This equips us with a skill that may prove useful in the future. Critical thinking is a skill too. It is a skill that is all too often overlooked.

Before we close up this geeky extended metaphor, let me ask you a question. Now that you know exactly how and where those macrame patterns were made, do you enjoy them any less?

A Daimyo!

2011-06-09T14:56:00.001-04:00

Have I mentioned lately how much I love Oda Nobunaga?

Probably not. Even using the name "Oda Nobunaga" gives me flashbacks to the sixth grade when I quite literally carried a Japanese history book with me everywhere I went. I also wore boys' clothing and giggled whenever so much as said the word "thing", which shows how much I knew back then. Still, a small bout of nostalgic research led me to realize how cool the first great unifier of Japan really was, even now.

The truly sad fact is that most Americans aren't familiar with Nobunaga. He wasn't even mentioned in my World History textbook my freshman year of high school. Those who have heard of him think we was little more than a ruthless tyrant. My own uncle, a history teacher himself, even described him as having been "mean".

Let's look at this guy in context for a moment. Japan was in the middle of a bloody civil war. The shogun was a weakling and overzealous Daimyo had taken to beating the crap out of each other. One might just as well call Abraham Lincoln "mean" (he did, after all, suspend haebeus corpus, right?). Sure, he wasn't perfect, but for his time and place, Nobunaga was pretty dang brilliant.

The guy wasn't afraid to go against the grain. That's really saying something in a culture as rigid as that of Japan. When we read about his childhood, we find that, even then, he was an oddball, nicknamed "the fool of Owari" because he was, well, weird. Ultimately, his "weirdness" was one of his greatest assets. When the Jesuit missionaries landed on the shores of Japan, many people saw them as unwelcome and invasive. Nobunaga welcomed them and saw them as allies, to some extent. This situation was win-win: the Jesuits were allowed to live there and Nobunaga was given access to European influence. ...And by "influence", I mean "firearms".

Essentially, this Daimyo had at least a subconscious grasp of some of the most important practices and values that we have today. He welcomed new information as a way to improve on old ways. Note also that, though he was fascinated by the Jesuits, he never converted to Christianity. This indicates that he didn't accept new information at face value, either. He chose to separate useful facts from philosophy. He realized that tradition for the sake of tradition was ultimately fruitless and thus, worked to improve upon said traditions. He was a strategist and his strategies worked. Oh yeah, and he was an atheist. ;)

At the risk of sounding too simplistic in my analysis of history, I guess my point is that I would love to go back in time and meet this guy. Heck, I'd like to bring him back to our century and see how he would react. From all that I've read about him, he appears to have had a keen mind and a surprisingly progressive mindset. That's why I admire him.

Dear Radical Feminists...

2011-06-09T14:55:00.001-04:00

...stop giving feminists a bad name. Seriously. In fact, this message applies to all of those freedom fighters who fight so hard that they accidentally start fighting for the other side.

There's nothing wrong with pushing for women's' equality. There's still work to be done in that area. My own mother, who has been in a management position for most of my life, just recently learned that she was being severely underpaid for most of her career because of her gender. She got a raise to make up for what had been lost, but in the end, the loss was still a loss. We also have to remain steadfast in protecting abortion rights (yes, there are those who advocate banning abortion, even in cases of rape and incest). Not to mention all the places in the world where women are treated as second class citizens.

What I don't understand are those who assert that men are, by nature, "rapists" or "rape supporters". I also fail to see the logic in people who scoff at women who willing choose to hold more traditional roles. I mean, logic alone would tell you that liberating women involves giving them the liberty to be a housewife and mother if they want to be. You'd think that, as long as she wasn't coerced into it, wearing a hijab would be a fine decision for a women to make. Whenever I hear someone assert that "no one would ever willingly choose these things!" used in response to my questions, I can't help but be reminded of theists who claim that atheists must know deep down that there is a God. It's yet another case of the "I can't believe that everyone isn't just like me" syndrome.

Will you cut it out?

It's hypocritical to promote freedom and diversity, then expect everyone to be the same. This is not a difficult concept to grasp and it's something that both liberals and conservatives need to understand. I think we'd all be happier if we could just live and let live to some extent.

