Goosing the Antithesis

Is belief an ethical act?

2009-01-27T22:22:00.003-05:00

I have debated the issue of god-belief for a long time but honestly it was mostly an intellectual exercise for me. I don't think the hoary chestnut of "does God exist" really deserves any debate any more.

The best proof of that is that no one really believes in God. How could you? It's impossible to even conceptualize the idea of God, and you can't believe in what you can't conceptualize. The person who says "I believe in God" believes in some image in his head which he believes is the image of God, but which cannot in any way have any relation to what God is actually supposed to be according to the theologians. They believe in a father in the sky, not an abstract absolute existing in Dimension X.

Alison really hit the nail on the head when she told me the real issue was that people actually believe in the act of belief itself. Indeed, the Christians have been positioning themselves as being part of the "belief-based" side and that they support religion against atheism, instead of their regular exclusivism. Because of this, a most vital debate that should be taking place right now, and which people like Dawkins and Harris are starting, is "is belief an ethical act?" (and by ethical we mean: as a social rule or judgment, group norm, etc, as opposed to personal judgments)

That is the real issue that should concern all of us, atheists and religious alike.

Happy Holidays!

2008-12-25T10:05:00.003-05:00

Whether you're celebrating the winter solstice (in the Northern hemisphere), Hannukah, Christmas, Yule, Saturnalia, Festivus, or any other holiday, I hope you have a good one.

Tim Minchin - If You Open Your Mind Too Much...

2008-12-11T23:23:00.000-05:00

The Reason For The Protest

2008-12-06T07:56:00.010-05:00

Translation: "Merry Christmas, you hard-hearted, enslaved idiots!"

Yeah, it's kind of a dick move.

Granted, the Christmas holiday is but one in a long list of holidays that have co-opted the solstice season for a chance to make merry, and was itself rejected as sinful by large swaths of historical Christianity, and is for the most part now wholly secular in our society. But it is one of the few times in the year that Christians can feel like being open about their religious orientation doesn't make them into annoying proselytizers, because, hey, everyone's doing it, too!

And granted, the Freedom From Religion Foundation's plaque was placed in response to a Christian nativity scene being allowed to be placed in the rotunda previously, which is itself a breach, at least in spirit, of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment. And in fact the Christian who lobbied to place that nativity scene there himself recognized the FFRF's right to have their own installation alongside his.

But it's still a dick move. As a counterexample, see the December newspaper advertisement for the North Texas Church of Freethought:

Translation: "Holy cow, there's an atheist Santa?"

The most offensive phrase is probably "silly superstitions," but then again, everybody's Christmas celebrations include silly superstitions of some kind or another. My Polish family always passes around oplatek (a large, priest-blessed, communion wafer) to bring good luck into the new year. Yeah, it's a silly superstitious act that has nothing to do with whether or not the next year will be a good one, but but the larger message is one of showing affection for one's loved ones- precisely the freethinking (and secular!) message that the NTCOF promotes.

And I could imagine that the average Christian who breezes past this advertisement might be miffed at reading the NTCOF's opinion on "the real reason for the season," but couldn't take umbrage at it's similar snipe against "mindless materialism" nor disagree with the sentiment I already mentioned about sharing our lives with those we love. And that's really how I would prefer it to be taken, because proclaiming the explicit antithesis to orthodox Christianity tends to not be helpful for the average believer.

But then there's this story. Just this past week, a young couple in East Texas, believing their 13-month old daughter to be possessed by demons, proceeded to beat (and bite!?) her to death with a hammer. They can be added to the growing list of people (in Texas!?) who have murdered their children at God's presuming behest. Andrea Yates, Deanna Laney, Dena Scholsser, and now Jessica Carson. The first three women were found to be under psychotic delusions; it remains to be seen what is found regarding the latter. What troubles me is not knowing if their respective psychoses were independent of, or cultivated by, their religious convictions. And if the former, did their religious convictions provide a conventient catalyst to action?

You see, whether or not the FFRF has taken the most diplomatic path with their message, they're not operating simply on the principle of humbug. When they say, "may reason prevail," I think of people like Jessica Carson. When they say, "there are no devils," I think of people like Jessica Carson. And when they say, "religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds," I think of people like Jessica Carson, who hardened her heart to her daughter's cries of pain, and gave her mind over to a dogmatic belief that encouraged her to crush her daughter's skull with a hammer.

