Last night, The Daily Show did a bit on the Texas State Board of Education (4 minutes). If you've been following along, it's worth watching. There's so much wrong with the Board of Education, that they could have easily done a week-long comedy marathon. They focused on the controversy surrounding Oscar Romero as being worthy of textbook mention.
A number of people have written us to ask where is our outrage at the SBOE. We're outraged, but perhaps we realize, we're powerless in the short term to stop the crazy. They've proven they're immune to criticism or facts. We hope that during the next election, we oust a few of the creationists and get the SBOE back to its educational mission.
For now, laughter is good therapy.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Communication Interference
In the most simple communication models, you have a single sender, a message (usually represented as an arrow pointing to the receiver from the sender), and a single receiver represented. As communication becomes more complicated, so do the models. One component that can be added to the model is something called "interference."
Interference can be anything, including more obvious things like loud noise in the environment, or less obvious things like poor communication skills on the part of the sender, or an unconscious personal bias in the mind of the receiver. If the message received is not the message sent, as intended by the sender, there has been some kind of interference--also sometimes called distortion--that you should be able to identify.
Part of religious indoctrination includes inputting interference into a person's mind by instilling bias. For example, a child who grows up in an area and family where racial hatred is pervasive has a much greater possibility of being, himself, a racist, than someone who is not raised in that environment. He's unlikely to want to be friends with people in the despised races and to have an unfriendly attitude toward them. He probably will be a bit more dismissive of any research that indicates his reasons for hating are unfounded--he may not even bother to consider it. Additionally, he may fight against any legislation that would result in greater equality and social acceptance of those he hates.
If you're going to have a dialog about racial equality, having it with this particular person comes with a load of baggage you'll have to first get past that is "interference." Your message will not tend to be heard clearly, but rather through a filter of misconceptions and prejudice about what you're saying--even before you speak a word. This means that communicating rationally with this person will be an uphill climb, with no guarantee of successfully communicating your message at the summit. It means the person who wants to dispel the racial hatred has a hard row to hoe, a great cost of time and effort, with a real possibility of failure at the end. And this assists indoctrination efforts as well, because who is going to want to invest a lot of time and energy with a good probability of failure at the end? Better, in an individually selfish way, to leave this person in his racist delusion. And yet, would any advances against racism have been made if nobody had decided to carry the gauntlet, inch by painful inch, up that hill?
Still it is a demonstration of the walls that indoctrination can throw up against reason and good judgment. This is how indoctrination makes use of interference to help maintain its hold on the adherent.
I explain this because I recently watched a dialog between Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins, where I noticed a very frustrating level of interference. There was one question that Dawkins presented three separate times, that was never resolved by way of any relevant answer from McGrath. McGrath even stops and enlists the sympathies of the film crew to ask if they can move on to the next question, since he has already answered this one. However, the crew's consensus is that they're unclear on his answer as well. And McGrath seems, in all fairness, genuinely confused. McGrath certainly answered "a" question; however, he failed to answer the question Dawkins asked. And he really could not tell the difference in his head between what he was "hearing" and what Dawkins was "saying"--although, to me, and seemingly to the crew as well, the question was simple enough to understand.
In Christian fundamentalist indoctrination, there are a lot of presumptions systematically taught that are intended to head off questions the young Christian might receive by people who aren't Christians. I recall when I finally learned about other religions, for example, the doctrines were so vastly different than what I'd been taught in Sunday School that I remember alerting our preacher that I'd read some Buddhist literature--written by Buddhists--and it was not true that Buddhists "worship Buddha," as had been stated repeatedly from the pulpit. I thought I was doing a good thing, enlightening him about a truth. But rather than showing any interest in what I had discovered, he admonished me for having read these things without proper oversight. And even in my late teens or so, I recall thinking there was something very wrong with his response.
What if, rather than read a book, I'd have talked to a Buddhist? During the entire dialog, I would be thinking, "This person worships Buddha"--even though I'd never spoken to a Buddhist in my life or read a scrap of Buddhist literature. I'd simply been told. And that's what the people who indoctrinated me into Christianity hoped I would believe. They, in turn, probably had never read any Buddhist literature or talked to a Buddhist, either, and had read only Christian literature describing Buddhism. I assume this because even the most cursory reading of just about any Buddhist foundational text demonstrates the assertion is false--or at best an exaggeration of what a Buddhist would describe as his belief.
Often we get this question on our e-mail list: "Why don't you ever talk to any really intelligent or educated apologists?"
When we get these letters from theists, the obvious shock is that the person asking us to do this is unavoidably asserting that the average Christian person is not intelligent--since we nearly always talk to and about average Christians who engage us on the program.
Beyond that, I've been spending a lot of time these days watching theological debates that involve theists of some clout, on many levels of the spectrum--church leaders, mega-church preachers, and most recently this civilized Q&A between Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins.
Let me just note that I had argued myself out of theism long before I knew who Richard Dawkins--or any other atheist author--was. I deconverted on the weakness of theism's merits, not on the strength of any atheist's arguments against the existence of god. And for a few years, after I first heard about Dawkins, the descriptions of him as an arrogant, condescending, anti-theist, ass prejudiced me against even wanting to read his literature or hear him speak. My first encounter was when I finally broke down and read God Delusion--where I dispelled my own "Dawkins Delusion." I couldn't have wished for a more patient, well reasoned and fair address of theism than what Dawkins offered. And the first time I finally heard him speak, I was actually shocked by the mild and disarming tone of his voice and the relaxed collectedness with which he expressed even the points on religion he described as most objectionable. He often pauses to think about his phrasing before speaking--even in mid-sentence--a habit I should surely cultivate and employ more often. In this discussion with McGrath, you can almost see the gears shifting in his brain as he considers "How do I put this in an inoffensive way?" What comes out is, more often than not, very gentle compared to how many atheists might well have phrased it.
McGrath, for his part, is every bit as genial, and even more enthusiastic, in his expressions. On several occasions when McGrath spoke, I shut my eyes and thought, "Listen. Really listen and try and hear what he means." I wanted to see if McGrath would offer some clue to his beliefs--as an educated and respected theologian. I sincerely wanted to understand what he believes and why. But after finishing "Part 15 of 15," posted on Youtube, I had failed. After listening to McGrath explain his position, uninterrupted, in a conversational style, for his part of approximately an hour and a half, I still can't tell you what he believes or why he believes it. And if this eloquent, well mannered, educated and willing theist can't offer an explanation that makes sense, what hope does that average theist have?
Initially, my desire was to do an analysis of the entire debate, detailing where the communication interference was happening every step of the way. But, the length of my input regarding the first question alone was so long that I understood immediately I was too ambitious. I may do a full breakdown in sections at some point, but for now, I'm going to deal only with the central question of the dialog that would matter most to atheists: the reasons for belief.
There were many points in the footage where I thought, "OK, I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't that raise this other question or problem?" And as I thought these questions, McGrath would finish, and Dawkins would ask them for me. And I would be glad, because I wanted to know how McGrath resolved these issues. I wasn't hoping for a fail. I was hoping for a resolution from McGrath to something for which I was unable to imagine a resolution.
Oddly, when McGrath would be asked to further explain some point of his stated position, it often sounded as though he was negating, or at the very least mitigating, everything he had previously asserted. I was left with a feeling that whatever I had learned from him in his prior explanations was now being described, by him, as either "wrong" or "unimportant." In the end, I was left confused about which parts I was supposed to carry away as consequential or correct about his position on faith and god. Did I misunderstand his meaning? Did he not say what I thought he had just said?
McGrath begins by explaining his background growing up in Ireland as an atheist. He sees religious violence and equates it, understandably, with religious differences. He also says he studied Marxism and natural sciences. In response to Dawkins' request for an explanation of how he moved from atheism to theism McGrath responds, "I began to rethink things. I began to realize they weren't, perhaps, as straightforward as I thought. And certainly it was at that point that I really began to feel that Christianity offered a better way of seeing things and making sense of things than I'd imagined in the past."
When Dawkins asked, "What kind of reason, what kind of evidence do you use to support your faith?" He was asking the same question we ask time and again on the show: Explain what you believe and why you believe it. I would assume that whatever McGrath offered next would be the underpinning of his belief. Here was his chance to give the evidence and reason behind why he decided to become a theist. This was an edge-of-my-seat moment, to be sure.
McGrath started out rationally enough. He noted that not all of our beliefs are based upon what we might consider hard evidence. When I measure the distance from one wall to another, my belief that the room is 10-feet wide is based on solid facts. However, someone's belief that their spouse is stopping to put gas in the car on the way home, may be just as strong, and even perhaps just as right, but not as fact-based. Our brains are constantly testing the consistency of the reality in which we live. And it certainly makes determinations based on many different levels of evidence about what it will accept as true, and what it will not.
In order to function, depth perception, the length of the room, is important. Having some concept of how far things are from one's self and where they are in relation to one's self is fairly integral to the existence of any sighted person. But whether a spouse is gassing up the car may be something one cares not at all about. By and large, in most day-to-day scenarios, the main thrust of pressure put upon a person to care about their spouse's fuel situation, would be pressure only from within. We really can ask, "Does this matter to me? Do I need an opinion on it?" We aren't called upon in life to consider all questions equally--or at all--or to make conscious decisions about truth values on all propositions.
This means that if my spouse tells me he is stopping by the gas station on the way home to fill up his car, I don't have to believe it, or even consider if I believe it. I can merely accept it's what I've been told, and go about my life. If he forgets to fill up the car, if he changes his mind during his commute--nothing is lost. And if someone asks "Where is your spouse?" I can say, "He said he was stopping off to get gas on the way home." I don't have to assert "He's at the gas station," although it's unlikely anyone would fault me for asserting it and even believing it was true, based only on my spouse's word.
So, with any proposition we are presented, we can believe, not believe, or believe the opposite. I can accept my husband is at the station (believe it), not have an opinion on it (not bother to believe it), or believe he's not at the station (he forgot, changed his mind, was waylaid, or lied). And McGrath understands this, when later in the discussion he explains the following (emphasis mine):
"I think that one of the big questions one has when one tries to make sense of anything that is big, for example, 'what is the meaning of life?,' 'Why we're here?' things like that, is that there are many explanations. And inevitably this means we have to try to do what Gilbert Harmon described as being fair to the best explanation...We have to make a very difficult judgment: 'Which is actually the best of these?' And the real difficulty...is that evidence takes us thus far, but when it comes to a number of competing explanations, it is extremely difficult to have an evidence-driven argument for those final stages...I believe faith is rational...It tries to make the best possible sense of things. But in the end it has to move beyond that, saying 'even though we believe this is the best way of making sense of things, we can't actually prove this is the case.' And therefore, although I believe faith is rational, in that it can give us the best possible case it can give, there is a point at which it goes beyond the evidence. And it's at that point...that your concern that it might be irrational...comes into play."
Yes, in fact, that is the point at which the concern it becomes irrational comes into play. To be fair, Dawkins prefaced his question, with a statement saying that he perhaps has not given sufficient attention to how religious people might use the term "faith" differently than he does. However, his question was, again, "What kind of reason, what kind of evidence do you use to support your faith?"
McGrath offered an explanation, I suppose in one way, of how he uses the word "faith," and how it relates to reason and evidence; but I have to admit his answer seems to demonstrate an interpretation of the question I would never have arrived at. At the end of his answer, he hasn't really told me anything I don't already know, and, really, anything anyone else doesn't already know, either. Surely he didn't assume Dawkins was asserting people never draw conclusions without iron-clad evidence? Any nation that has courts understands there are times you could be forced to make decisions without benefit of conclusive evidence. Surely, McGrath knows someone as intelligent as Dawkins is not asserting it is impossible for a human to draw a conclusion without conclusive evidence? That would be a idiotic assertion, indeed, from anyone--but most especially so from a literate and educated person.
The question, I assumed, was a request for McGrath to explain specific evidence and specific reasoning that has led him to draw his conclusion--to become convinced where he was once skeptical--"a god exists." And no matter how many times you read his answer above, you will not find that offered or explained.
Carl Sagan once shared a story about a question he was asked regarding whether he believed in the existence of extra-terrestrial life. He replied that there was currently no evidence to support that conclusion. The reporter pressed and asked something to the effect of "What do you think in your gut?" Sagan responded that he didn't think with his gut, and that it is fine to hold off drawing conclusions until there is sufficient evidence available to support a conclusion. Sagan, who strongly supported efforts to seek extra-terrestrial life, here admitted that while he held it was true such life was possible--perhaps even probable--he would not extend belief to "it exists," until he saw that conclusion was demonstrated by evidence--presumably when such life was actually discovered.
I absolutely concede that I could hardly live my life without some attempt to draw conclusions without conclusive evidence, on occasion; but compared to the comparatively limitless conclusions I draw based upon solid evidence every millisecond of every day, conclusions based upon insufficient evidence are actually relatively rarely required to be drawn. I hardly have to know "what is the meaning of life?" or "Why am I here?," in order to live my life, or even enjoy the life I live. I can safely say many people live and die and never find any answer to those questions--perhaps never even consciously ask them--and lose never a night's sleep over it. Try and kill such a person, however, and you'll see firsthand how much they value their own life--even if they can't explain to you what their life "means." Truth be told, if there is some cosmically imposed meaning, the fact people have been arguing over the answer for millennia is near enough an indicator that there is no clear answer--and yet we all continue, somehow, to go on living our lives--many of us enjoying them--in spite of that.