Post-Memorial Day Post

2011-06-09T14:54:00.001-04:00

In my last post, I mentioned the fact that my family always takes me to a Memorial Day ceremony at Ft. Custer National Cemetery where my grandparents are buried. Unfortunately, this ceremony always has it's share of religiosity, no doubt to comfort those who choose faith as a method of coping with the loss of their loved ones.

This year, one portion of the ceremony irked me more than usual. There was a long line of speakers, two of whom were politicians, though I can't remember their names. The first stood up and not only called upon God to bless families torn apart by war, but dared assert that the soldiers fighting overseas were fighting for the Judeo-Christian values that all Americans share.

I could rant for three pages about what an awful statement this actually was, but I think I'll let several pictures I took at the cemetery make the argument for me.

This is the grave of a Protestant Christian who served in the US Military.

This is the grave of a Lutheran who served in the US Military.

This is the grave of a Mormon who served in the US Military.

This is the grave of a United Methodist who served in the US Military.

This is the grave of a Russian Orthodox Christian who served in the US Military.

This is the grave of a Muslim who served in the US Military.

This soldier had no specified religion.

I wasn't there long enough to photograph anymore, but the National Cemetery Administration has a complete list of faith symbols used on their grave markers available here:
http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp

There are some groups here that I had never even heard of before. This alone shows that the United States is anything but a "Judeo-Christian nation". Certainly, the majority of people here subscribe to some form of Christianity, but there are many who do not. In essence, the "values" that our senator spoke of our soldiers dying for (freedom, justice, etc) are ideals that transcend religion. By attaching these values to a specific religion, this man was rhetorically slapping a good number of non-christian veterans in the face.

Besides, values like justice and personal freedom are not biblical values. They are enlightenment values. The United States government was created to be secular for that reason. Much of the injustice, even in the North American colonies, was a direct product of religion and its adherents. By building a nation on the values that many shared regardless of religion, the ever-famous "Founding Fathers" created a heterogeneous haven for people of all faiths.

In the end, we need to get over ourselves and walk a few miles in the shoes of the "other guy". You may find that that other guy shares more with you than you're prepared to accept.

Criticism of Memorial Day

2011-06-09T14:52:00.000-04:00

Memorial Day is the bane of my existence. Seriously, I can think of few days that I despise more. Tomorrow, my family will take me, as they do every year, to Ft. Custer National Cemetery where an excessively long service will be held for the holiday. This service essentially alternates between over-emotional sentiment and mental handjobs about what a wonderful country we happen to live in.

Why do I so detest this?

First of all, to most people you talk to in America, the mere questioning of the sacredness of this holiday is branded as "disrespectful". That alone is enough to make my blood boil. No belief or practice should EVER be considered above or beyond question. Speaking objectively, as a person who simply is not swayed by patriotism, I think there's a lot wrong with how we celebrate Memorial Day. If people took the emotional wool off of their eyes for a moment, they too might see it. Yet most of us choose not to look at this tradition critically and shun those who do. Thus, I feel the same way about this holiday as I do about dogmatic religion.

Secondly, I dislike "soldier worship". Now before you start passing judgement (though you probably already have) I have nothing personal against soldiers. I cannot begin to tell you how annoying it is to hear people whine when someone dares assert that being in the military is no more virtuous than any other profession. Certainly, the military is no easy job and soldiers are important members of society. I feel the same way about doctors, firemen, police officers, teachers, etc. All of these people are incredibly important and often admirable. Even so, we mustn't forget that they are still PEOPLE. Perhaps I'm a downer, but my definition of what a hero is is rather limited. I don't think that donning a uniform or carrying a title is enough to make one a hero. One who dies saving a wounded comrade is a hero, for sure. But not every soldier has done so and not all who have done so are soldiers. Don't get me wrong, both of my grandfathers were in the military and I certainly love them and respect their choices. However, I would feel the same way if they had been garbage men. The way we put our military up on a pedestal disturbs me. Why do we honor soldiers who die fighting overseas, but not doctors, reporters, philanthropists, etc. who meet similar fates? Again, it's disturbing to me that, of all the sacrifices made to keep the nation together, the ones we value the most are the ones resulting from war...