Nobody likes a village atheist. But I would happily take that role if it meant that one fewer person would give him or herself over to murder because of a "silly superstition."

"Stanford Challenge" Founder Dead

2008-12-01T12:10:00.002-05:00

Some of you may know Kelly Tripplehorn as the founder of the "I53 Network" and more specifically, the "Stanford Challenge." The latter was so-called because to collect a certain amount of prize money (initially $1000, then raised to a symbolic $5300) the successful challenger would have to have their 'solution' to the problem of induction accepted and published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Most people recognized this as a trite regurgitation of presuppositionalist Christian apologetics, and more than a few engaged with Tripplehorn, although his was just one of several absurd challenges offered by cocksure theists like Harun Yahya or Kent Hovind.

Alas, Tripplehorn's challenge is now defunct. According to his obituary, he passed away over Thanksgiving weekend, cutting short educational plans to complete his masters in religion and potential study for a doctorate in Israel. He was only 26, and though no details are given for his manner of death, there is a suggestion to donations to mental health charities, particularly those dealing with bipolar disorder. I can only infer from this that Tripplehorn himself was plagued by this disorder, and I wonder if his death was a result.

As a fellow D/FW resident, I had hoped at some point to interact with Tripplehorn in some capacity. He seemed to be an enthusiastic and friendly individual, if horribly misinformed, and I had thought that we could have at least had a good exchange. Strangely enough, I do feel a bit of a loss at his passing, even though we never met; I felt compelled to make a donation on his behalf to the Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation.

I don't know if his religious experiences were in any way connected with any mental illness he may have been struggling with, but I know that this has been the case for others like him. I plan to spend this month reflecting on the theological confrontations in which I've been engaged in the past; while I may at times mock the ridiculousness of theistic superstitious claims, I should not forget that they are taken quite seriously by many people, and that a life lived superstitiously is usually preferable to a life cut short by self-imposed tragedy.

ID Was Spanked In Fort Worth

2008-11-09T10:18:00.015-05:00

This hurts Jesus more than it hurts the Discovery Institute.

...so hard that you can probably still see the palm print.

"The Great Debate," as it was billed, was sponsored by St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Fort Worth, Texas. It featured a four-way roundtable format, with a participant from each quadrant of the atheist/theist and pro-ID/anti-ID axes. I was there along with some fellow members of the North Texas Church of Freethought primarily to see Dr. Lawrence Krauss (atheist/anti-ID) and also, somewhat guiltily, to see Dr. David Berlinski (theist/pro-ID) in action. The field was rounded out by Dr. Denis Alexander (theist/anti-ID) and Dr. Bradley Monton (atheist/pro-ID). The debate was held at the Will Rogers Memorial Auditorium, and I would estimate about 1000 people in attendance.

After a short introduction by St. Andrews' rector, we met Dr. James Tour, an organic chemist at Rice University who was chosen because he was raised as a secular Jew but now embraces Christianity, and considers himself agnostic (or just insufficiently informed) on the subject of evolution. He performed his task admirably, and was as impartial (and time-sensitive) as anyone could have wanted.

But enough about all that: what were the arguments? Reasonably predictable, actually.

Berlinski started by lobbing grand-sounding but skeptically vacuous questions at naturalism. How does science explain science? How does science explain the origin of the Cosmos? How does science explain the origin of life? Et cetera ad nausem. If you've ever seen him on a Discovery Institute DVD, you've already heard the same thing, probably with the same cadence and inflection - the guy is a total performance pro. Importantly, he never made a single argument in favor of intelligent design; merely threw some chewy questions out to the audience, and offered that intelligent design certainly had the right to be considered as a hypothesis.

The strongest voices of the evening were an atheist and a Christian who agreed that intelligent design is neither science nor worthy of scientific consideration.

Krauss countered by going straight for the throat of the intelligent design movement, and spent some time detailing what science is, how the scientific process works (research - hypothesis - experiment - interpretation - peer review - consensus - textbook), and contrasting that with how the intelligent design movement works (just write the damn textbook). He brought up the Wedge Document, and explained that the intelligent design movement is a thinly-veiled (and evolving!) strategy to attack naturalism in society and replace it with Christian theism. Importantly, none of these points were ever contradicted, or even contested by any of the other participants.

This is a reasonable representative clip of the evening - Berlinski lobs eloquent skepticism, and Krauss smacks it to the ground.