Interesting as these questions are, are they "necessary" to answer, as McGrath asserts? If I know I prefer to live rather than die in most situations, and I extend that assumption to others in order to do what I can to mold a generally pleasant society, but I then miss out on the cosmic meaning--does it matter? If there is a cosmic meaning, and we don't know what it is--how can we answer the question of whether it's beneficial to know it? In fact, I can just as well consider that such questions are as near unanswerable as any questions can be, and go on using my reasoning skills--god given or not--to figure out what sort of life I would like to live and try to live it.
If I'm a generally good and kind person--would finding out there is a cosmic mind that has a plan, which is that people should be good and kind--make a speck of difference? Alternately, as a generally good and kind person, if I stumbled upon a cosmic plan that included I should blow up a building filled with people, I would be highly unlikely to comply--so that would make not a speck of difference in my life, either. There could, I suppose, be a god who would wish to punish me for not completing the proper sacrifices, or praying in the wrong direction, or for thinking the wrong things; but unless I have some really compelling reason to think such a thing exists--the details of what it expects of me never become any more important than what alleged alien abductees describe as their experiences--both wonderful and horrific--aboard spacecrafts.
But read McGrath's answer again, and note the areas I have highlighted. He presses that these questions are necessary to answer--and he equates the question "does god exist?" with those questions that demand a conclusion be drawn. But, it isn't one of those questions that requires a response. We aren't in a jury box being told a man's life and society's safety are in our hands, and our decision on insufficient evidence must be determined. "Does god exist?" may have implications for the believer--once the mantle of belief is taken up. But until belief is merited, questions related to what happens after that belief are unimportant. The question "does god exist?" has no greater significance before you believe it than the question "do aliens exist?"
Certainly if either proposition is true, it could be life altering. I don't wish to be kidnapped and violated by aliens any more than I would wish an eternity of hell upon myself. I don't wish my children or friends to be maltreated by gods or aliens, either. And if I believed aliens were abducting humans for experimentation, I'd be up in arms demanding some sort of protections from my society or government. But until I believe, it matters not at all in my life. The believer may assert it matters in that I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat in order to avoid mind control by the aliens--but really, that's him overlaying his perspective as a believer onto me. I don't do anything in my life where I first consider, "Now, since I don't accept aliens are abducting people, how do I wish to handle this situation?" The question of abductions is not a question that demands I deeply consider whether or not I believe it's true. And the question "does god exist?"--whether believers assume horrific consequences or not--is no different than that to someone who does not yet believe.
What this means is that the end leap of faith McGrath describes is not required. And what that means, is that it is not a reasonable leap of faith. It is not, as Josh McDowell also asserts, "evidence that demands a verdict." If I were in a jury box and forced to decide, then yes, I must do my fair and level best to make the most rational decision with whatever evidence is presented. But there is no such pressure applied to the question "does god exist?"--outside of whatever pressure indoctrination has pre-inserted into the adherent's brain.
Not only did McGrath fail to provide any specific reason or evidence for his particular faith, he failed on a general level to explain what sort of reason he applies, because the sort of reason he describes is not reasonably applied to this particular type of question. The final "required" leap of faith, in the area of religion, he has not justified, only asserted.
Thankfully, but not surprisingly, this doesn't escape Dawkins' notice when he explains it is this final leap--not supported by rationality or evidence, and not required--that he would describe as the employment of "faith." I would assert not only faith in a conclusion, but faith in a pre-existing prejudice that the conclusion was already very likely true in the first place; otherwise, why would the question even have mattered to McGrath any more than the question of alien abductions?
I'd finally like to hit on McGrath's statement that "faith is rational in that it can give us the best possible case it can give." This is nonsense. Anyone who holds any belief, no matter how ridiculous, can give us "the best possible case" they can give. That in no way makes their belief "rational." As a joke, I sometimes invent conspiracy theories on the fly--putting unrelated groups and events together to assert one is privately colluding to produce the other. It's amazing how many reasonable-sounding arguments you can create for absolutely fabricated assertions. Often, others will join in to add their "evidence" for the conspiracy--laughing as we build upon it. We actually can put together explanations for these fantasy conspiracies that sound reasonable. But we're just making it all up. And our "rational" explanations are not at all likely to be true. But, if rational can be defined as "making the best case possible," we're absolutely being "rational"--but also, no doubt, ridiculous.
Again, I really only addressed one small segment of the dialog here. If I have time in my future, I'll address more. But clearly there is, throughout these videos, a huge communication divide--a gargantuan level of interference. McGrath seems unable to hear and understand what Dawkins is even asking. And I'm left wondering, is an intelligent theologian merely a person who makes nonsense sound better than most theists can? Is he merely someone who puts forward inarguable realities we might all agree with, sprinkled with unsupported assertions, and who fails to address the questions being asked?
Is that what it means to debate an educated and intelligent apologist?
Interference can be anything, including more obvious things like loud noise in the environment, or less obvious things like poor communication skills on the part of the sender, or an unconscious personal bias in the mind of the receiver. If the message received is not the message sent, as intended by the sender, there has been some kind of interference--also sometimes called distortion--that you should be able to identify.
Part of religious indoctrination includes inputting interference into a person's mind by instilling bias. For example, a child who grows up in an area and family where racial hatred is pervasive has a much greater possibility of being, himself, a racist, than someone who is not raised in that environment. He's unlikely to want to be friends with people in the despised races and to have an unfriendly attitude toward them. He probably will be a bit more dismissive of any research that indicates his reasons for hating are unfounded--he may not even bother to consider it. Additionally, he may fight against any legislation that would result in greater equality and social acceptance of those he hates.
If you're going to have a dialog about racial equality, having it with this particular person comes with a load of baggage you'll have to first get past that is "interference." Your message will not tend to be heard clearly, but rather through a filter of misconceptions and prejudice about what you're saying--even before you speak a word. This means that communicating rationally with this person will be an uphill climb, with no guarantee of successfully communicating your message at the summit. It means the person who wants to dispel the racial hatred has a hard row to hoe, a great cost of time and effort, with a real possibility of failure at the end. And this assists indoctrination efforts as well, because who is going to want to invest a lot of time and energy with a good probability of failure at the end? Better, in an individually selfish way, to leave this person in his racist delusion. And yet, would any advances against racism have been made if nobody had decided to carry the gauntlet, inch by painful inch, up that hill?
Still it is a demonstration of the walls that indoctrination can throw up against reason and good judgment. This is how indoctrination makes use of interference to help maintain its hold on the adherent.
I explain this because I recently watched a dialog between Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins, where I noticed a very frustrating level of interference. There was one question that Dawkins presented three separate times, that was never resolved by way of any relevant answer from McGrath. McGrath even stops and enlists the sympathies of the film crew to ask if they can move on to the next question, since he has already answered this one. However, the crew's consensus is that they're unclear on his answer as well. And McGrath seems, in all fairness, genuinely confused. McGrath certainly answered "a" question; however, he failed to answer the question Dawkins asked. And he really could not tell the difference in his head between what he was "hearing" and what Dawkins was "saying"--although, to me, and seemingly to the crew as well, the question was simple enough to understand.
In Christian fundamentalist indoctrination, there are a lot of presumptions systematically taught that are intended to head off questions the young Christian might receive by people who aren't Christians. I recall when I finally learned about other religions, for example, the doctrines were so vastly different than what I'd been taught in Sunday School that I remember alerting our preacher that I'd read some Buddhist literature--written by Buddhists--and it was not true that Buddhists "worship Buddha," as had been stated repeatedly from the pulpit. I thought I was doing a good thing, enlightening him about a truth. But rather than showing any interest in what I had discovered, he admonished me for having read these things without proper oversight. And even in my late teens or so, I recall thinking there was something very wrong with his response.
What if, rather than read a book, I'd have talked to a Buddhist? During the entire dialog, I would be thinking, "This person worships Buddha"--even though I'd never spoken to a Buddhist in my life or read a scrap of Buddhist literature. I'd simply been told. And that's what the people who indoctrinated me into Christianity hoped I would believe. They, in turn, probably had never read any Buddhist literature or talked to a Buddhist, either, and had read only Christian literature describing Buddhism. I assume this because even the most cursory reading of just about any Buddhist foundational text demonstrates the assertion is false--or at best an exaggeration of what a Buddhist would describe as his belief.
Often we get this question on our e-mail list: "Why don't you ever talk to any really intelligent or educated apologists?"
When we get these letters from theists, the obvious shock is that the person asking us to do this is unavoidably asserting that the average Christian person is not intelligent--since we nearly always talk to and about average Christians who engage us on the program.
Beyond that, I've been spending a lot of time these days watching theological debates that involve theists of some clout, on many levels of the spectrum--church leaders, mega-church preachers, and most recently this civilized Q&A between Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins.
Let me just note that I had argued myself out of theism long before I knew who Richard Dawkins--or any other atheist author--was. I deconverted on the weakness of theism's merits, not on the strength of any atheist's arguments against the existence of god. And for a few years, after I first heard about Dawkins, the descriptions of him as an arrogant, condescending, anti-theist, ass prejudiced me against even wanting to read his literature or hear him speak. My first encounter was when I finally broke down and read God Delusion--where I dispelled my own "Dawkins Delusion." I couldn't have wished for a more patient, well reasoned and fair address of theism than what Dawkins offered. And the first time I finally heard him speak, I was actually shocked by the mild and disarming tone of his voice and the relaxed collectedness with which he expressed even the points on religion he described as most objectionable. He often pauses to think about his phrasing before speaking--even in mid-sentence--a habit I should surely cultivate and employ more often. In this discussion with McGrath, you can almost see the gears shifting in his brain as he considers "How do I put this in an inoffensive way?" What comes out is, more often than not, very gentle compared to how many atheists might well have phrased it.
McGrath, for his part, is every bit as genial, and even more enthusiastic, in his expressions. On several occasions when McGrath spoke, I shut my eyes and thought, "Listen. Really listen and try and hear what he means." I wanted to see if McGrath would offer some clue to his beliefs--as an educated and respected theologian. I sincerely wanted to understand what he believes and why. But after finishing "Part 15 of 15," posted on Youtube, I had failed. After listening to McGrath explain his position, uninterrupted, in a conversational style, for his part of approximately an hour and a half, I still can't tell you what he believes or why he believes it. And if this eloquent, well mannered, educated and willing theist can't offer an explanation that makes sense, what hope does that average theist have?
Initially, my desire was to do an analysis of the entire debate, detailing where the communication interference was happening every step of the way. But, the length of my input regarding the first question alone was so long that I understood immediately I was too ambitious. I may do a full breakdown in sections at some point, but for now, I'm going to deal only with the central question of the dialog that would matter most to atheists: the reasons for belief.
There were many points in the footage where I thought, "OK, I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't that raise this other question or problem?" And as I thought these questions, McGrath would finish, and Dawkins would ask them for me. And I would be glad, because I wanted to know how McGrath resolved these issues. I wasn't hoping for a fail. I was hoping for a resolution from McGrath to something for which I was unable to imagine a resolution.
Oddly, when McGrath would be asked to further explain some point of his stated position, it often sounded as though he was negating, or at the very least mitigating, everything he had previously asserted. I was left with a feeling that whatever I had learned from him in his prior explanations was now being described, by him, as either "wrong" or "unimportant." In the end, I was left confused about which parts I was supposed to carry away as consequential or correct about his position on faith and god. Did I misunderstand his meaning? Did he not say what I thought he had just said?
McGrath begins by explaining his background growing up in Ireland as an atheist. He sees religious violence and equates it, understandably, with religious differences. He also says he studied Marxism and natural sciences. In response to Dawkins' request for an explanation of how he moved from atheism to theism McGrath responds, "I began to rethink things. I began to realize they weren't, perhaps, as straightforward as I thought. And certainly it was at that point that I really began to feel that Christianity offered a better way of seeing things and making sense of things than I'd imagined in the past."
When Dawkins asked, "What kind of reason, what kind of evidence do you use to support your faith?" He was asking the same question we ask time and again on the show: Explain what you believe and why you believe it. I would assume that whatever McGrath offered next would be the underpinning of his belief. Here was his chance to give the evidence and reason behind why he decided to become a theist. This was an edge-of-my-seat moment, to be sure.
McGrath started out rationally enough. He noted that not all of our beliefs are based upon what we might consider hard evidence. When I measure the distance from one wall to another, my belief that the room is 10-feet wide is based on solid facts. However, someone's belief that their spouse is stopping to put gas in the car on the way home, may be just as strong, and even perhaps just as right, but not as fact-based. Our brains are constantly testing the consistency of the reality in which we live. And it certainly makes determinations based on many different levels of evidence about what it will accept as true, and what it will not.
In order to function, depth perception, the length of the room, is important. Having some concept of how far things are from one's self and where they are in relation to one's self is fairly integral to the existence of any sighted person. But whether a spouse is gassing up the car may be something one cares not at all about. By and large, in most day-to-day scenarios, the main thrust of pressure put upon a person to care about their spouse's fuel situation, would be pressure only from within. We really can ask, "Does this matter to me? Do I need an opinion on it?" We aren't called upon in life to consider all questions equally--or at all--or to make conscious decisions about truth values on all propositions.
This means that if my spouse tells me he is stopping by the gas station on the way home to fill up his car, I don't have to believe it, or even consider if I believe it. I can merely accept it's what I've been told, and go about my life. If he forgets to fill up the car, if he changes his mind during his commute--nothing is lost. And if someone asks "Where is your spouse?" I can say, "He said he was stopping off to get gas on the way home." I don't have to assert "He's at the gas station," although it's unlikely anyone would fault me for asserting it and even believing it was true, based only on my spouse's word.