On a related note, while we Americans are over here patting ourselves on the back for being awesome, what happens to the troops on the other side? You know, the men and women that our soldiers kill? Or have we forgotten that our side kills people too? Believe it or not, those "enemies" have families. Mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children who will never meet their fathers or mothers. We conveniently choose to forget them and they fact that they too were sacrificed. Even during World War II, not all members of the German army were avowed Nazis. Most of them were probably just average people like you and I. And yet they are forgotten. Even more disturbing: what about the innocent civilians killed? Why forget them?

We already have a nationalistic holiday, Independence Day. I can almost understand that one. The founding of the country is something to be patriotic about. Death is not. A day when we're supposed to be honoring the deaths of soldiers is NOT a day to feel good about ourselves. If we're going to have a day like this, we should honor ALL of the sacrifices made, soldiers AND civilians. We should take this time to realize that the fact that such tragedies still take place means that we are still any thing BUT a perfect nation.

Ultimately, I wish people would stop taking life so lightly. I don't believe in a heaven or afterlife and there's no reason to believe in one. Each of us only gets one life. The fact that we take this precious gift away from each other so easily is frightening to me. We should be looking for ways to end wars, not celebrate them.

Again, I have nothing against soldiers or people's need to feel patriotic. I just feel that this patriotism is tragically misguided and you'd better believe I'm bitter about it.

Reality: A Thought

2011-06-09T14:49:00.001-04:00

One who possesses the truth should have nothing to fear from critical investigation.

If a person's beliefs are based on reality, there should be no need to indoctrinate or shield their children from other points of view because the truth will make itself apparent upon investigation.

Doubt should not be regarded as sinful, for doubt stifled by simple facts only leads to more firm belief.

Doubt that is fueled by simple facts protects us from error and gullibility.

The ability to explore and reason is the only truly great faculty we have. Why not use it?

If the map and the ground disagree, the map is wrong. Wouldn't a more accurate map serve us better?

Shouldn't we say the same about a more accurate perception of reality?

Love

2011-06-09T14:48:00.001-04:00

How many of us have made the mistake of thinking we were "in love" with someone when we really weren't? You know, sometimes we spot someone who we find attractive and create an image of that person in our heads. More often than not, we learn that the person in our minds is different than the person in real life. That's when our hearts are broken.

Truly loving someone means seeing that person for who they are, not for what they could or should be. It means accepting that that person is not perfect, but still caring for and encouraging them, not despite, but because of their quirks. This unconditional acceptance is one of the keys to a long term relationship with an individual.

I choose to seek this kind of relationship with the universe.

I've come to the conclusion that the world is not perfect. Sometimes, it downright sucks and I brood and fume that I hate it. Still, I refuse to make myself believe that somewhere, somehow my environment will come to resemble the idea of perfection that I have in my head. I'm not going to convince myself that there exists a flawless place where flawless beings dwell, because there's a good chance that such a place probably does not exist. If I spend my lifetime searching and pining for some sort of heavenly metaphysical realm that meets my standards of unblemished goodness, I will always come up empty handed. I will be little more than an old maid who wasted her life on the quest for the "perfect man" and in doing so pushed away all of the imperfect but nonetheless wonder men she met.

In my universe I seek, not a Dulcinea made just for me, but a vast plane littered with thousands of stars and galaxies, all of which are imperfect but whose imperfections make them awe inspiring.

I'm done with fables and false hopes.

I want my love for the universe to be unconditional.

That is why I am an empiricist.

Our Beliefs Are Not the Default

2011-06-09T14:47:00.001-04:00

From a very young age, I knew that the study of foreign language was for me. One of my favorite things to do was to check cassette tapes in Spanish out of the library and drive my family crazy trying to learn words and phrases. However, no matter how much I learned about the language, I always thought of English as my first language. Everything else, as far as I was concerned, had just been translated over. I distinctly remember thinking to myself "I'm really lucky to live somewhere where they speak the original language!".