From my perspective, the other two participants were just seat-warmers; it really was "The Krauss and Berlinski Show." But Dr. Alexander's presence was probably just as important for the majority of the audience (whom I presume were Christian of some stripe); as a Christian himself who vehemently discounts intelligent design, his opinion was probably the most stinging for any of the Discovery Institute faithful who were present. He argued that using the concept of "design" as an agent-directed process in science was completely inappropriate, and instead advocated an appreciation of the entire natural world (as determined using methdological naturalism) as God's over-arching plan, acheived through secondary causes. Essentially, this is theistic evolution, as championed by Ken Miller and just about the most hateful concept to the Discovery Institute.

I don't quite know what to make of Dr. Monton. He is a philosopher at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and an atheist. And yet, he seems to be the Discovery Institute's flavor of the month because he's pro-ID. Well... not actually. Just like Berlinski, at no point in the debate did he ever actually argue for intelligent design. In fact, he stated quite plainly that the current arguments used by ID advocates are awful and ineffective, and he was interested in trying to develop better arguments for them to use in the future. Idiotsayswhat??? Turns out the reason he's interested in doing this is because he doesn't like methodological naturalism, and he'd like to see supernatural explanations at least given a place at the table. I really don't see why this would be helpful or interesting, but then again, I'm not a low-level philosopher getting friendly with the Discovery Institute. The less said about Dr. Monton the better, quite frankly- I'm sure he's a nice fellow, but he had about as much relevance to the discussion as an expert in 17th century French poetry.

That's about it in terms of content. Krauss continued to rain the smack down on anything resembling intelligent design arguments, and even (out of deference to fair play) spent some time taking Alexander to task about his Christianity. Even that was poorly defended, as Dr. Alexander hid behind the "historical evidence of the Gospels" or some such warmed over apologetical nonsense, which Krauss easily dispatched. There really wasn't much of debate after the first hour, as Berlinski was all too eager to agree with Krauss at nearly every opportunity, and Alexander didn't have a contrary thing to say about atheism.

There were a few more interesting tidbits, though.

This is Roy Varghese, a very small man in a very big state.

In attendance was Roy Abraham Varghese, the fellow who "turned" Antony Flew from atheist to deist. He's apparently something of a local ID celebrity, operates an "institute" out of the Dallas suburb of Garland (model for Arlen, Texas), and apparently doesn't know how bees fly. I saw him pass near my seat, where he attracted a small group of very excited, old, and white men who buzzed around him like he was the prettiest girl at the dance. Later, while I was talking with Dr. Krauss in the lobby, Varghese sidled up to us with that half-crooked grin of his; while I was handing Dr. Krauss my North Texas Church of Freethought card, I stopped and gave one to Varghese at the same time. "Oh, Roy," I said, looking at him, "Nice to see you here. I'm a big fan of your work too." He took the card and looked down at it... then looked harder. A few seconds later he began to giggle nervously to himself and slowly walked away.

I ran afoul of a few other Christians; the first batch had followed me back up to the lobby to speak with Dr. Krauss, and got a little bit of me instead. One fellow named Craig was adamant that the names attributed to the Gospel writers were historically accurate; what's more, all the Gospels taken together are evidence of the message God is trying to communicate to us which is that God so loved the world, he sent His only begotten son that whosoever believes... As he slipped neatly into an evangelical spiel, I rolled my eyes and told him that yes, I'd read that verse before, and no, it didn't have any effect on me now. Still, he asked if he could pray on my behalf then and there. I didn't have the heart to say no to the guy, so I stood there with a pained expression waiting for him to finish, as if he were an amorous dog with so much leg.

I also bumped into Dr. Ray Bohlin, Fellow of the Discovery Institute and President of Probe Ministries and whom I've blogged about before. I asked casually about how he thought the debate went, and he nearly exploded in anger. He claimed that Dr. Krauss' statements were half-full of lies, especially the accusation that intelligent design advocates wanted to skip the scientific process and go straight to textbooks. "Ray, what then was 'Of Pandas And People?'" I asked. What followed was a comically (in retrospect) bizzare display of frustration, anger, and flopping desperation in front of the auditorium and the small crowd that had gathered around us. 'Pandas' shouldn't matter because it's also okay to direct kids to read the Bible in a public school library, he said. I was a fool for thinking that the evidence points to evolutionary relationships, he said. Yes, he once studied pocket gophers by forming hypotheses, collecting data, and making interpretations, but that has nothing to do with science, he said. It was all very disturbing, and looking back I somewhat regret being pulled into his tantrum; I can only assume that he was so upset at the spanking Dr. Krauss gave intelligent design and the Discovery Institute, that he needed a little release. If so, I hope he got what he needed.