So, with any proposition we are presented, we can believe, not believe, or believe the opposite. I can accept my husband is at the station (believe it), not have an opinion on it (not bother to believe it), or believe he's not at the station (he forgot, changed his mind, was waylaid, or lied). And McGrath understands this, when later in the discussion he explains the following (emphasis mine):
"I think that one of the big questions one has when one tries to make sense of anything that is big, for example, 'what is the meaning of life?,' 'Why we're here?' things like that, is that there are many explanations. And inevitably this means we have to try to do what Gilbert Harmon described as being fair to the best explanation...We have to make a very difficult judgment: 'Which is actually the best of these?' And the real difficulty...is that evidence takes us thus far, but when it comes to a number of competing explanations, it is extremely difficult to have an evidence-driven argument for those final stages...I believe faith is rational...It tries to make the best possible sense of things. But in the end it has to move beyond that, saying 'even though we believe this is the best way of making sense of things, we can't actually prove this is the case.' And therefore, although I believe faith is rational, in that it can give us the best possible case it can give, there is a point at which it goes beyond the evidence. And it's at that point...that your concern that it might be irrational...comes into play."
Yes, in fact, that is the point at which the concern it becomes irrational comes into play. To be fair, Dawkins prefaced his question, with a statement saying that he perhaps has not given sufficient attention to how religious people might use the term "faith" differently than he does. However, his question was, again, "What kind of reason, what kind of evidence do you use to support your faith?"
McGrath offered an explanation, I suppose in one way, of how he uses the word "faith," and how it relates to reason and evidence; but I have to admit his answer seems to demonstrate an interpretation of the question I would never have arrived at. At the end of his answer, he hasn't really told me anything I don't already know, and, really, anything anyone else doesn't already know, either. Surely he didn't assume Dawkins was asserting people never draw conclusions without iron-clad evidence? Any nation that has courts understands there are times you could be forced to make decisions without benefit of conclusive evidence. Surely, McGrath knows someone as intelligent as Dawkins is not asserting it is impossible for a human to draw a conclusion without conclusive evidence? That would be a idiotic assertion, indeed, from anyone--but most especially so from a literate and educated person.
The question, I assumed, was a request for McGrath to explain specific evidence and specific reasoning that has led him to draw his conclusion--to become convinced where he was once skeptical--"a god exists." And no matter how many times you read his answer above, you will not find that offered or explained.
Carl Sagan once shared a story about a question he was asked regarding whether he believed in the existence of extra-terrestrial life. He replied that there was currently no evidence to support that conclusion. The reporter pressed and asked something to the effect of "What do you think in your gut?" Sagan responded that he didn't think with his gut, and that it is fine to hold off drawing conclusions until there is sufficient evidence available to support a conclusion. Sagan, who strongly supported efforts to seek extra-terrestrial life, here admitted that while he held it was true such life was possible--perhaps even probable--he would not extend belief to "it exists," until he saw that conclusion was demonstrated by evidence--presumably when such life was actually discovered.
I absolutely concede that I could hardly live my life without some attempt to draw conclusions without conclusive evidence, on occasion; but compared to the comparatively limitless conclusions I draw based upon solid evidence every millisecond of every day, conclusions based upon insufficient evidence are actually relatively rarely required to be drawn. I hardly have to know "what is the meaning of life?" or "Why am I here?," in order to live my life, or even enjoy the life I live. I can safely say many people live and die and never find any answer to those questions--perhaps never even consciously ask them--and lose never a night's sleep over it. Try and kill such a person, however, and you'll see firsthand how much they value their own life--even if they can't explain to you what their life "means." Truth be told, if there is some cosmically imposed meaning, the fact people have been arguing over the answer for millennia is near enough an indicator that there is no clear answer--and yet we all continue, somehow, to go on living our lives--many of us enjoying them--in spite of that.
Interesting as these questions are, are they "necessary" to answer, as McGrath asserts? If I know I prefer to live rather than die in most situations, and I extend that assumption to others in order to do what I can to mold a generally pleasant society, but I then miss out on the cosmic meaning--does it matter? If there is a cosmic meaning, and we don't know what it is--how can we answer the question of whether it's beneficial to know it? In fact, I can just as well consider that such questions are as near unanswerable as any questions can be, and go on using my reasoning skills--god given or not--to figure out what sort of life I would like to live and try to live it.
If I'm a generally good and kind person--would finding out there is a cosmic mind that has a plan, which is that people should be good and kind--make a speck of difference? Alternately, as a generally good and kind person, if I stumbled upon a cosmic plan that included I should blow up a building filled with people, I would be highly unlikely to comply--so that would make not a speck of difference in my life, either. There could, I suppose, be a god who would wish to punish me for not completing the proper sacrifices, or praying in the wrong direction, or for thinking the wrong things; but unless I have some really compelling reason to think such a thing exists--the details of what it expects of me never become any more important than what alleged alien abductees describe as their experiences--both wonderful and horrific--aboard spacecrafts.
But read McGrath's answer again, and note the areas I have highlighted. He presses that these questions are necessary to answer--and he equates the question "does god exist?" with those questions that demand a conclusion be drawn. But, it isn't one of those questions that requires a response. We aren't in a jury box being told a man's life and society's safety are in our hands, and our decision on insufficient evidence must be determined. "Does god exist?" may have implications for the believer--once the mantle of belief is taken up. But until belief is merited, questions related to what happens after that belief are unimportant. The question "does god exist?" has no greater significance before you believe it than the question "do aliens exist?"
Certainly if either proposition is true, it could be life altering. I don't wish to be kidnapped and violated by aliens any more than I would wish an eternity of hell upon myself. I don't wish my children or friends to be maltreated by gods or aliens, either. And if I believed aliens were abducting humans for experimentation, I'd be up in arms demanding some sort of protections from my society or government. But until I believe, it matters not at all in my life. The believer may assert it matters in that I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat in order to avoid mind control by the aliens--but really, that's him overlaying his perspective as a believer onto me. I don't do anything in my life where I first consider, "Now, since I don't accept aliens are abducting people, how do I wish to handle this situation?" The question of abductions is not a question that demands I deeply consider whether or not I believe it's true. And the question "does god exist?"--whether believers assume horrific consequences or not--is no different than that to someone who does not yet believe.
What this means is that the end leap of faith McGrath describes is not required. And what that means, is that it is not a reasonable leap of faith. It is not, as Josh McDowell also asserts, "evidence that demands a verdict." If I were in a jury box and forced to decide, then yes, I must do my fair and level best to make the most rational decision with whatever evidence is presented. But there is no such pressure applied to the question "does god exist?"--outside of whatever pressure indoctrination has pre-inserted into the adherent's brain.
Not only did McGrath fail to provide any specific reason or evidence for his particular faith, he failed on a general level to explain what sort of reason he applies, because the sort of reason he describes is not reasonably applied to this particular type of question. The final "required" leap of faith, in the area of religion, he has not justified, only asserted.
Thankfully, but not surprisingly, this doesn't escape Dawkins' notice when he explains it is this final leap--not supported by rationality or evidence, and not required--that he would describe as the employment of "faith." I would assert not only faith in a conclusion, but faith in a pre-existing prejudice that the conclusion was already very likely true in the first place; otherwise, why would the question even have mattered to McGrath any more than the question of alien abductions?
I'd finally like to hit on McGrath's statement that "faith is rational in that it can give us the best possible case it can give." This is nonsense. Anyone who holds any belief, no matter how ridiculous, can give us "the best possible case" they can give. That in no way makes their belief "rational." As a joke, I sometimes invent conspiracy theories on the fly--putting unrelated groups and events together to assert one is privately colluding to produce the other. It's amazing how many reasonable-sounding arguments you can create for absolutely fabricated assertions. Often, others will join in to add their "evidence" for the conspiracy--laughing as we build upon it. We actually can put together explanations for these fantasy conspiracies that sound reasonable. But we're just making it all up. And our "rational" explanations are not at all likely to be true. But, if rational can be defined as "making the best case possible," we're absolutely being "rational"--but also, no doubt, ridiculous.
Again, I really only addressed one small segment of the dialog here. If I have time in my future, I'll address more. But clearly there is, throughout these videos, a huge communication divide--a gargantuan level of interference. McGrath seems unable to hear and understand what Dawkins is even asking. And I'm left wondering, is an intelligent theologian merely a person who makes nonsense sound better than most theists can? Is he merely someone who puts forward inarguable realities we might all agree with, sprinkled with unsupported assertions, and who fails to address the questions being asked?
Is that what it means to debate an educated and intelligent apologist?
We get email: the resurrection yet again
Not all the email we get from theists is totally marinated in crazysauce. Often we get a good letter from someone who doesn't understand a few basic concepts, and is asking sincere questions. Here's a recent email from a fellow trying to make the case that the contradictory Gospel accounts of the resurrection — which I dissected in this post from last year — help to support, rather than discredit, the story.
Whenever I hear atheists talking about contradictions in the Bible (The New Testament specifically) I just don't understand why they think that this is evidence against the veracity of the main message in the Bible. For example, the story of the empty tomb and the contradictions that surround it, is often cited as reason to doubt the stories of the gospel. However contradictions are to be expected! Take the case of a car accident. You could have many different eye witnesses there, and it is almost guaranteed that they will all have some variation in their account of the accident. The same goes for the tomb account. Contradictions due to memory lapses, additions deletions, incidental changes, etc. are to be expected, but ultimately the main message is still there. This in my mind points not to an undermining of the Bible, but rather to the authenticity of it.
Another example that provides evidence for the authenticity of the story is the fact that a woman/women were first on the scene. If the empty tomb was a fictional story then why would they have a women first, when in those days women were not seen as first class citizens or trusted to be reliable.
Anyways I'm just curious as to why these contradictions are used as evidence to doubt the truth of the bible as I have seen done on your show before. (If I remember correctly it was around the time of Easter and Jeff Dee was either the host or co-host)
Okay, fair enough, but our correspondent is missing some basic points. First off, he's not the first fellow to have thought of this. The Rashomon scenario is a common one: different eyewitness accounts, different versions, who do you trust? But there's a little more going on here than that.
When you are faced with different versions of the same basic story, then the question you ask is: how can I verify any of these stories? What evidence can I examine independently, to determine whose version is closest to the truth? The problem with the resurrection story is the same problem faced by all other Biblical accounts of miracles. There is no evidence to examine either way. So you are left with conflicting accounts.
Fine, you say. But that's true of all historical accounts of the ancient world. There's no way to confirm what any of the Egyptian pharoahs did either. So how can you trust all those temple engravings? The thing is, historians aren't dumb, and they know you can't, completely. In the past, just like today, people wrote through the filter of their own biases. Accounts of ancient pharoahs are full of events that enhance their deeds to make them seem godlike. So you basically have to take these things with a grain of salt and see where you're led by what little evidence you can actually dig up.
But getting back to the resurrection, there are problems with the story that emerge even before you talk about the contradictions, and the big one is this: what is being claimed is that a man came back from the dead. Right there, the story moves out of the realm of ordinary historical accounts (like "Caesar led his armies against the Gauls"), and into the realm of extraordinary claims. And extraordinary claims, as the saying goes, require extraordinary evidence. Most historians wouldn't have a problem accepting accounts of Caesar's military campaigns based on routine scholarship. But if someone started claiming that Caesar could teleport and frequently visited his Galactic Overlords at their secret base on Neptune to discuss battle plans, then you've got some red flags going up.
So the problem with the resurrection account is bigger than the problem faced by other, more conventional historical claims. Basically, it's this: You have a book claiming a dead man who was actually a god returned to life after his execution, and the book itself is claimed to the be divinely inspired word of an infallible perfect deity, yet it contains confused and contradictory accounts despite this. For anyone not already so immersed in the faith that they're beyond questioning its claims, you're already into that "Caesar on Neptune" red flag zone even before you start talking about the specific contradictions.
What we're being asked to accept is that, at one point in history, one dead body behaved in a manner no dead body has behaved before or since. And we're not only asked to accept this without hard evidence, but all we're given as a scholarly account is a holy book written by numerous hands, who can't even get their accounts straight.
Where this fellow sees these differing accounts as somehow confirming the truth of the event, I see mythmaking in action. The Gospels were not written until at least a generation after Jesus's death, by which time Paul was already actively engaged in promoting the Christian faith as an act of political rebellion against Rome. It's easy to see how a mythology surrounding an otherwise unexceptional Jewish rabbi (who, as most rabble rousers living in dictatorships often do, got himself executed for being a pain in the ass) would have captured some momentum. It also helps to remember that there are far more manuscripts claiming to be eyewitness gospels that didn't make it into the NT than those that did, and the NT we have didn't really take shape until the beginning of 4th century.
So yeah, there are far more reasons to be skeptical of the resurrection account than there are to accept it. The contradictions are an interesting detail to discuss (mostly in the context of replying to claims about the Bible's infallibility), but they're just a bonus.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Revised Texas Social Studies Curriculum
Thomas Jefferson was involved in producing the Constitution of the United States. Fortunately, he left us clear writings as to the meaning of the Establishment Clause—the clause that forbids government involvement in religious matters that would mean government showing favor to one religion over another.
Our neighbors “across the pond” often write to us to express their amazement that while their church is very much part of their state institutions, it is hardly a force of any consequence, whereas in the U.S., they hear we have actually undertaken an experiment in secular government, but are inundated by religious influence and intrusion to a degree they find unbelievable and shocking. They ask “why?” We answer, “we’re not entirely sure.”