Of course, my perception was completely wrong in that case and I soon learned that, while english may have been MY default language, it certainly wasn't everyone else's. It was far from being the "original" anything. In fact, the more I studied linguistics, the more I realized that if I wanted to learn a foreign language with any degree of proficiency, I would actually have to ignore my natural tendency towards English and teach myself to think in that foreign language.

How is this story relevant? In short, beliefs are often the same way, though we rarely think of them as such.

In his famous novel "The Brothers Karamazov", Dostoevsky insinuates that the non-religious among us are such because they want to rebel. In one of the courtroom scenes near the end, Ivan, the atheist brother, shouts "what son does not secretly wish to kill his father?" using the theme of patricide as an analogy for man's relationship with God. Even now, there are a good number of theists who will assert that atheists only claim not to believe in God. They secretly know that God is real. They just choose to deny Him. In the same vein, we all remember the "you know it's a myth" billboard that caused such a hullabaloo around Christmastime.

The simple truth is that no, not everyone secretly knows that you're right. In fact, no matter how strongly you believe something or how many people agree with you, there is no guarantee that you ARE right. In the case of religious belief, there is no denying that, in the end, what you believe is a matter of faith. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, pagans and countless other sects all claim to have witnessed miracles, received divine knowledge and have thought their beliefs through logically. All of them believe, to varying degrees, that their beliefs are true. Many of these beliefs contradict each other. It's impossible that all of them are right. But as matt Dillahunty often says "they could all be wrong".

Along these lines, it is also fallacious for an atheist to assume that a theist knows that their beliefs are "all bullshit". While "atheism" is not in and of itself a belief and thus, has no burden of proof, it is unfair of us to assume that deep down, everybody thinks like us. In a world where most people claim belief in the supernatural, we also have a responsibility to think, reason and listen to the beliefs of others, though we may not agree.

I remember, in my own religious days, listening to atheists and thinking "if only they knew what I believed, they would turn to God. They've only heard extremists, they don't know any of the good arguments." Then I actually began speaking with nontheists and discovered, to my shock, that not only had they HEARD my arguments, but they understood them completely. I learned then that it is possible for someone to understand our points of view entirely and still not hold to them.

This is why I attempt humility. Every person I get to know, be they liberal or conservative, atheist or theist, has taught me something. Though I often try to convince, I also want to hear what everyone else has to say. Maybe I'm wrong on certain things. Maybe not. Either way, I acknowledge the fact that I am not omniscient, nor are my values universal. This doesn't make me weak or a fence sitter. It makes me honest and a free thinker.

Addressing the Free Will Defense

2011-06-09T14:45:00.001-04:00

During the first semester of last year, I took a very enlightening philosophy of religion class. One of the most complex pieces of work we studied was the so-called "free will defense" propositioned by the Protestant analytical philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Little did I know that this response to the ever famous problem of evil would continue to rear its head as I furthered my knowledge of Christian religious belief. I've heard variations of the free will defense used by everyone from VenomFangX to the Priest at the local Russian Orthodox Church. It's quite widely accepted among modern Christians and yet I personally found it unconvincing.

In a nutshell, the free will defense attempts to counter the notion that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being couldn't possibly have created a world in which evil and suffering is so rampant. The idea is that God allows evil to happen so as not to infringe on human free will.

My objections and questions concerning this line of reasoning can be explained thus:

1. Is human free will actually possible considering God's omniscience?

Most Christians pose that God is not only all powerful, but that He knows everything. Our innermost thoughts, every detail of our past actions, all of the wisdom in the universe. Logically, we can deduce that a truly omniscient God must also know the future. However, if the future is already known, that must indicate some sort of set, predestined future. In other words, if the future is already in place, we as individuals can't possibly have any choice in how it plays out. Some Christians (and many Muslims as well) assert that God does not know every detail of the future, but rather, all possible futures and it's up to the individual which future they will choose. However, if God does not know our ultimate future choices, then there are things that God does not know. In that case, God would not truly be omniscient. No matter how the situation is spun, God's omniscience appears to be incompatible with human free will.