Far be it from me to give financial advice to the Discovery Institute, but perhaps it would be wise to pay off some people who actually stand strong for intelligent design?

But I don't think the Discovery Institute got what it needed. There was a substantial presence on hand of our friends from Seattle, who had two large tables, posters, and banners in the front lobby to advertise the books and DVDs (including Expelled!) they were selling. I can't help but wonder if the DI was footing part of the bill for the event. At the very least, they were paying the way for Berlinski and Monton. On the former count, I wonder how much of their money's worth they're actually getting. A fellow NTCOF member was seated near me, and ventured over to speak with Drs. Krauss and Berlinski during the break (they had wandered off to a corner of the auditorium, and were engaged in a private discussion). Upon drawing close, he heard Krauss ask Berlinski why he wasted his intellect advocating for intelligent design. To which Berlinski replied that he doesn't believe a word of it, but is happy to cash the checks the Discovery Institute writes him. Strangely enough, this would be consistent with Berlinski's odd statement early on in which he admitted that his own ethical orientation was focused on living as contentedly and as selfishly as possible. It was a weird aside at the time; realizing that he could be exercising that ethic by making chumps of the Discovery Institute seems somehow poetically appropriate.

All in all, a great night for science and rationalism, a poor night for anyone who was hoping to see intelligent design championed in Texas.

Shut The Vote Up

2008-11-04T05:00:00.002-05:00

Diddy wants you to vote or die, but I want you to watch the full video

"If you don't vote, then ... Shut. Up." That was the sentiment plastered yesterday on Greg Laden's blog, along with a (mildly amusing) celebrity "vote or die" video. The fare at his blog is typically a combination of evolution, general science, and atheism. There's also a distinctive liberal political component, which normally doesn't draw my attention. Given the recent proximity to the election, however, the interest has been nearly 100% political.

That statement bothered me, because I didn't vote today. I didn't plan to vote. Neither of the Presidential candidates (and none of the state or local candidates) represent my values. In fact, I consider the practice of voting itself to be irrational and opposed to my values. So I offered the following comment:

No, I don't believe I will shut up.

The lack of a candidate I would want to vote for doesn't preclude my right to criticize.

Posted by: Zachary Moore | November 3, 2008 2:48 PM

And that was followed by a lot or angry irrationality3:

Zachary: You seem so like so many who have this attitude. Have you looked at your local sample ballot? No,you have not. Have you considered that there are many different races about which you know nothing? Of course not. Have you looked at the various ballot questions and other issues that will change the world you live in, like it or not, that you have an opportunity? No. Why? Because you are an arrogant sob.

Like the man says, shut up.

Posted by: Elizabeth | November 3, 2008 2:55 PM

Zachary, the fact that you can't even find a candidate you find preferable to the others suggests that you're waiting for utopia or otherwise delusional. You can talk all you want, but don't be surprised if no one thinks you have anything to add to the conversation.

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 3, 2008 2:55 PM

sorry. sob = ... well, I forgot. snob? slob? Oh, no, I remember now! sob = S.O.B.

sorry.

Posted by: Elizabeth | November 3, 2008 3:00 PM

I agree with Zachary. There is NO rational or constitutional argument for this oft repeated truism.

And lack of suitable candidates is a damned good reason.

Posted by: jayh | November 3, 2008 4:21 PM

Jayh, this is a social thing, not a constitutional thing. I for one do not want to engage in the conversation with those who do not participate in this basic way, and you can't make me. It is utterly rational for me to make this choice. My intent is social isolation of the misanthrope undeserving of my time or respect.

And Jay, you provide the same clue as Zach that you have not thought this through. There is almost always one or more issues ... not candidates ... that are important, and a blanket statement that no such issues deserve your attention is as idiotic and ignorant as the blanket statement that no electoral race deserves your interest or attention.

You are nothing other than being lazy. There is no other rational explanation for your behavior.

Vote or shut up.

Posted by: Elizabeth | November 3, 2008 4:26 PM

jayh, one can only afford to wait for a "suitable" candidate if there is literally no difference between the choices. When there are differences (and there are always differences), the choice matters. Either you make a choice, you run yourself, or you own up to the fact that you've abdicated your responsibility. There's no fourth choice that doesn't make you a no-account whiner.