I don’t know what makes one state-involved religion relatively benign—as is the case in some modern European nations—and what makes religion a force for death and human rights abuses in some other regions of the world. But I’m willing to wager that if a definitive answer to that question is ever found, it will involve quite a lot about paranoid fear and also something about religious fundamentalism, which is involved with feelings of near certainty in the face of inconclusive—someone less generous might say “ridiculous”—evidence to support unjustified conclusions. Actually, this attitude is often the root of paranoid fear. We have all observed, as well as heard, that “the truth has nothing to fear from investigation.” But poorly justified “truth,” has a great deal to fear from free inquiry and open debate; and, so, protecting such “truth” actually requires some level of suppression of evidence and contrary thoughts. And when I say “some level,” with regard to protecting religious ideas, I shouldn’t need to explain what “levels” that includes.
The “wall of separation” was described early on by a Baptist, Roger Williams. He viewed the wall as a protection of private practice of religion. And, no doubt it does protect religious freedoms—which many religious people daily demonstrate they are either unable or unwilling to understand. Later, the “wall” was described by Jefferson to mean religion’s influence in politics—a prohibition against religious involvement on the secular side. Really, these are not two sides of a coin, but two ways of describing one side only: No religion may call “shotgun.” They must all ride in the same seat as far as the government is concerned. The problem, missed by many, is that in a world where each person carries their own personal and unique concept of “god”—you can’t so much as pray to a “god” with governmental endorsement without stepping on some toes—not merely those of the godless, but those of other religious people as well, who don’t share your personal views on religion. For example, what of those who would pray to the “gods,” instead? It really is best for everyone—religious or not—to allow free private practice and not issue government decrees or endorsements of anything regarding religion or religious worship, whenever it is not an absolute dire necessity to intervene against oppression, both on behalf of religious citizens, as well as on behalf of those they have been known to oppress.
Recently, and unsurprisingly, the SBOE in Texas decided to downplay Jefferson’s role in American history, and include, rather, a list of others who influenced American history and thought, including one, John Calvin, who was a man, among many others, involved in the Reformation. First let me say that there is no doubt the ideas of the Reformation—of which Calvin was certainly a part—have influenced American thinking in the realm of religion to this day. There is some suggestion he also influenced capitalism and democracy, although whatever his idea of “democracy,” it would have clashed considerably with just about everything represented by our Constitution, if his actions and writings constitute any indication. Still, I must admit that, religion being the powerful mechanism it surely is in the U.S. today, impacting religious thought is no small matter. I think it’s fair to say religion in our country would not be what it is today without Calvin’s influential ideas within the Reformation. However, to read that as complimentary would be to miss my meaning entirely.
Some of Calvin’s fine thoughts still in circulation include the following:
1. God’s absolute sovereignty:
Just as the Taliban promotes, whatever your god asks you to do, obey without question—no holds barred. And frighteningly, just like the Taliban, Calvin believed that anyone who didn’t accept the “truth”—as he understood it—deserved execution. Free speech? No. Open, public dialog and debate? No. Capacity to criticize religious thinking? Again, no. Just as, for want of a sense of humor, a rabid mob of Muslims became intent on murdering a Dutch publisher, Calvin saw little reason to allow anyone to criticize what he knew was god’s intent here on Earth—and live. In fact, in response to a fellow theologian’s criticisms, he wrote:
“Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive.” (1)
For the record, we get a lot of “ravings” e-mailed to us at AETV. But I have yet to hear anyone involved with our program suggest, even as a joke, that we ought to consider silencing these people for eternity. Honestly, they are some of the greatest sources of humor on the list—if, perhaps, not also somewhat tinged with a sad and pathetic quality. Pity and humor seem a more appropriate response to “raving” than murderous impulses.
But back to Calvin, who, it turns out, was able to make good on his word. Servetus—who was a man of some scientific accomplishment in addition to a theologian—was burned at the stake—along with his books, it should be noted—for “heresy.” Ironically, put to death by Calvin’s supporters, who were, as labeled by a differently thinking church authority, simply another brand of “heretic.” And also ironically for one of his ideas being that infant baptism was incorrect—a position most protestants would today agree with. When Servetus was facing trial, and possible death, for his ideas, Calvin compassionately wrote:
“I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him; but I desired that the severity of the punishment be mitigated.” (2)
By “mitigated,” Calvin did not mean sentencing Servetus to 100 hours of community service instead. He meant that he preferred beheading to immolation. And he demonstrated this preference as well when he consented to the beheading of Jacques Gruet. To be fair to Calvin, though, Gruet was guilty of having written a letter which, I’m sure it was demonstrated, “threatened god,” as well as god’s emissaries here on Earth. And there can be no doubt of Gruet’s guilt, as he made a full confession—under torture.
2. Total depravity of the human condition:
The Wikipedia entry states: “The term ‘total’ in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.”
I’m grateful to have this clarification. Just so we are all on the same page, it’s not so much that human beings are totally evil, as that every part of every human being is polluted with evil.
This doctrine is, itself, perhaps arguably, the most “totally depraved” contribution to the world stage religion has ever supplied us—especially as it is taught to children as soon as they’re able to grasp the concepts involved. For one person to believe such a ludicrous and dysfunctional concept about himself would be merely shocking. For many to believe such a thing undermines humanity and society, and can only be combated with as much real education as we can unrelentingly hurl at it.
Like many marketing schemes, religion invents a problem, exaggerates it to frightening proportions, applies it to as many as possible (in this case everyone), then sells the solution at a hefty individual and social price. The problem it invents in this case results in mistrust of one’s corrupted self, of all one’s corrupted neighbors, and even of one’s corrupted children and parents. And when an idea like this catches fire, anyone who rejects it can only be suspect of being so utterly corrupt they cannot see their own corruption. That person—the one saying humans are basically alright for the most part—becomes, unbelievably, the threat to social harmony and cohesion. What a backward and perverted social perspective. But yes, it certainly has influenced American culture, I must sadly concede.
3. Predestination
Predestination is not, strictly speaking, “determinism.” However, they have a bit in common. If anything drives unavoidable fate, it is determinism. If god drives it, it’s predestination. There is certainly an irony to theists who accept this doctrine claiming that without god they would have no reason to go on living. But beyond the humorous aspects, the obvious problem in this idea is that anything and everything that occurs can be defended with divine preordination—from 9-11 to any dictator’s divine right. Combine this with number 1 above, and you have the perfect recipe for brutal politics. And I daresay that number 2 only functions to dismiss critics of the institution produced by 1 and 3, out of hand.
Calvin had all sorts of other wonderful and interesting ideas, including some about Jews, which his supporters can only defend by saying he may not have been as bad as some of the other anti-semites of his day. Still, it isn’t exactly anything to brag on:
“I have had much conversation with many Jews: I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness—nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew.” (3)
My main objective in all of this is to demonstrate that a man like Calvin would openly oppose our current Constitution in the U.S., where we actually allow open public dialog and debate, and we allow free and unhindered expression of religion—by anyone, no matter what they believe, or don’t.
As I have admitted already, we have examples of the church and state living, relatively speaking, harmoniously in some regions of the world. However, we have other examples where church and state, relatively speaking, demonstrate lethal and oppressive combinations. And in those states, what do we see? We see staunch believers who adhere to the three Calvinistic concepts listed above, for which the man is most remembered. Considering the continued efforts of Christian fundamentalists—admittedly influenced by Calvin—to affect political power in this nation—why on Earth would anyone assume they’re not interested in religious impositions upon society? What would be the basis for assuming this well organized group of religious zealots is fighting for political influence with the noble goal of preserving a religious freedom we already enjoy—rather than a goal of imposing religious oppression by instituting self-serving, government-sanctioned religious privilege?
By all means, feel free to teach children about Calvin and Calvinism and his influence on American thinking in our schools. Be sure to teach them, as well, how extremely lucky we are that Calvin’s relaxed attitudes with regard to comingling religious and state authority, to purposeful deadly effect, were ultimately not embraced by this nation. In fact, they represent, eerily and precisely, the same views driving the terrorist actions with which we are waging war in the world at this moment: God is sovereign and demands the death of anyone who criticizes Him or His messengers.
I wonder whether that will be included in our new Social Studies Curriculum Standards here in Texas when Calvin is mentioned? Like the fundamentalist-groomed children in science classes “challenging” overwhelming scientific consensus, one wonders whether free-thinking children will raise a hand to ask whether it is, in fact, true, that Calvin promoted executing people for expressing their ideas and questions? And, if so, isn’t it rather a boon that we escaped a number of the man’s toxic political influences, if not his religious ones?
I’m happy to say the church in the U.S. no longer burns people who don’t agree with them. But it is impossible to miss that this protection is offered, thankfully, by secular laws imposing on religiously prescribed dictates, rather than any divine prohibition. It is, in fact, quite fortunate we did not take our cue from the Bible—or Calvin’s view of it—when it came time to author our national laws and Constitution.
Thankfully reason prevailed, once again, over religion. But the price, as always, is eternal vigilance.
Notes:
(1) Drummond, William H. (1848). The Life of Michael Servetus: The Spanish Physician, Who, for the Alleged Crime of Heresy, was Entrapped, Imprisoned, and Burned, by John Calvin the Reformer, in the City of Geneva, October 27, 1553. London, England: John Chapman. pp. 2.
(2) Calvin to William Farel, August 20, 1553, Bonnet, Jules (1820–1892) Letters of John Calvin, Carlisle, Penn: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980, pp. 158–159. ISBN 0-85151-323-9.
(3) Lange van Ravenswaay, J. Marius J. (2009), “Calvin and the Jews”, in Selderhuis, Herman J., The Calvin Handbook, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., ISBN 9780802862303 (translation from the Dutch, Calvijn Handboek, 2008 by Kok, Kampen).
Our neighbors “across the pond” often write to us to express their amazement that while their church is very much part of their state institutions, it is hardly a force of any consequence, whereas in the U.S., they hear we have actually undertaken an experiment in secular government, but are inundated by religious influence and intrusion to a degree they find unbelievable and shocking. They ask “why?” We answer, “we’re not entirely sure.”
I don’t know what makes one state-involved religion relatively benign—as is the case in some modern European nations—and what makes religion a force for death and human rights abuses in some other regions of the world. But I’m willing to wager that if a definitive answer to that question is ever found, it will involve quite a lot about paranoid fear and also something about religious fundamentalism, which is involved with feelings of near certainty in the face of inconclusive—someone less generous might say “ridiculous”—evidence to support unjustified conclusions. Actually, this attitude is often the root of paranoid fear. We have all observed, as well as heard, that “the truth has nothing to fear from investigation.” But poorly justified “truth,” has a great deal to fear from free inquiry and open debate; and, so, protecting such “truth” actually requires some level of suppression of evidence and contrary thoughts. And when I say “some level,” with regard to protecting religious ideas, I shouldn’t need to explain what “levels” that includes.
The “wall of separation” was described early on by a Baptist, Roger Williams. He viewed the wall as a protection of private practice of religion. And, no doubt it does protect religious freedoms—which many religious people daily demonstrate they are either unable or unwilling to understand. Later, the “wall” was described by Jefferson to mean religion’s influence in politics—a prohibition against religious involvement on the secular side. Really, these are not two sides of a coin, but two ways of describing one side only: No religion may call “shotgun.” They must all ride in the same seat as far as the government is concerned. The problem, missed by many, is that in a world where each person carries their own personal and unique concept of “god”—you can’t so much as pray to a “god” with governmental endorsement without stepping on some toes—not merely those of the godless, but those of other religious people as well, who don’t share your personal views on religion. For example, what of those who would pray to the “gods,” instead? It really is best for everyone—religious or not—to allow free private practice and not issue government decrees or endorsements of anything regarding religion or religious worship, whenever it is not an absolute dire necessity to intervene against oppression, both on behalf of religious citizens, as well as on behalf of those they have been known to oppress.
Recently, and unsurprisingly, the SBOE in Texas decided to downplay Jefferson’s role in American history, and include, rather, a list of others who influenced American history and thought, including one, John Calvin, who was a man, among many others, involved in the Reformation. First let me say that there is no doubt the ideas of the Reformation—of which Calvin was certainly a part—have influenced American thinking in the realm of religion to this day. There is some suggestion he also influenced capitalism and democracy, although whatever his idea of “democracy,” it would have clashed considerably with just about everything represented by our Constitution, if his actions and writings constitute any indication. Still, I must admit that, religion being the powerful mechanism it surely is in the U.S. today, impacting religious thought is no small matter. I think it’s fair to say religion in our country would not be what it is today without Calvin’s influential ideas within the Reformation. However, to read that as complimentary would be to miss my meaning entirely.
Some of Calvin’s fine thoughts still in circulation include the following:
1. God’s absolute sovereignty:
Just as the Taliban promotes, whatever your god asks you to do, obey without question—no holds barred. And frighteningly, just like the Taliban, Calvin believed that anyone who didn’t accept the “truth”—as he understood it—deserved execution. Free speech? No. Open, public dialog and debate? No. Capacity to criticize religious thinking? Again, no. Just as, for want of a sense of humor, a rabid mob of Muslims became intent on murdering a Dutch publisher, Calvin saw little reason to allow anyone to criticize what he knew was god’s intent here on Earth—and live. In fact, in response to a fellow theologian’s criticisms, he wrote:
“Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive.” (1)
For the record, we get a lot of “ravings” e-mailed to us at AETV. But I have yet to hear anyone involved with our program suggest, even as a joke, that we ought to consider silencing these people for eternity. Honestly, they are some of the greatest sources of humor on the list—if, perhaps, not also somewhat tinged with a sad and pathetic quality. Pity and humor seem a more appropriate response to “raving” than murderous impulses.