2. What About Human Suffering?

Ignoring my above objection, the free will defense appears to address the problem of man's evil actions. However, it does not address the problem of SUFFERING, especially suffering caused by natural disasters that people have no control over. Surely, man having free will has no effect on whether or not hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes happen. Some would argue that such disasters are God's punishment for evil done by man using their own free will (Westburo Baptist Church, anyone?). Even in this case, natural disasters seldom, if ever, only effect "evildoers" and generally result in the deaths of many innocents. The original question stands, how can God allow the suffering of countless innocent people if He is truely omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient?

3. Why Don't People Freely Choose Good?

Some, such as J.L. Mackie would argue that free will and determinism are actually compatible. Theoretically, couldn't God have created humans with free will who freely chose good rather than evil? Why would God have given the supposed characters of Adam and Eve the tendency towards rebellion in the first place and/or why would he give the serpent the ability to tempt them? Plantinga argues that free will and determinism are utterly incompatible. Still, the notion of compatiblism gives us something to chew on in this situation.

4. Is Free Will Really Compatible With Biblical Events?

Since we're speaking mainly in the context of Christianity here, this needs to be addressed. The Bible is full of examples of God intervening in the lives of both His people and His enemies. Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4 and 14:8 all state very plainly that God Himself "hardened the heart" of the Pharaoh of Egypt so that he would not allow the slaves the leave-- sapping pharaoh of his free will. Romans 8:29-30 also states very clear that salvation is predestined. Romans 9:22 indicates that our actions are also preordained to some extent. These are only a few examples of places where God is said to have intervened in people's lives. Furthermore, many Christians believe in the power of intercessory prayer and in miracles performed by God. It seems that, all things concerned, there is little in traditional Christian teaching that validates the notion that humans have free will.

Is Free Will Really a Good Thing?

When I discuss the issue of the problem of evil and free will with Christians, such as VenomFangX, they often react as if free will is something absolutely necessary for God to give us because He loves us so much. My question is simply "what's so great about free will??". VenomFangX asserts that without free will, we would be forced to love God and forced love isn't love at all. This is also a common explanation for why people are sent to hell, they, essentially, "choose" to go to hell by not loving God. Yet, it seems nonsensical that a loving being would allow us to have complete freedom if the consequences of making the wrong choices are as dire as eternal suffering. Let's, for a moment, use the analogy of a parent and child, one that is often used to describe the positions of God and man. Parents are responsible for loving their children and part of this involves allotting the child some manner of freedom, I will grant you that. However, if the circumstances are dire enough, the parent will forsake some of the child's freedom in order to protect the child. When we cross a busy street with a young child, we would restrain the child if it tried to run out into traffic. Anyone who didn't would be branded a terrible parent and perhaps even, a terrible person. The child wouldn't be blamed for running out in traffic if he or she simply did not know any better. We may as well apply a similar situation to God and man. Why is absolute freedom so important to God that He would allow a majority of His beloved creation to run out into metaphysical traffic and risk suffering eternally simply because they don't know any better? Was it not God who created free will and thus, put such an emphasis on it Himself? Was this choice truly benevolent, or do our morals come from some cosmic truth apart from God? If the latter is true, is God really omnipotent?

Who is Really Making This Argument Anyway?

One of the big problems I see with the free will defense in general is that it is obviously the product of a modern society in which we are granted the luxury of freedom and where suffering is minimal. This is little more than an educated assumption, of course and I don't consider it a part of my actual argument, but I think it's worth discussing. When we see the after effects of natural disasters, for instance, the religious involved rarely shrug their shoulders and chalk the disaster up to God allowing man to be free. Those who are oppressed don't thank the Lord for granting their oppressors the freedom to do evil. People in these situations assert that God has a plan to get them out of their mess or at the very least pray that He will intervene. These people seem to be invoking some sort of fate NOT free will. How often have we heard the phrase "everything happens for a reason" as a means of consolation? Free will isn't a biblical value, it's an enlightenment value. The use of free will as a defense is one of the most obvious projections of modern values onto ancient beliefs in order to keep them relevant. This leads us to wonder how much we really need these ancient beliefs if we're so good at forming positive values without them.