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 3, 2008 4:30 PM

Elizabeth-

Another misanthrope you may want to socially isolate yourself from.

I have familiarized myself with my local ballot... about the only thing I might consider voting for is a measure to allow beer sales in my city, but then again, the liquor store in the next town is only five minutes away.

Laziness has nothing to do with my reticence to vote, and I can only assume that your ignorant ad hominem is a mark of your own irrationality on this issue. As it happens, even if there was a candidate with which I fully agreed, I consider voting itself to be a morally questionable process. The majority opinion is not necessarily the right opinion (cf. slavery, homosexuality, atheism), and I cannot in good conscience willingly participate in a system that perpetuates such gross immorality.

Posted by: Zachary Moore | November 3, 2008 5:42 PM

Zachary, let me be perfectly clear about this. I despise you and your whiny, apathetic, pretentious, grossly entitled ilk. You are the sort of vaporish, dithering, useless creature for whom fainting couches were conceived. Your opinion on governance carries all the weight of the feathers you keep in the place of your brain.

Capice?

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 3, 2008 6:54 PM

Stephanie-

If I am to take your well-reasoned, temperate response as an example of the caliber of people who adhere to the "vote or die" sentiment, is it any wonder why I consider following your example to be ethically abhorrent?

Posted by: Zachary Moore | November 3, 2008 7:10 PM

As a middle aged boring baby-boomer, married over 30 years, with 3 grown children, this brought tears to may eyes.
The first time I voted was for Jimmy Carter. I took my 20 year-old son down to City Hall last Firday to get him registered and then to vote (early). I don't know who he voted for and I don't care. I also don't care if you have to pick the 'least worst' guy to vote for, and I don't care if you vote for some impossible 3rd party candidate, just vote. I had relatives who died in WWII and Korea, and friends who died in Viet Nam, Iraq and Iran. Whatever I (or you)think of these wars is beside the point: If you want to have any say in whether you or your friends have to put your lives on the line, the first and best way to get a seat at the table is to VOTE!

Posted by: Tom Coward | November 3, 2008 7:39 PM

Stephanie-

Apparently you do.

Tom-

If petty appeals to emotion are "beside the point," why bring them up? I do not agree that combining apathy and democracy is any sort of virtue. I would no sooner submit to the will of the majority opinion for my own life than I would presume to dictate the lives of anyone espousing a minority view. It is a tainted seat one gets when one participates in an immoral system; I simply choose to avoid that ethical compromise.

Posted by: Zachary Moore | November 3, 2008 9:42 PM

As usual, it falls to Penn to rescue us from this orgiastic festival of democratic self-indulgence.

Hitchens On Sarah's War

2008-10-31T06:00:00.003-04:00

Chris Hitchens is pretty bloody scary. Also, that mud mask looks hideous.

Christopher Hitchens is not someone that I'd want to have gazing dourly in my direction. In his latest article for Slate, he takes the Republicans behind the proverbial woodshed:

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies.

And then he goes on to detail how Palin's egregiously ignorant remark about fruit fly research (in Paris!) belies an abhorrent anti-science mentality that everyone should be disgusted is within reach of America's highest office.

I don't know how Palin's fortunes will fall come Tuesday, but I predict that her political future will continue to be (at some level) a national travesty.

When Apologists Go Boom

2008-10-28T17:56:00.013-04:00

Your logic is impeccable, Captain. He is in grave danger.

I’m really starting to feel sorry for Paul Manata at this point; like the Rain Man, he has a single-minded fixation on revisiting the contrary paths his assertions have trodden. "Fetus is human. Definitely, definitely. Yeah. I'm an excellent apologist." Oh, but I should stop. Paul's not comfortable with humor, at least not at his expense. He'd like me to lighten up on the jokes, but he's all too quick to compare me with a stupid Star Trek robot. It's mildly clever, but I would have thought that a better comparison would be the robotic probe Nomad from "The Changeling," which was caught by Kirk in a logical contradiction and self-destructs; I can only guess that Paul in moments of perverse pleasure fantasizes about me experiencing a similar conclusion. Still, since the analogy was left unused, perhaps I can give it employ.

I must say I'm a bit surprised at Paul's lamentations about my light-heartedness, particularly because he has previously complained that "[he] just wish[ed] atheists had as good a sense of humor as Christians. Atheism is so boring and drab. Yawn." Hey, Paul, I'm just trying to "goose the antithesis" a bit here, but if you can't handle the sauce, I'll move on to the serious stuff.