But back to Calvin, who, it turns out, was able to make good on his word. Servetus—who was a man of some scientific accomplishment in addition to a theologian—was burned at the stake—along with his books, it should be noted—for “heresy.” Ironically, put to death by Calvin’s supporters, who were, as labeled by a differently thinking church authority, simply another brand of “heretic.” And also ironically for one of his ideas being that infant baptism was incorrect—a position most protestants would today agree with. When Servetus was facing trial, and possible death, for his ideas, Calvin compassionately wrote:
“I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him; but I desired that the severity of the punishment be mitigated.” (2)
By “mitigated,” Calvin did not mean sentencing Servetus to 100 hours of community service instead. He meant that he preferred beheading to immolation. And he demonstrated this preference as well when he consented to the beheading of Jacques Gruet. To be fair to Calvin, though, Gruet was guilty of having written a letter which, I’m sure it was demonstrated, “threatened god,” as well as god’s emissaries here on Earth. And there can be no doubt of Gruet’s guilt, as he made a full confession—under torture.
2. Total depravity of the human condition:
The Wikipedia entry states: “The term ‘total’ in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.”
I’m grateful to have this clarification. Just so we are all on the same page, it’s not so much that human beings are totally evil, as that every part of every human being is polluted with evil.
This doctrine is, itself, perhaps arguably, the most “totally depraved” contribution to the world stage religion has ever supplied us—especially as it is taught to children as soon as they’re able to grasp the concepts involved. For one person to believe such a ludicrous and dysfunctional concept about himself would be merely shocking. For many to believe such a thing undermines humanity and society, and can only be combated with as much real education as we can unrelentingly hurl at it.
Like many marketing schemes, religion invents a problem, exaggerates it to frightening proportions, applies it to as many as possible (in this case everyone), then sells the solution at a hefty individual and social price. The problem it invents in this case results in mistrust of one’s corrupted self, of all one’s corrupted neighbors, and even of one’s corrupted children and parents. And when an idea like this catches fire, anyone who rejects it can only be suspect of being so utterly corrupt they cannot see their own corruption. That person—the one saying humans are basically alright for the most part—becomes, unbelievably, the threat to social harmony and cohesion. What a backward and perverted social perspective. But yes, it certainly has influenced American culture, I must sadly concede.
3. Predestination
Predestination is not, strictly speaking, “determinism.” However, they have a bit in common. If anything drives unavoidable fate, it is determinism. If god drives it, it’s predestination. There is certainly an irony to theists who accept this doctrine claiming that without god they would have no reason to go on living. But beyond the humorous aspects, the obvious problem in this idea is that anything and everything that occurs can be defended with divine preordination—from 9-11 to any dictator’s divine right. Combine this with number 1 above, and you have the perfect recipe for brutal politics. And I daresay that number 2 only functions to dismiss critics of the institution produced by 1 and 3, out of hand.
Calvin had all sorts of other wonderful and interesting ideas, including some about Jews, which his supporters can only defend by saying he may not have been as bad as some of the other anti-semites of his day. Still, it isn’t exactly anything to brag on:
“I have had much conversation with many Jews: I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness—nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew.” (3)
My main objective in all of this is to demonstrate that a man like Calvin would openly oppose our current Constitution in the U.S., where we actually allow open public dialog and debate, and we allow free and unhindered expression of religion—by anyone, no matter what they believe, or don’t.
As I have admitted already, we have examples of the church and state living, relatively speaking, harmoniously in some regions of the world. However, we have other examples where church and state, relatively speaking, demonstrate lethal and oppressive combinations. And in those states, what do we see? We see staunch believers who adhere to the three Calvinistic concepts listed above, for which the man is most remembered. Considering the continued efforts of Christian fundamentalists—admittedly influenced by Calvin—to affect political power in this nation—why on Earth would anyone assume they’re not interested in religious impositions upon society? What would be the basis for assuming this well organized group of religious zealots is fighting for political influence with the noble goal of preserving a religious freedom we already enjoy—rather than a goal of imposing religious oppression by instituting self-serving, government-sanctioned religious privilege?
By all means, feel free to teach children about Calvin and Calvinism and his influence on American thinking in our schools. Be sure to teach them, as well, how extremely lucky we are that Calvin’s relaxed attitudes with regard to comingling religious and state authority, to purposeful deadly effect, were ultimately not embraced by this nation. In fact, they represent, eerily and precisely, the same views driving the terrorist actions with which we are waging war in the world at this moment: God is sovereign and demands the death of anyone who criticizes Him or His messengers.
I wonder whether that will be included in our new Social Studies Curriculum Standards here in Texas when Calvin is mentioned? Like the fundamentalist-groomed children in science classes “challenging” overwhelming scientific consensus, one wonders whether free-thinking children will raise a hand to ask whether it is, in fact, true, that Calvin promoted executing people for expressing their ideas and questions? And, if so, isn’t it rather a boon that we escaped a number of the man’s toxic political influences, if not his religious ones?
I’m happy to say the church in the U.S. no longer burns people who don’t agree with them. But it is impossible to miss that this protection is offered, thankfully, by secular laws imposing on religiously prescribed dictates, rather than any divine prohibition. It is, in fact, quite fortunate we did not take our cue from the Bible—or Calvin’s view of it—when it came time to author our national laws and Constitution.
Thankfully reason prevailed, once again, over religion. But the price, as always, is eternal vigilance.
Notes:
(1) Drummond, William H. (1848). The Life of Michael Servetus: The Spanish Physician, Who, for the Alleged Crime of Heresy, was Entrapped, Imprisoned, and Burned, by John Calvin the Reformer, in the City of Geneva, October 27, 1553. London, England: John Chapman. pp. 2.
(2) Calvin to William Farel, August 20, 1553, Bonnet, Jules (1820–1892) Letters of John Calvin, Carlisle, Penn: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980, pp. 158–159. ISBN 0-85151-323-9.
(3) Lange van Ravenswaay, J. Marius J. (2009), “Calvin and the Jews”, in Selderhuis, Herman J., The Calvin Handbook, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., ISBN 9780802862303 (translation from the Dutch, Calvijn Handboek, 2008 by Kok, Kampen).
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Sorry for the quietude
It's been a little quiet around here the last few days, I know. Sorry for that. I think we're all just concentrating on real-life stuff lately. There have been some things of atheist interest happening, though, so I'll chime in on those as I have time. But for now you can consider this an open thread on the following theme: sexual shenanigans among public figures. Take, as your inspiration, the following: much as we all love to hate Fox News, I must confess their headline writers have a good sense of humor.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Kathleen Johnson: "A Place at the Table"
Here's the video from a recent ACA Lecture Series lecture with Kathleen Johnson, titled "A Place at the Table."
On February 26th, 2010, Kathleen Johnson, American Atheists Vice President and Military Director and the founder of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, spoke at a historic meeting with the Obama administration at the nation's capital. The event, organized by the Secular Coalition for America, focused on three issues: faith based medical neglect, proselytizing in the military, and administration support for faith based initiatives. This occasion was a prime example of how a variety of different secular groups can unite for a common cause and accomplish significant political actions. Ms. Johnson will speak about her experiences with "having a seat at the table" and the importance of effectively setting aside political and positional differences to effectively advocate for common causes.
On February 26th, 2010, Kathleen Johnson, American Atheists Vice President and Military Director and the founder of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, spoke at a historic meeting with the Obama administration at the nation's capital. The event, organized by the Secular Coalition for America, focused on three issues: faith based medical neglect, proselytizing in the military, and administration support for faith based initiatives. This occasion was a prime example of how a variety of different secular groups can unite for a common cause and accomplish significant political actions. Ms. Johnson will speak about her experiences with "having a seat at the table" and the importance of effectively setting aside political and positional differences to effectively advocate for common causes.
"A Place at the Table"
Mp3 audio is available here.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Another AETV-inspired tune
Hats off to AlmightyAtheismo and Kirke420 (hmm...) for this little song commemorating a legendary moment from the TV show.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Atheism in the news? Not really...
Read this post from the blog of the religion reporter at our local newspaper.
My comment was long, so I wasn't sure if it got posted and thought I'd post it here, as well.
Three comments, in mixed order:
First, the study isn't worth the attention it's getting. In addition to all of the other problems with IQ, the variance here simply isn't notable. This is a weak correlation and little more.
Second, the UTSA event is not to everyone's taste, but your question; "why equate it with pornography?" is an interesting one. The implication is that you'd like to label porn as 'bad' but the Bible as 'good' or 'not as bad'. I don't find pornography objectionable, yet I find the Bible incredibly objectionable...so, your implication is correct, they're not equal. I think most Bible-supporters know this which is why, despite calling it the "Good Book" not one of them would agree to let me read Bible stories of my selection to their children.
Some people are uncomfortable about nudity and sex, and that's their prerogative.
Those, though, who would exalt a book that explicitly endorses slavery - the owning of another human as property, the beating of that property and the instruction for slave to obey cruel masters - just one of many objectionable points, can never claim the moral high ground. They have sacrificed their humanity for a poisonous and corrupt ideology.
And that, leads me to the third point - the focus on the fact that this individual had books on atheism and demons. There is nothing within atheism (because it's a single position on a single question) that would direct one to burn a church. Atheism is not a necessary and sufficient cause for any act, let alone this one.
But the problem here is the self-righteous bigotry in both the headlines, the focus and the commentary. Where is the headline that reads "Bible found among clinic bombers belongings"?
My comment was long, so I wasn't sure if it got posted and thought I'd post it here, as well.
Three comments, in mixed order:
First, the study isn't worth the attention it's getting. In addition to all of the other problems with IQ, the variance here simply isn't notable. This is a weak correlation and little more.
Second, the UTSA event is not to everyone's taste, but your question; "why equate it with pornography?" is an interesting one. The implication is that you'd like to label porn as 'bad' but the Bible as 'good' or 'not as bad'. I don't find pornography objectionable, yet I find the Bible incredibly objectionable...so, your implication is correct, they're not equal. I think most Bible-supporters know this which is why, despite calling it the "Good Book" not one of them would agree to let me read Bible stories of my selection to their children.
Some people are uncomfortable about nudity and sex, and that's their prerogative.
Those, though, who would exalt a book that explicitly endorses slavery - the owning of another human as property, the beating of that property and the instruction for slave to obey cruel masters - just one of many objectionable points, can never claim the moral high ground. They have sacrificed their humanity for a poisonous and corrupt ideology.
And that, leads me to the third point - the focus on the fact that this individual had books on atheism and demons. There is nothing within atheism (because it's a single position on a single question) that would direct one to burn a church. Atheism is not a necessary and sufficient cause for any act, let alone this one.
But the problem here is the self-righteous bigotry in both the headlines, the focus and the commentary. Where is the headline that reads "Bible found among clinic bombers belongings"?
McLEROY IS OUT!
Okay, we had Rethuglican primaries here in Texas yesterday, and there is some good news to report on the SBOE front. What rocks is the upset of Don McLeroy by his opponent, Thomas Ratliff. It was a near thing, only an 800-vote spread, which just goes to show how powerful the extremists among the just-don't-give-a-shit-what-anyone-thinks right wing still are, despite McLeroy's shameless track record of turning Texas into a global laughingstock during his tenure. Now I'm sure the Ol' Boy Network will kick in, and Rick Perry — who, I'm sorry to say, almost certainly will win another term — will find Mac something to do. But at least we won't have to gawp at this mustachioed moron as he boldly stands up to the experts at SBOE hearings anymore.
Now, other seats look a little dicey. Ken "Piltdown Man" Mercer easily squashed his opponent, Tim Tuggey, which blows. And the vacancy left by überloon Cynthia Dunbar has come down to a runoff between Marsha Farney and Dunbar's hand-picked mini-me, Brian Russell. So we have to hope things go Farney's way, because District 10 will go Republican in the general election and any Democratic or progressive indie candidate cannot be expected to have a hope.
There's more possible not-so-good news in the loss of another incumbent, Geraldine Miller, to her challenger, George Clayton. Clayton, on first blush, doesn't look bad, with his harsh criticisms of teaching to standardized tests rather than actually engaging students to learn for real. But sadly, he is also on record boasting that he is "an educator" and then promptly pissing that cred away by saying, "It's an impossibility to talk about evolution without mentioning creationism," forever branding him an assclown. (Inasmuch as one might say, "Evolution is true and creationism is retarded," George is essentially right, but I suspect that isn't what he means.) Sorry, George, but when you're asked a simple no-DUH question about the age of the Earth, you don't lapse into mindless spinspeak like "I'm not going to cut [the Earth] in half and count the rings," not after bragging that you're supposed to be a fucking "educator," goddammit. You answer that question by saying, "Between 4-5 billion years...next?" unless you want to be sent to the corner in the pointy hat. The last thing we need on the SBOE is another uneducated "educator."
So it's hardly a clean sweep for reason and intelligence in the primaries. Ratliff could turn into the Manchurian Candidate all on his own. Yet it ain't over till it's over. Dems and independents could still have a chance to rally voters and cause some upsets down the road in the general election.
But damn!...McLEROY'S OUT! And that alone makes me ready to throw a block party. Hopefully Texas has decided it's ready to start evolving after all.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Obama aides to meet with atheists
Thanks, Guy Harrison, for bringing this Miami Herald article to our attention:
Not a HUGE step, but it's a start.
...several administration officials will sit down quietly for a morning meeting at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus with about 60 workhorses from the coalition's 10 member groups, including the American Atheists and the Council for Secular Humanism. Tina Tchen, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, and representatives from the Justice and Health and Human Services departments will participate.
Coalition leaders are billing their visit as an important meeting between a presidential administration and the "nontheist" community. On the agenda are three policy areas: child medical neglect, military proselytizing and faith-based initiatives.
"We're raising important issues that affect real people's lives," said Sean Faircloth, 49, a former Maine state legislator who's the coalition's executive director.