Lastly, I'm not even completely convinced that we as humans HAVE free will, all talk of God aside. I don't believe in fate or cosmic "reasons" for things, but it seems that much of what we do is guided by what happens around us. We are thrust into situations that we seldom choose and are forced to make decisions. Often, these decisions are influenced by biological instincts/natural laws, manmade laws and social pressures. In other words, I tend to think we have some freedoms, but we are anything but completely free. I guess it all comes down to one's definition of "free will", which is an entirely separate discussion.

My point is simply that I don't see free will as an apt reply to the problem of evil and not simply because I have no desire to believe. Actually, the problem of evil/suffering is NOT in and of itself an argument against to existence of a deity. If one believed in a cruel God, a God with limited power or a God with limited knowledge, the problem of suffering would be no problem at all. However, when we want to have our metaphysical cake and eat it too, we have to accept that what we're trying to do is inherently contradictory. Ultimately, we must accept, in this case either the agnostic position of "I guess I don't know how it works" or the "faith rather than reason" position. Either way, I see no justification for my own belief.

On Lacking Faith

2011-06-09T14:42:00.000-04:00

[Originally posted on May 18, 2011]

I believe it was Ray Comfort (though I could be wrong, don't take my word for it) who claimed that every person has a God-shaped hole in his heart. This means that everyone, whether they realize it or not, yearns to feel the presence of their supposed creator and then, only then, will a person feel true peace, love and happiness. Ray is not alone in his belief. It is common place, at least in America, to assume that faith is some sort of necessity that people feel lost or unfulfilled without. My parents once told me that they wanted me to go to church because they wanted to "provide me with all the tools I would need to get through hardships in life". Those of us who lack faith are often told that we're being prayed for by our more pious loved ones. I mean no offense to these well meaning people, but the notion that all people need to have faith in something is simply untrue. It certainly was untrue for me.

Like most young Americans, I was raised protestant and went to church and sunday school regularly for most of my childhood. At that age, I simply accepted it as something that everyone did. When I heard Bible stories, my mental reaction was the three-year-old brain equivalent of "cool story, bro" followed by an intense desire to play with my stuffed animals. As I grew older, I quickly began to realize that there was more to this church stuff than just going somewhere on Sundays and telling stories about floods and arks. My cousins (who, to this day, are fundamentalist Christians) often talked about Jesus in everyday life outside of church! I was shocked! In mid-elementary school, my best friend's father was a minister at a local Dutch Reformed church. I didn't even realize there was any difference between us until my parents (never fans of the Dutch themselves) explained to me that she was "a different religion than me" because we attended a Methodist church.

Little events like these were what put in motion my lifelong search for faith. I constantly asked myself "what do I actually believe?". At this point, having been raised Christian, I didn't even consider other faiths an option for me. I simply studied Christianity and accepted what I wanted from various traditions (e.g. I believed the stuff about loving your neighbor, but didn't take the ark story literally.) Still, I found it difficult to pin down exactly what I was. People around me were constantly conveying to me that I had to believe in SOMETHING, yet I struggled to figure out what that something was.

In middle school, I began studying Freemasonry. While Freemasonry is NOT a religion in and of itself, it is a fraternal organization, the members of which value the unity of all peoples of all faiths. At this point, I held to the idea that all religions had some truth to them. I also thought that I might convert to zen buddhism someday so I could become a samurai. Yes... maybe we should skip over middle school... there are too many weird stories...

In short, as a child I was constantly questioning things and never completely satisfied with the answers I got. Even if I did except that all religions contained some truth, what if I was wrong and ended up in someone's hell? What if God, for some reason, didn't want me to believe in Him? It wasn't that I didn't have answers to my faith questions, it was that there were too many answers all around all of them different and none of them completely inerrant. To make matters even more confusing for me, both of my parents loved to study and read about religion. As a result, I was constantly hearing about the new discoveries made about Christianity and Christian history that contradicted traditional teachings. These findings were scientifically and archeologically sound. They were evidentially supported. The older I got, the more my reasons for believing seemed to disappear.