First off, let's stop all this sillyness with Paul rewriting my arguments. I don't know whether he really thinks that he's doing me a favor by doing so, or whether he's actually devious enough to think that he can get away with tinkering with my arguments before he knocks them down. Where I come from, that's called a "strawman," but maybe they play by different rules in Grand Rapids. So if I may be indulged to take Paul's words out of my mouth: the conclusion "it is morally acceptable for women to have abortions at any time up to and until the unborn human fetus emerges from the woman's vagina" is not mine. I do so hate to be pedantic, but if Paul can't even get my argument’s conclusion right in the first 500 words of his post, what's the point in following along for the next 2500?

But I like Paul, and I have great hopes for him someday, so I'll try yet again to correct him. IF all human beings are sovereign over their bodies, and IF sovereignty entails the ability to remove anything one wants from one's body, THEN any human being may remove anything one wants from one's body. I do so hope that Paul can confine his further criticisms to these words alone.

Particularly astute readers (and hopefully Paul himself) may note that nowhere in the above argument do I make any mention of a fetus, or whether or not a fetus is equivalent to a human being. It's simply not relevant to my argument.

Now, what gets Paul chuckling hoarsely to himself and rubbing his hands back and forth is his certainty that I've caught myself in a logical contradiction, a la Kirk to Nomad. He thinks that all he needs to do is substitute "fetus" for "human being" in my argument, and suddenly my argument self-contradicts. But let's look at what happens to the conclusion of my actual argument if we play Paul's game: any fetus may remove anything it wants from its body.

I have no problem with the veracity of the statement, and it can stand as readily as my own conclusion above; however, we may wonder how the privilege of personal sovereignty claimed by a fetus overrides the personal sovereignty of the woman in whose uterus the fetus makes its residence. In fact, the very nature of human biology precludes the ability of a fetus (or anyone acting on its behalf) to act on any decision to exercise this ability until after parturation.

What's that, Paul? Oh, sorry. Sounded like steam whistling.

I want to work extra hard now to help Paul understand what I'm saying. Let's analogize from sovereignty over one's body to sovereignty over one's habitat. Paul and his wife just bought a lovely new house- they have sovereignty over it, and can decide who stays in the house, and who does not. Let's imagine that their friend Craig comes to stay with them, and they give him a room, over which he has sovereignty (ability to decide who comes in the room, and who does not). Although in real life, Paul and Craig are great friends, let's say that he and Craig have a falling-out, and Paul wants him to leave. Craig, although enjoying sovereignty over his room, does not have the right to force Paul to allow him to stay in the house against his will. Paul's sovereignty is complete throughout the house, including Craig's room, and therefore Craig must vacate. Whatever challenges and threats Craig may face outside of Paul's house may be something for Paul to consider, but they do not infringe Paul's sovereignty or remove his right to kick Craig out the door.

What's that I hear? - sounds like a tea kettle boiling. I guess that means it's time to take Paul's argument off the burner; it's done.

I should probably wrap this up before the poor guy's head bursts, but there are a few huckleberries that are too sweet to pass up before I go.

Desperate to shore up support for his sloppy reformulation of my arguments, he introduces the so-called "Preservation Principle." That is, "Generally, any living human that is not insane or suffering some other mental disorder would not want to end their life by means of saline solution and, if they could tell us, they would tell us that they do not want their life to end that way."

And yet in Paul’s own Good Book we find the character of Job, who, (presumably not insane) following a long string of torments commissioned by the omnibenevolent Yahweh, asks for just that:

Job 3: Why was I not still-born, or why did I not perish as I left the womb? ... or, put away like an abortive child, I should not have existed, like little ones that never see the light.

It would seem that even a "blameless" "God-fearer" like Job would rather have been snuffed out in the womb (by saline or otherwise) than have to experience profoundly adverse circumstances later in life.

And it should be pointed out that Yahweh is all too eager to put children to death after being born- for no other crime than being a member of the wrong ethnic group and religion. In Numbers 31, in fact, we find a particulary pernicious passage (on which I've commented previously) – Yahweh commands Moses to order the Israelites to kill all the baby boys belonging to the Midianite tribe… and leave their virgin sisters alive to be divided among the population and the priests as part of the “war booty.”

Numbers 31: ...kill all the male children and kill all the women who have ever slept with a man; but spare the lives of the young girls who have never slept with a man, and keep them for yourselves.