Not a HUGE step, but it's a start.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tonight on AETV
Technical problems, especially with the UStream feed, plagued our late edition of AETV tonight. This is a shame, because our guest, Dr. Darrel Ray, who joined us to discuss his book The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture
Here's Dr. Ray's adjunct site, Recovering from Religion.
Addendum, Monday night: Okay, here's the video.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Plugola
Hey gang. Here's a positive thing you can do, in the midst of a world overrun with teabagger hate and domestic terrorism and general irrationality. One of my best friends is doing this week-long, 545-mile bike marathon this coming June, from LA to San Fran, and it's all to benefit AIDS research. And she's looking for sponsors. So, you know, do eet for SCIENCE! And to piss off the homophobes at the American "Family" Association, the "Family" Research Council, and all those other fundamentalist hate groups who try to hide behind the word "family." I could only spare 10 bucks, so if $5 or $10 or $15 is all you can manage, that'd be beyond awesome. And I know all you folks are beyond awesome.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Update on Andrew Wakefield
In an earlier post, I drew attention to the anti-vax hero Andrew Wakefield. Today's Austin American Statesman reported that Wakefield has left his executive director position at the Austin-based Thoughtful House Center for Children that he helped found. It's possible that they can rehabilitate their reputation without him. Late last month, Wakefield was found "irresponsible" by the British General Medical Council for performing unnecessary invasive tests on children. He also "flouted the rules in pursuit of his theory – and profit". A hearing in April will determine whether he is guilty of misconduct. If he is found guilty, he could be stripped of his medical license.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
A Suicide Note I Empathize With
Today, a man flew a small plane into a building in Austin. It's captured our attention for most of the day. It turns out that the pilot was very frustrated and did what is effectively a suicide attack on an IRS office. He also torched his own house with his wife and child in it. It appears that one of his intents was to get the world to read his suicide note. His drastic measures have proven successful.
Although I can't understand or endorse what he did, I found a lot in his note that I agreed with. The main theme was about how so much of American life is gamed by the big guys and how little power the little guy has to stop it. He railed against tax codes that exploited his profession, health care, the legal code, the political system that fails to represent the people, and the Catholic church. He called the church "vulgar" and "corrupt" and bemoaned the fact that they have received tax exemptions that helped make them wealthy. I agree completely with the spirit of his complaints, even though I don't understand the details of his situation.
I'm a reasonably intelligent guy and I cannot for the life of me figure out why the United States gives a tax exemption to the Catholic Church. The Church seems to exemplify the rigged system that we labor under. They have run a pedophile ring for decades in multiple countries and done everything in their power to evade responsibility. I've written about this before. Yes, some priests have received the justice they deserved, but to date none of the scheming hierarchy has seen the inside of a court, let alone a jail. The Catholic Church is a criminal organization that should have its assets seized under the RICO (racketeering) law until a full investigation can be performed. The assets of the church should be used to benefit its victims. I simply cannot fathom why they are still receiving a tax exemption.
To add insult to injury, the Pope has evaded a law suit in the pedophile scandal by claiming diplomatic immunity. Some people think he's the head of some state. Ok. If they want to play that card, then let's make all of the Catholic hierarchy Vatican citizens and revoke their US passports. They clearly have little respect for US law and they're only following orders, like good little immoral soldiers they are. If they are convicted of a crime, they can be convicted or deported like any other badly-behaving alien. They want to have their cake and eat it too. When they can evade laws or screw with other countries, they're a foreign country. When they want to make money, they're a charity. So far, they've been very successful at the game.
I will continue to remind people of the corruption of the Catholic Church, but I don't see them being treated any differently in the foreseeable future. Catholic laity are still deeply loyal to the Church. They appear to be happy to support the pedophilia and corruption because the value their magic crackers and ticket to perpetual orgasm over any sort of human moral virtue. Either that, or they're hopelessly mindlessly ignorant. If a Catholic reader has a more generous interpretation, I'd like to hear it. Perhaps that reader can also explain why anyone should trust them on their woo-woo unverifiable supernatural claims when they spend so much time lying about real-world claims. They're really good at lying, as near as I can tell.
The Catholic Church doesn't run the US legal system. (At least I hope not.) They clearly seem to have help from outside their church. It appears that the majority of Christians value "religious tolerance". What this has come to mean is a situational moral blind spot when the perpetrators of some atrocity happen to be fellow Christians. You also hear it as "Thou Shalt Not Judge". In practice, it's an agreement among thugs: "You don't draw attention to my sociopathic Rapture snuff porn business and I won't draw attention to your pedophile ring." "You let me pray my sick child to death and I won't call you on your faith-healing con game." The list goes on. In the end, practical Christianity is about screwing someone and inhibiting anyone from doing something about it. It's worked well for Christian leaders so far, why would they want to change it? Why would believers risk their ticket to nirvana actually doing something when they can take comfort in prayer (which has the same practical effect as masturbation)?
Lest you think I'm making this up, I have gotten a number of e-mails from Christians who seem to be shocked that I'm rattling the skeleton's in Christianity's closet. (I'm not party to the agreement between thugs.) Their biggest desire seems to be to shut me up. They seem to know what I'm saying is true, but they don't want to hear it. One correspondent actually wanted me to enter a deal where if I lost, I would never say anything bad about a Christian again (even if it was true). That alone speaks volumes about Christianity to me. The moral failings of Christianity are a big part of my motivation to be an outspoken advocate for atheism. They should be a reason why we deny tax exemptions to such blatantly corrupt religious organizations.
Sadly, Christianity's corruption is only part of the overall screwed up situation we're in. I'm doing what I can with the tools I have. I would encourage all of you to do what you can to get us out of the myriad messes we're all in.
Although I can't understand or endorse what he did, I found a lot in his note that I agreed with. The main theme was about how so much of American life is gamed by the big guys and how little power the little guy has to stop it. He railed against tax codes that exploited his profession, health care, the legal code, the political system that fails to represent the people, and the Catholic church. He called the church "vulgar" and "corrupt" and bemoaned the fact that they have received tax exemptions that helped make them wealthy. I agree completely with the spirit of his complaints, even though I don't understand the details of his situation.
I'm a reasonably intelligent guy and I cannot for the life of me figure out why the United States gives a tax exemption to the Catholic Church. The Church seems to exemplify the rigged system that we labor under. They have run a pedophile ring for decades in multiple countries and done everything in their power to evade responsibility. I've written about this before. Yes, some priests have received the justice they deserved, but to date none of the scheming hierarchy has seen the inside of a court, let alone a jail. The Catholic Church is a criminal organization that should have its assets seized under the RICO (racketeering) law until a full investigation can be performed. The assets of the church should be used to benefit its victims. I simply cannot fathom why they are still receiving a tax exemption.
To add insult to injury, the Pope has evaded a law suit in the pedophile scandal by claiming diplomatic immunity. Some people think he's the head of some state. Ok. If they want to play that card, then let's make all of the Catholic hierarchy Vatican citizens and revoke their US passports. They clearly have little respect for US law and they're only following orders, like good little immoral soldiers they are. If they are convicted of a crime, they can be convicted or deported like any other badly-behaving alien. They want to have their cake and eat it too. When they can evade laws or screw with other countries, they're a foreign country. When they want to make money, they're a charity. So far, they've been very successful at the game.
I will continue to remind people of the corruption of the Catholic Church, but I don't see them being treated any differently in the foreseeable future. Catholic laity are still deeply loyal to the Church. They appear to be happy to support the pedophilia and corruption because the value their magic crackers and ticket to perpetual orgasm over any sort of human moral virtue. Either that, or they're hopelessly mindlessly ignorant. If a Catholic reader has a more generous interpretation, I'd like to hear it. Perhaps that reader can also explain why anyone should trust them on their woo-woo unverifiable supernatural claims when they spend so much time lying about real-world claims. They're really good at lying, as near as I can tell.
The Catholic Church doesn't run the US legal system. (At least I hope not.) They clearly seem to have help from outside their church. It appears that the majority of Christians value "religious tolerance". What this has come to mean is a situational moral blind spot when the perpetrators of some atrocity happen to be fellow Christians. You also hear it as "Thou Shalt Not Judge". In practice, it's an agreement among thugs: "You don't draw attention to my sociopathic Rapture snuff porn business and I won't draw attention to your pedophile ring." "You let me pray my sick child to death and I won't call you on your faith-healing con game." The list goes on. In the end, practical Christianity is about screwing someone and inhibiting anyone from doing something about it. It's worked well for Christian leaders so far, why would they want to change it? Why would believers risk their ticket to nirvana actually doing something when they can take comfort in prayer (which has the same practical effect as masturbation)?
Lest you think I'm making this up, I have gotten a number of e-mails from Christians who seem to be shocked that I'm rattling the skeleton's in Christianity's closet. (I'm not party to the agreement between thugs.) Their biggest desire seems to be to shut me up. They seem to know what I'm saying is true, but they don't want to hear it. One correspondent actually wanted me to enter a deal where if I lost, I would never say anything bad about a Christian again (even if it was true). That alone speaks volumes about Christianity to me. The moral failings of Christianity are a big part of my motivation to be an outspoken advocate for atheism. They should be a reason why we deny tax exemptions to such blatantly corrupt religious organizations.
Sadly, Christianity's corruption is only part of the overall screwed up situation we're in. I'm doing what I can with the tools I have. I would encourage all of you to do what you can to get us out of the myriad messes we're all in.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Racial composition does not imply a group's ideology
Listening to Keith Olbermann in the car this morning made me deeply annoyed. He ran one of those signature "special comments," this time on racism in the Tea Party. That's fine with me. I mean, when you have images like this
and this
Then yeah, I think it's not unreasonable to speculate that there is some latent racism going on in the Tea Party movement.
But he didn't stop there; he went on to say that the tea party protests are mostly composed exclusively of white guys. Then he said something to the effect that if they aren't racist, how come there aren't more black people?
And I say: MEH. It's not as easy as Keith imagines to get a diverse group to support an activist cause, and it's a terrible fallacy to conclude that the movement is racist because it doesn't attract more black people.
I've been through seven years of college with a computer science/engineering background, okay? There were not many women in the programs. Why? Beats me. I wish more women would be computer nerds. I have worked in many companies where there was a good mix of genders, but I've noticed that the women in the companies far more commonly fill non-techie roles: testers, administrators, office assistants, HR, some managers. Stuff like that.
This is not a sexist claim. It's basic statistical observation. It is not a statement of "ought," it is a statement of "is." It's also obviously not universal, as I knew several women who made up, I'm guessing, 5% of my Master's program; and I know plenty of female engineers, including Jen and Elze in the ACA. But still, as I look around my cubicle area at my job, almost everyone within view is male.
By Olbermann's logic, computer software development must be a fundamentally sexist undertaking. The entire practice must espouse some core values that hates and derides women.
It doesn't stop there. The Atheist Experience has a relatively good mix of men and women... by which I mean that among the hosts and cohosts are only twice as many men as women. There are also only twice as many heterosexuals as homosexuals, which is actually overrepresentative of gay people. We have no African-Americans (or "black people," if you're not keen on politically correct language, which I'm not). From my ten year memory of the ACA, I can think of two black women and no black men who were members. (Deepest apologies if you are somebody I left out.)
Edit: There are seven total hosts and cohosts, not six as I first thought, making the ratio of male to female 5:2, not 4:2. Same with sexual orientation.
From what I've heard, black atheists are really quite rare, and activist black atheists are rarer still. They're out there, of course, and Reginald Finley (who is the most famous one I know) has helpfully compiled a list of famous black atheists -- and I recognize almost none of them. (Sorry!) In the last few months I've heard the topic of come up at least twice on the show, prompting a string of black callers from around the country to offer their two cents on the nature of the problem. This puts us white hosts in the uncomfortable situation of having to speculate about what it is about either race or culture that makes it more difficult for black people to come out as nonbelievers.
Lest you think it's just our tiny minority group that shares this "racism," I'll point out that Yearly Kos, the convention for liberal activists sponsored by the liberal blog Daily Kos, has received similar pointless criticism that they are "diversity challenged." That because they can't attract more black members, there is some unspoken whites-only principle in the ideology of the group.
Which is stupid, and should be transparently stupid to someone like Keith Olbermann, who loves Daily Kos and has founder Markos Moulitsas as a regular guest on his show. And yet here he is committing this rotten fallacy on the tea party movement, which only serves to undermine the (IMHO) accurate message that many people in the movement are bigoted asshats.
If there's a lesson to draw here, it's that you can reach the right conclusion for very wrong reasons. Like a person who becomes an atheist because Zeitgeist convinced them of the truth of some very dubious claims about Christianity; once a person finds out that the underlying arguments are terrible, they're likely to dismiss the conclusion.
and this
Then yeah, I think it's not unreasonable to speculate that there is some latent racism going on in the Tea Party movement.
But he didn't stop there; he went on to say that the tea party protests are mostly composed exclusively of white guys. Then he said something to the effect that if they aren't racist, how come there aren't more black people?
And I say: MEH. It's not as easy as Keith imagines to get a diverse group to support an activist cause, and it's a terrible fallacy to conclude that the movement is racist because it doesn't attract more black people.
I've been through seven years of college with a computer science/engineering background, okay? There were not many women in the programs. Why? Beats me. I wish more women would be computer nerds. I have worked in many companies where there was a good mix of genders, but I've noticed that the women in the companies far more commonly fill non-techie roles: testers, administrators, office assistants, HR, some managers. Stuff like that.
This is not a sexist claim. It's basic statistical observation. It is not a statement of "ought," it is a statement of "is." It's also obviously not universal, as I knew several women who made up, I'm guessing, 5% of my Master's program; and I know plenty of female engineers, including Jen and Elze in the ACA. But still, as I look around my cubicle area at my job, almost everyone within view is male.