It wasn't until I accepted this fact that I finally found some peace of mind. When I decided to stop worrying about faith and started focusing on what I knew was objectively real, the less I worried. I began to rely on my own mind and abilities to solve problems instead of praying for things to happen. I took comfort in the fact that whether or not I did well or poorly was entirely my responsibility. I found that I loved my friends and family even more than I had before because I realized that many of the blessings in my life came, not from supernatural forces such as God or karma, but from these wonderful people. Before me was the world as it always had been. Yet I was now able to see this world, not as sinful and fallen, but as beautiful, if only imperfect.

Just to clarify, I did not become a non-believer BECAUSE of these things. These realizations all took place after I relinquished unjustified faith claims. As always, I continue to search for the truth. If it were proven tomorrow that a God did exist, I would happily change my views. But I no longer seek tirelessly to justify conclusions that I had come to without evidence. I have traded in the search for faith for a search for truth.

My heart is more full than it ever has been. That much is undeniable. I was once religious because I was told that a man walked on water. I am now a humanist because I have seen a man walk on the moon. I don't think there's any need to point out which one of those, for me, is more breathtaking.

"Heaven" for Humanists

2011-06-09T14:39:00.000-04:00

My seventh grade english teacher was one of the best mentors I think I have ever met. In the midst of the cauldron of insanity that is middle school, she actively worked to become the eye of the storm in the lives of her students. She also pushed us to analyze the literature we read as college students would. In the process, she instilled me with a deep appreciation for, among other things, the book "The Five People You Meet In Heaven".

Many years after reading this book for the first time, I noticed a copy of it on a shelf in the house of my deeply Christian aunt. I mentioned to her how much I liked the book and she was overjoyed. She proceeded to recommend several other books to me, all pertaining to a Christian view of death and heaven. This occurrence combined with the praise I've seen this book receive from Christians on the internet has made me realize how many people miss the point of this beautiful and emotional novel.

The fact that this novel is about death and the afterlife does not make it explicitly religious. Nor is it explicitly anti-religious. However, having read the book and having read that its author, Mitch Albom, is actually Jewish, I highly doubt that religion has anything to do with the story at all. Especially not the Christian religion.

When ever I pick up the novel again (as I do actually do on occasion), I scan the title and realize that the key word is not the word "Heaven" but "People". Upon reading the novel, you'll find that, though the story begins with death, most of the action takes place in Eddie's life, in his memories. When passing on, as they say, Eddie does not come into God or angels, but instead the spirits of human beings whom he had met throughout his life.

God is mentioned several times in the novel, but only in passing. When he meets his late wife in heaven, he asks her "if God knew he was there". She answers with a simple "of course". Nothing more.

Indeed, the entire premise of "The Five People You Meet In Heaven" is deeply humanist. Of the five lessons that Eddie learns in heaven, not one of them is about the importance of faith in any God, the sacrifice of Jesus or the love and redemption given to us by an all powerful deity. All of those concepts appear, but not in the context of gods. Rather, in the context of our fellow man. Eddie's wife teaches him about the power of love between people, the Captain teaches Eddie about the power of people's sacrifice for each other. The second person Eddie meets in heaven, Ruby, even states outright: "Religion, government? Are we not loyal to such things, sometimes to the death? [...] Better to be loyal to one another."

Throughout his romp through heaven, Eddie realizes and often regrets the fact that he had no idea how interconnected people are. In life, he was able to mentally justify actions such as killing in the war or begrudging his father. Once he is given the opportunity to view his life objectively, he realizes that every action he makes has consequences, for better or for worse, on the people around him.

Whenever I read the account of the last person Eddie meets in heaven, I burst into tears. No exaggeration. My feelings on this scene bring me back to a previous post I wrote on how ideology often insulates us from empathy. This is exactly what happened to Eddie during the war. So wrapped up was he in his own cause that he didn't realize how destructive his actions were to innocent people. The part that really hits me, however, is the part where the little girl he killed explains that she was the one who carried him to heaven "keeping him safe".

I think the key to the novel's message is in that last scene. Despite the awful fate the little girl befell at Eddie's hands, she still forgives him and allows him to redeem himself by washing away her burns. She is innocent, loving and completely forgiving. She also carries his final and most important lesson. It is through love, forgiveness and the hope for redemption that we may someday realize the interconnectedness and interdependence of mankind. We may someday be able to put aside our prejudices and learn to view people as... well... people.

Despite appearing on the surface to be a religious novel, "The Five People You Mean In Heaven" is one of the most important humanist novels I have ever read. And to the humanist end, I feel that this novel is far too often overlooked.

Knowledge?

2011-06-09T14:37:00.000-04:00

[Originally posted on LiveJournal on May 21, 2011]

6:00 came and went today as it always does. The difference between today's 6 o'clock and the 6 o'clock of any other day was that today, a small but vocal group of individuals were eagerly and fearfully awaiting the rapture. Or were they?

I've been doing a bit of casual googling and I'm hard pressed to find any explanation by Harold Camping, the man who started all this nonsense, as to why his calculations were inaccurate. I also have yet to hear the voices of bummed out followers hoping to meet their creator at 6 pm today. A part of me wonders if Camping and crew at Family Radio just ran this ploy to make money. Whether this rapture business was serious or just the latest method of conning unfortunately gullible people out of their money, several issues are definitely raised as a result of the outcome.

Assuming for a moment that Camping seriously believed that he was a prophet of the end times, it leads us to wonder how many other people supposedly divinely inspired people are misguided yet still believed. The world is full of people who claim to have some sort of supernatural knowledge or power. Camping was criticized by certain Christians for ignoring Matthew 24:36:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

(As a side note, I find it interesting that some versions of this verse omit "nor the son". I wonder which one is correct and, if the above translation is more accurate, how this meshes with the idea that the Father and the Son are two parts of one whole...)

Still, we mustn't forget that Camping is not the only religious man claiming divine knowledge. According to a Seattle Blog quoting the Pew Research Center, 41% of Americans believe that Jesus will "definitely" or "probably" return before 2050. I failed to locate the original source of the statistic in question, but I think it's safe to assume that at least some Christians expect the rapture to happen imminently. The Westburo Baptist Church does at least. Does this count as date setting? And what about the people who claim other sorts of God-given knowledge, such as the proper way to interpret the Bible or supposed miracles? If all of these claims were consistent, I might say that there was something to them. Unfortunately, we have Christians claiming to have felt the presence of Jesus, Muslims claiming to see the name of Allah written in all sort of natural phenomena, Hindus claiming that their children are incarnations of gods, etc. How do we know which claims are false and which aren't?

The bottom line here is that belief and knowledge are not the same, no matter how strongly you believe it. If a person's claim boils down to faith or suppose divine inspiration, I tend to skeptical. Without hard evidence, this seems like the most productive and safest route to take.

If we assume that Harold Camping made the entire prophecy up to make a buck, this opens a whole new can of worms. It brings us to the sobering realization that people are capable of fraud and trickery. We are also reminded that, if we allow ourselves to be gullible or if we are vulnerable for some other reason, we have a tendency to believe these people. I was watching several documentaries on Scientology the other day on YouTube and was utterly horrified by the lengths people went to to support this organization when it was obvious that it was all just a ploy for money and control. Unfortunately, the Scientologists are not the only ones who are guilty of misleading hoards of people. We can't forget to mention the mesmerizing charisma of mega church preachers, televangelists and faith healers who have effectively turned religion into an industry.

With these things in mind, we are reminded of the importance of critical thinking and, again, relying on solid evidence rather than testimony, hearsay, claims of supernatural or miraculous power, or even our own eyes. If we become blind followers of anything or anyone we may be risking our livelihoods, our families and friends and our own freedom of thought. We must also be wary of 100% certainty. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is and if someone claims to be 100% certain about anything, they are probably lying or mistaken.

Even I freely admit that there could be a God or supernatural force somewhere out there in the vast universe. However, until I am presented with testable proof of such an existence, I reserve the right to remain as I am: a humble agnostic, an empiricist, neither pining for faith nor hoping for a certain meaning, but openly and freely seeking truth.