By Olbermann's logic, computer software development must be a fundamentally sexist undertaking. The entire practice must espouse some core values that hates and derides women.
It doesn't stop there. The Atheist Experience has a relatively good mix of men and women... by which I mean that among the hosts and cohosts are only twice as many men as women. There are also only twice as many heterosexuals as homosexuals, which is actually overrepresentative of gay people. We have no African-Americans (or "black people," if you're not keen on politically correct language, which I'm not). From my ten year memory of the ACA, I can think of two black women and no black men who were members. (Deepest apologies if you are somebody I left out.)
Edit: There are seven total hosts and cohosts, not six as I first thought, making the ratio of male to female 5:2, not 4:2. Same with sexual orientation.
From what I've heard, black atheists are really quite rare, and activist black atheists are rarer still. They're out there, of course, and Reginald Finley (who is the most famous one I know) has helpfully compiled a list of famous black atheists -- and I recognize almost none of them. (Sorry!) In the last few months I've heard the topic of come up at least twice on the show, prompting a string of black callers from around the country to offer their two cents on the nature of the problem. This puts us white hosts in the uncomfortable situation of having to speculate about what it is about either race or culture that makes it more difficult for black people to come out as nonbelievers.
Lest you think it's just our tiny minority group that shares this "racism," I'll point out that Yearly Kos, the convention for liberal activists sponsored by the liberal blog Daily Kos, has received similar pointless criticism that they are "diversity challenged." That because they can't attract more black members, there is some unspoken whites-only principle in the ideology of the group.
Which is stupid, and should be transparently stupid to someone like Keith Olbermann, who loves Daily Kos and has founder Markos Moulitsas as a regular guest on his show. And yet here he is committing this rotten fallacy on the tea party movement, which only serves to undermine the (IMHO) accurate message that many people in the movement are bigoted asshats.
If there's a lesson to draw here, it's that you can reach the right conclusion for very wrong reasons. Like a person who becomes an atheist because Zeitgeist convinced them of the truth of some very dubious claims about Christianity; once a person finds out that the underlying arguments are terrible, they're likely to dismiss the conclusion.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Atheist Experience on February 21st
Our regular time slot for The Atheist Experience for February 21st was taken by a class in the same studio. The crew has worked their magic and got us the slot from 8-9:30 pm that day (3.5 hours later). It looks like the show will go on. Please watch the stream and participate as you normally would.
Matt and Martin will be on and they will have a special guest, Darrell Ray, author of The God Virus: How Religion Infects our Lives and Culture.
Matt and Martin will be on and they will have a special guest, Darrell Ray, author of The God Virus: How Religion Infects our Lives and Culture.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Just says it all, don't it...
(...sigh) Laughing on the outside, crying on the inside.
It should be noted that this level of illiterate paste-eating chowderheadedness is not always indicated in home schooling situations. In fact, you'll hear from a number of progressive, atheist parents on the TFN blog who have chosen, wisely, to homeschool because Texas is doing is damnedest to turn public schools here into little Christian houses of indoctrination. If I were a parent, I'd homeschool, absolutely. How else could I be sure my kid was getting a sound grounding in history and science, free from right-wing ideological revisionism? But it's true that a significant amount of homeschooling is done by fundamentalist Christian parents seeking to destroy their kids' minds and future opportunities by entrenching that very ideology. And I think that's what we're seeing the hilarious after-effects of here.
HT: TFN Insider
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The show tomorrow and next weekend
Just a heads-up for all of you: tomorrow we've got the "No Boys Allowed" episode featuring the Jen & Tracie Power Team, fresh off their total ownage of Blag Hag's poll of atheism's most influential women. What can we say? Hit the UStream early for this one, gang.
The following weekend, sadly, we're going to be pre-empted, a thing that looks like it's going to happen one Sunday per month for the next couple of months, at least. This is due to ChannelAustin using the studio for training purposes, most likely, so there's not a whole lot we can do about it. Well, I suppose we could fill in that weekend by shooting at Matt's place again, but I suspect with his work schedule and getting over a cold, he's probably not up for the hassle of it.
And thus I leave you, dear readers, with a small irrelevant item that I have no doubt will top off your WTF tanks for the rest of the weekend: some imaginative entreprenuer has decided that the one thing women really need when hosting baby showers for their expecting friends is a fetus-shaped cookie cutter. You are encouraged to decorate the cookies made therefrom with the baby's name, thus committing all shower attendees to a bizarre and rather queasy-making form of communion as the baby is symbolically passed around and eaten. Well, necessity is the mother of invention, they say.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Darwin Day 2010
Aaaand I hope you're having a nice one.
Apropos of Don's post below, I can only reiterate the threat to science education (as well as to civics/history education, and anything else the wingnuts don't feel meshes with their ideological "white Christians did everything!" talking points) by the current SBOE. So in that spirit I direct your attention to Teach Them Science, a website dedicated to fighting the wingnut agenda.
This isn't a perfect meeting of the minds. For one thing, it's a joint project between Center for Inquiry and The Clergy Letter Project. The latter is a group of religious leaders promoting positive science education and resisting creationist ignorance. Now, that's a good thing. But I can sympathize with PZ's wariness of the group and the way they try to pretend science and religion can somehow be simpatico. Still, I can see that perhaps such a stance is a PR necessity at present. With the vast majority of the public still clinging to religion's skirts, good science education would be a hard sell if it came with the message that "Now you can dump all that stupid God bullshit!" There's a whole page on the Teach Them Science site that addresses the question of whether you can accept evolution and still believe in Sky Daddy, and I admit it kind of makes me cringe. But I have to remember that's because I've evolved beyond superstition, and most people aren't so lucky. So, you know, baby steps. Sure, a person can be scientifically literate and theistic all at once, though I still don't understand why they'd want to (lookin' at you, Ken Miller). But the point of proper scientific education first and foremost is to fill people's heads with facts — something the currently SBOE is fighting tooth and nail — and let them draw conclusions about worthwhile philosophies on their own after they have all the facts. It's the SBOE that wants to deny students that freedom of choice, and impose upon them not merely a Christian philosophy, but a specifically conservative American fundamentalist Protestant one.
So, mindful of the fact that sometimes war makes for strange bedfellows, I think movements like Teach Them Science stand to do more good than harm, and that the anti-science agenda of the far right needs to be fought by any means necessary.
Science Works, Albeit Slowly
This month, the British medical journal Lancet retracted a peer-reviewed study done by Andrew Wakefield. The paper was retracted because Wakefield apparently provided false information in the study and perhaps tried to cook the numbers to promote his cause and his career. He's also under investigation for serious professional misconduct.
Who is Andrew Wakefield and why was this paper important? He claimed that there was a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. This paper served as the cornerstone of an anti-vaccination movement here and in Briton that has caused many parents to not vaccinate their children, leaving them vulnerable to a host of serious, but easily preventable diseases. The harm he has done is immeasurable.
On the plus side, science is working. His study drew skepticism and further scrutiny. His co-authors asked to have their names removed from the paper as a means of protecting their reputations. His results could not be replicated and they were refuted. The editors of the journal made a difficult decision to retract the paper, thus keeping their integrity from being taken down with the junk science paper. Retractions like this are rare, fortunately, but they serve as a housecleaning mechanism to purge the literature of truly bad publications. The machinery of science got the right answer. It's a shame that the machinations took 12 years.
The popular press is still full of anti-vaccination material and the harm won't be fully addressed for years, but the process has finally got moving. Meanwhile, true scientists can get back to the serious business of understanding and someday preventing or curing autism.
BTW, Andrew Wakefield now lives in Austin Texas where he runs a clinic called the "Thoughtful House Center for Children." I wouldn't recommend taking your children there.
Who is Andrew Wakefield and why was this paper important? He claimed that there was a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. This paper served as the cornerstone of an anti-vaccination movement here and in Briton that has caused many parents to not vaccinate their children, leaving them vulnerable to a host of serious, but easily preventable diseases. The harm he has done is immeasurable.
On the plus side, science is working. His study drew skepticism and further scrutiny. His co-authors asked to have their names removed from the paper as a means of protecting their reputations. His results could not be replicated and they were refuted. The editors of the journal made a difficult decision to retract the paper, thus keeping their integrity from being taken down with the junk science paper. Retractions like this are rare, fortunately, but they serve as a housecleaning mechanism to purge the literature of truly bad publications. The machinery of science got the right answer. It's a shame that the machinations took 12 years.
The popular press is still full of anti-vaccination material and the harm won't be fully addressed for years, but the process has finally got moving. Meanwhile, true scientists can get back to the serious business of understanding and someday preventing or curing autism.
BTW, Andrew Wakefield now lives in Austin Texas where he runs a clinic called the "Thoughtful House Center for Children." I wouldn't recommend taking your children there.
NY Times Magazine covers the Texas SBOE
The New York Times Magazine published a very good piece this weekend on the Texas State Board of Education, it's Christian exceptionalist members and their motivations. The piece is called "How Christian were the Founders?". It's long, but thourough and fair. I recommend it.
One of the last points Russell Shorto makes at the end of the article is that a few of the SBOE members are vulnerable or not seeking reelection (Cynthia Dunbar). We Texans have a chance to correct some of these problems in the upcoming March primaries and in the general election in November. If you live in Texas, we urge you to pick candidates who will truly improve education in Texas.
One of the last points Russell Shorto makes at the end of the article is that a few of the SBOE members are vulnerable or not seeking reelection (Cynthia Dunbar). We Texans have a chance to correct some of these problems in the upcoming March primaries and in the general election in November. If you live in Texas, we urge you to pick candidates who will truly improve education in Texas.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Big fat wide open thread
[Pokes head in door] Oh, hi all. Sorry it's been quiet here the last few days. Weather's been sucky, Matt's sick with something, no clue where everyone else is but I imagine it involves having jobs and lives, and I am at present umbilically attached to Bioshock 2. So you folks can have this one all to yourselves to chat about whatever you'd like, and I'll be in and out to pass the moderation queue. Have fun and try not to get too much blood on the carpet. [Waves]
Addendum: Oh, here's a little something, and trust me to remember late in the day. Evidently, this is the ACA's lucky 13th anniversary! Yes, the group was founded on this day in 1997. So, go us!
Saturday, February 06, 2010
The intellectual entirety of the Tea Party movement in one screencap
Cue the fail at the Teabagger Convention: Here's cover girl Sarah Palin, after banking 100 large to give a speech slamming overspending and greed, answering one of the pre-screened questions by looking at notes written on her hand.
As a number of folks have already remarked, most of us were a little more subtle about this kind of cheating in junior high school, for chrissakes. And 53% of Republicans think she's more qualified to sit in the White House than Obama!? Look, whatever you think of the man's policies, he's definitely not a complete paste-eating chowderhead. I knew this country was into breeding the stupid, but I'm always astounded at how polluted the gene pool has really gotten.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Counter-protesting Phelps in SanFran: doin it rite!
Via Dawkins' site, I come upon this post at Laughing Squid reporting on a recent protest by — oh great, them again — Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church at San Francisco's Twitter offices, and the counter-protest by locals. Note the tone is one of glorious, effusive mockery, as seen in the example below.
More where that came from, kidrocks. Take a moment to note that this is absolutely the right approach to take with idiots like Westboro: "point and laugh" should always be the default response to utter troglodyte stupidity. And yes, we have gotten emails from viewers saying, "ZOMG, I heard Fred Phelps coming to my town, and I want to counter-protest! What should I do?" Well, here you go.
I'd personally go with "GOD HATES HASHTAGS," but that's just me.
Letting people as hopelessly pathetic as Westboro make you angry simply validates their hate, which is what they want. True, there are times when it's perfectly fitting to respond angrily to such stupidity. But that would be times when, say, homophobia takes on the sort of political character that can lead to legislation that harms and discriminates, like Prop. 8. Phelps, on the other hand, is a mere clown. And we laugh at clowns. At least, the ones that aren't frackin' scary.
Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!
This Sunday we’ll be examining some hymn lyrics. The background will be orthodox Christian doctrine: That man is faulty and requires salvation. The price chosen and dictated by Yahweh is execution/blood sacrifice of a perfect human. Jesus, sent from god, is that sinless human who represents the “spotless lamb” so often sacrificed by Hebrews in antiquity. His torture and death are intended as compensation to Yahweh, who otherwise would refuse to tolerate a flawed human being in his presence (in Heaven). So, Yahweh appeased himself by having humans offer up the bloody human sacrifice of Jesus to Him. And Yahweh is now willing to allow humans into His presence, so long as the humans believe this doctrine and agree they have failed to the point that only execution would be sufficient justice. The upshot is supposed to be that Jesus was brought back to life a few days later—as a sign that you, too, can come back from the dead and live forever with god, since Jesus did the dying for us all and paid the price for our “sin.”
The selected lyrics that follow represent the relevant parts of hymns that “celebrate” this doctrine and are commonly sung in pews across America. Next time you’re in a church, pick up a hymnal and give it a read if you want to see how Christians view their own beliefs.
“Amazing Grace”
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
“Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed?”
Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?
An interesting point about this lyric is that I found a Web site online that changed the final line of that verse to “for sinners such as I?” They expressed the decision as so:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wretch.worm.htm
>Basically we think of ourselves as fairly nice people who became Christians and added meaning to our lives
>There are far more choir members singing songs of self-esteem than Reformers singing songs of total depravity. Since we’ve already rejected their “worm theology” we just ignore their warnings. We continue to preach a happy face doctrine of self esteem.
What I found particularly interesting about this was that they did not change any of the other lyrics in this hymn, which still holds that humans are so unacceptable, in god’s opinion, that only execution could possibly appease Yahweh as compensation for their present sinful state. So, I’m not a worm, I’m actually a basically good person that god will only accept if someone is executed in my stead. Here are more lyrics from the same hymn, that they don’t feel any need to alter, to demonstrate my point:
Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!
So, they agree that whatever they’re “guilty” of requires someone to be executed, and that’s justice. But they’re “good people”—and were “good people,” even before they “became Christians.” Everyone clear on that?
“Not All The Blood Of Beasts”
Not all the blood of beasts
On Jewish altars slain
Could give the guilty conscience peace
Or wash away the stain.
But Christ, the heav’nly Lamb,
Takes all our sins away;
A sacrifice of nobler name
And richer blood than they.
…
Believing, we rejoice
To see the curse remove;
We bless the Lamb with cheerful voice,
And sing His bleeding love.
“Nothing but the Blood”
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
And just in case you don’t know how happy a human sacrifice and an execution can be, here’s a little reminder:
“Calvary’s Stream Is Flowing”
From that dear cross where Jesus died,
Calv’ry’s stream is flowing;
From bleeding hands and feet and side,
Calv’ry’s stream is flowing.
…
With life and peace upon its tide,
Calv’ry’s stream is flowing;
Sweet blessings down the ages glide,
Calv’ry’s stream is flowing.
What could be more of a cause for exuberance than the image of “sweet blessings” gliding down a streaming tide of blood flowing from a condemned man’s body as he dies in agony?
What could, indeed. Perhaps the image of diving into a pool of blood, fed by a stream of blood flowing from the mountain upon which a man was executed, to wash yourself clean as “snow”?
“It Cleanseth Me”
There is a stream that flows from Calvary,
A crimson tide so deep and wide.
It washes whiter than the purest snow;
It cleanseth me, I know.
No other fountain can for sin atone
But Jesus’ blood, O precious flood!
And whosoever will may plunge therein,
And be made free from sin.
But bear in mind that god only demanded this brutal compensation because of his great love and mercy—but you could never deserve it. After all, what you deserve, again, is death. That’s why you need to be willing to sacrifice anything and everything in your life and in this world, in order to show Yahweh how grateful you are for his loving mercifulness:
“When I Survey The Wondrous Cross”
His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.
“How Can I Look On Calvary’s Cross?”
How can I think of all He bore—
The shame, the thorns, the pain,
And unrepentant go my way
To pierce His heart again?
Forsaken in His darkest hour
By all, except His God,
Shall I deny my blessed Lord,
Who died to lift the rod?
Let me interrupt this one for a moment to clarify that is “the rod” you should be beaten with, instead. And how could we go on without noting Jesus wasn't forsaken by his god--the same god that dreamed up this whole execution/human sacrifice as his best-ever Plan of Salvation.
No, no! I cannot traitor be
To Jesus, King of Love,
Tho’ sinner steeped in guilt I am,
His mercy I will prove;
His blood on Calv’ry’s cross was shed,
To save e’en such as me;
O Jesus, now accept my all,
And draw me close to Thee.
And who could forget this timeless classic?
“The Old Rugged Cross”
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
The emblem of suffering and shame;
And I love that old cross where the dearest and best
For a world of lost sinners was slain.
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
A wondrous beauty I see,
For ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
To pardon and sanctify me.
Yes, the beauty of an implement of torture and execution. So easy to appreciate.
Believe me, there’s more. Much, much, much more. This is only a small sampling. And on Sunday, even what I offer then will still only be a small sampling. But I will warn you, it’s going to be pretty well “more of the same” of what I’ve posted here. On Sunday, it won’t be so much any new horrors, as just hammering the same horrors over and over and over again. Because that's part of indoctrination: Repeat, repeat, repeat. And the point will be to make it abundantly clear that this is not about selecting a few objectionable hymns out of thousands, but that this is a common theme of hymns. This is orthodox Christian doctrine. And for those unfamiliar with fundamentalism, this is how they describe their beliefs within their church walls. This is how they view these concepts. And I can’t stress enough how “happy” many of these tunes are, as they go on about pain, human sacrifice, death and bathing in the blood of an executed, innocent man, to cleanse souls. And worst of all, they describe this to children as the most magnificent example of love and mercy in all of human history.
This is “the story” they defend.
The selected lyrics that follow represent the relevant parts of hymns that “celebrate” this doctrine and are commonly sung in pews across America. Next time you’re in a church, pick up a hymnal and give it a read if you want to see how Christians view their own beliefs.
“Amazing Grace”
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
“Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed?”
Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?
An interesting point about this lyric is that I found a Web site online that changed the final line of that verse to “for sinners such as I?” They expressed the decision as so:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wretch.worm.htm
>Basically we think of ourselves as fairly nice people who became Christians and added meaning to our lives
>There are far more choir members singing songs of self-esteem than Reformers singing songs of total depravity. Since we’ve already rejected their “worm theology” we just ignore their warnings. We continue to preach a happy face doctrine of self esteem.
What I found particularly interesting about this was that they did not change any of the other lyrics in this hymn, which still holds that humans are so unacceptable, in god’s opinion, that only execution could possibly appease Yahweh as compensation for their present sinful state. So, I’m not a worm, I’m actually a basically good person that god will only accept if someone is executed in my stead. Here are more lyrics from the same hymn, that they don’t feel any need to alter, to demonstrate my point:
Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!
So, they agree that whatever they’re “guilty” of requires someone to be executed, and that’s justice. But they’re “good people”—and were “good people,” even before they “became Christians.” Everyone clear on that?
“Not All The Blood Of Beasts”
Not all the blood of beasts
On Jewish altars slain
Could give the guilty conscience peace
Or wash away the stain.
But Christ, the heav’nly Lamb,
Takes all our sins away;
A sacrifice of nobler name
And richer blood than they.
…
Believing, we rejoice
To see the curse remove;
We bless the Lamb with cheerful voice,
And sing His bleeding love.
“Nothing but the Blood”
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
And just in case you don’t know how happy a human sacrifice and an execution can be, here’s a little reminder:
“Calvary’s Stream Is Flowing”
From that dear cross where Jesus died,
Calv’ry’s stream is flowing;
From bleeding hands and feet and side,
Calv’ry’s stream is flowing.
…
With life and peace upon its tide,
Calv’ry’s stream is flowing;
Sweet blessings down the ages glide,
Calv’ry’s stream is flowing.
What could be more of a cause for exuberance than the image of “sweet blessings” gliding down a streaming tide of blood flowing from a condemned man’s body as he dies in agony?
What could, indeed. Perhaps the image of diving into a pool of blood, fed by a stream of blood flowing from the mountain upon which a man was executed, to wash yourself clean as “snow”?
“It Cleanseth Me”
There is a stream that flows from Calvary,
A crimson tide so deep and wide.
It washes whiter than the purest snow;
It cleanseth me, I know.
No other fountain can for sin atone
But Jesus’ blood, O precious flood!
And whosoever will may plunge therein,
And be made free from sin.
But bear in mind that god only demanded this brutal compensation because of his great love and mercy—but you could never deserve it. After all, what you deserve, again, is death. That’s why you need to be willing to sacrifice anything and everything in your life and in this world, in order to show Yahweh how grateful you are for his loving mercifulness:
“When I Survey The Wondrous Cross”
His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.
“How Can I Look On Calvary’s Cross?”
How can I think of all He bore—
The shame, the thorns, the pain,
And unrepentant go my way
To pierce His heart again?
Forsaken in His darkest hour
By all, except His God,
Shall I deny my blessed Lord,
Who died to lift the rod?
Let me interrupt this one for a moment to clarify that is “the rod” you should be beaten with, instead. And how could we go on without noting Jesus wasn't forsaken by his god--the same god that dreamed up this whole execution/human sacrifice as his best-ever Plan of Salvation.
No, no! I cannot traitor be
To Jesus, King of Love,
Tho’ sinner steeped in guilt I am,
His mercy I will prove;
His blood on Calv’ry’s cross was shed,
To save e’en such as me;
O Jesus, now accept my all,
And draw me close to Thee.
And who could forget this timeless classic?
“The Old Rugged Cross”
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
The emblem of suffering and shame;
And I love that old cross where the dearest and best
For a world of lost sinners was slain.
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
A wondrous beauty I see,
For ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
To pardon and sanctify me.
Yes, the beauty of an implement of torture and execution. So easy to appreciate.
Believe me, there’s more. Much, much, much more. This is only a small sampling. And on Sunday, even what I offer then will still only be a small sampling. But I will warn you, it’s going to be pretty well “more of the same” of what I’ve posted here. On Sunday, it won’t be so much any new horrors, as just hammering the same horrors over and over and over again. Because that's part of indoctrination: Repeat, repeat, repeat. And the point will be to make it abundantly clear that this is not about selecting a few objectionable hymns out of thousands, but that this is a common theme of hymns. This is orthodox Christian doctrine. And for those unfamiliar with fundamentalism, this is how they describe their beliefs within their church walls. This is how they view these concepts. And I can’t stress enough how “happy” many of these tunes are, as they go on about pain, human sacrifice, death and bathing in the blood of an executed, innocent man, to cleanse souls. And worst of all, they describe this to children as the most magnificent example of love and mercy in all of human history.
This is “the story” they defend.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Global Warming Denial and God Belief
I've often wondered why the religious nuts are most often the most vocal against global warming. On the surface, it seems incongruous. When the topic is God, they prop up the flimsiest evidence and put their fingers in their ears, yelling "la la la" when there is solid evidence against supernatural belief. When the topic is global warming, however, these same people ignore the evidence and claim to be highly educated skeptics.
Rush Limbaugh has explained the connection. After identifying himself as a creationist he said, "I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment..." Sadly, such a person would never ponder the possibility that they might be wrong. Or that their own denial is part of the problem.
On both topics of God and global warming, their minds are made up.
Rush Limbaugh has explained the connection. After identifying himself as a creationist he said, "I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment..." Sadly, such a person would never ponder the possibility that they might be wrong. Or that their own denial is part of the problem.
On both topics of God and global warming, their minds are made up.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The View From the Rear View Mirror
To Senator McCain - want some cheese to go with that whine? You could have gone down in history as the guy who stood up to a bad law that's cost us 13,000 service members in its 17 year history. Instead, you'll just be the cranky old guy we left in the 20th century. That small speck receding in the rear view mirror is you.
Meanwhile, some media outlets have had Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council on to denounce the impending repeal of DADT and call for criminalization of homosexual behavior. On Hardball, Sprigg invoked the horrors of service members being forced to shower with gays. With his detailed predictions of what gays will do to the military, surely he must be drawing on his own vast military experience. Sadly, no. He has none. Zero. But he has written a couple of poorly sourced books on how awful gays are. Oh, and he's a Baptist minister, which I'm sure has not biased him in any way.
Wait a minute... Sprigg's bio on the FRC website says he spent 10 years as a professional actor. Surely you don't think there were any gay people in the theater...
Monday, February 01, 2010
Odds and ends
Other Work has kept me from posting over the weekend, but I thought I'd just toss a few kernels of corn to all you lovely pigeons!
- The latest entry in the "Dumbass Utterances from Texas SBOE Members" Sweepstakes: An article at the Texas Tribune informs us that not only is the SBOE incompetent at determining curricula and separating their personal political and religious agendas from the educational needs of children, but they're also ineptly managing the Permanent School Fund, a $23 billion endowment that basically pays for the state's schools. Hardly anyone on the SBOE has experience with this level of financial management, and among their idiotic decisions was to hire consultants, against the advice of the Texas Education Agency, who were not only poorly ranked but actually being sued by the town of Fairfield, CT, for losing the town's entire pension fund to Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme! Responding to criticisms that the SBOE didn't know their asses from their elbows, the board's dimwit du jour David Bradley actually tried to argue...well, I'm not sure what the fuck he's arguing. Either he's arguing that it's perfectly okay for unqualified people to do jobs better suited to qualified people, or the exact opposite. Either way, it's Argument Fail By Bad Analogy for $1000, Alex: “If you sit on the mental health commission, do you have to be retarded? If you sit on the [Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission], do you have to be a drunk?” No no, David, the SBOE has a lock on the "drunk retard" quota, don't worry.
- Oh dearie dearie me! Some unscrupulous soul has either planted malware on the computers over at the Christian Worldview Network, or just spoofed their email. You remember them, Brannon Howse's House of Lunacy, where they never met a persecution complex or conspiracy theory they didn't like — especially both in combination. Well, I haven't been getting their newsletters for a while, and I figured they'd learned I was a godless baby-eating hellbound librul socialist communist Marxist whatever who simply subscribed so he'd have all manner of material for blog snarkage, and deleted me. It's a fair cop. But imagine my glee to see an email from them today, only to discover, when I opened it, this:
Aww, boo! Boring! When I checked the link (out of curiosity, mind you), it was really nothing but the most mundane spam. I mean, it really should have been gay hentai! That would have been the most delicious cosmic justice for old Brannon!
- In the wake of Scott Roeder's murder conviction, news is making the rounds that some people aren't too happy about it. I imagine you can guess who. Thing is, I'm puzzled by the who-cares obviousness of the headline "Roeder conviction angers anti-abortion militants." So basically, a bunch of domestic terrorists are angry that a domestic terrorist is going to prison for an act of domestic terrorism. Yeah, so? I'm quite sure al Qaeda gets a little peeved whenever we blow up one of their top guys too. Does that warrant its own news coverage? How about "Crackheads angry over crack dealer conviction"? Not anyone's problem but their own, you know? I'm just sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)