We also find blood-curdling exhortations to infanticide – where Yahweh through the Psalmist proclaims that killing tiny unbelieving babies is a blessed enterprise:

Psalm 137: Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction, a blessing on anyone who treats you as you treated us, a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!

And while we’re perusing the Christian Scriptures for any information regarding abortion, it might be of interest to point out the passage where it is said that causing a woman to miscarry carries no more penalty than a few shekels:

Exodus 21: If people, while brawling, hurt a pregnant woman and she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done, the person responsible will pay compensation as fixed by the woman's master, paying as much as the judges decide.

While this is not abortion per se, nowhere else in the Bible gets closer to illustrating the true value of a fetus in Yahweh's law – a few coins, at most. Certainly not the death penalty, as advocated by good modern-day Christians like Craig Sowder. That horrific fate is quite explicitly spelled out elsewhere in Exodus, and clearly does not refer to anyone causing the termination of a pregnancy. So much for biblically-minded theology.

And I'll note that Triablogue commenter Marshall has pointed out what I've repeatedly argued is the gaping hole in Paul's argument - if we're to take his position seriously at all, he needs to deal with the science of reproduction and development. As Marshall observes:

[Paul is] stating that the personhood argument is irrelevant. I don't see how this is possible, since the claim is that the abortion destroys a human being. The question that is natural[sic] brought up is: is a baby fetus a human being?

Most people would argue that a human sperm is not a human being, nor is a human egg. If they did, they'd have to deal with the concept that ovulation, masturbation, nocturnal emissions, etc. are all murder. I think we can all agree that this is not the case.

Most people would also agree that a baby that comes out of the womb is a human being. It can breathe by itself, speak, think, and perform *most* of the functions that you and I can (enough that we call it human).

This 9 month point is rather arbitrary, as development is a nonstop process until death (the 9 month period happens to be where the fetus is no longer in the womb, but it develops along all the same). The question is, if the beginning--the sperm and the egg--are not a human, and the 9-month baby is, then at what point does this organism become a human being? This question, in the context of the apologist's argument, seems unavoidable.

Indeed. And yet I'll venture a guess that we'll be long in wait before we hear from Paul on this matter. I've asked nicely once already, and Paul turned tail and fled from the science. I suppose that if I had to deal with his level of cognitive dissonance, I might want to get as far away as possible too, just like the crew of the Enterprise when Nomad realizes that it made a logical error at the beginning of the episode. Because if he were to just sit there and take it for much longer, who knows what might happen...

Look out everyone! This huckleberry's about to blow!

Texas Freethought Convention

2008-10-28T06:00:00.001-04:00

For the record, the slogan on my T-shirt does NOT say: "Life is short; drink hard." But that's not a half-bad idea.

The first-ever Texas Freethought Convention took place this past Sunday, October 26th, at the Saengerrunde Hall in Austin, Texas. As far as I've been able to determine, this is the first time in modern American history that a convention has been held specifically for the freethinkers and atheists of a single state to come together. There are, of course, many national groups that hold conventions: the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists and Atheist Alliance International are the primary sponsors of these. There was, back in the 19th century, a regular annual meeting of freethinkers in New York State that lasted for six years. However, it does not surprise me in the least that the great state of Texas would lead the way in this respect. There are certainly enough active secular groups here to make the prospect plausible, and the pervasive religiosity throughout the state makes the possibility a necessity.

Congregating in the Texan-German Saengerrunde Hall is oddly appropriate, given the German Freethinkers who settled in this part of the state in the nineteenth century.

I was proud to represent the North Texas Church of Freethought, and there were many other groups in attendance who were active in organizing and promoting the convention, including the Freethinkers Association of Central Texas, American Atheists - Texas, the Atheist Community of Austin, the Corpus Christi Atheists, and the Center for Inquiry - Austin. I was especially happy to meet some of the people with whom I've been corresponding by email for quite some time; there were also plenty of new people that I had opportunities to speak with. I'm hopeful that, if nothing else, this convention has propped open the doors of communication among the secular groups in Texas, and there will be a lot of cross-pollination between us all as a result.

Contrary to popular belief, atheists can apparently have children. We just lack the ability to love them.

The demographics were much more balanced than I thought they would be. Families were the overwhelming majority as far as I could see from my table in the back, and there were more children running around than you could shake a Bible at. The large hall made for a kid-friendly atmosphere, as they tended to dance around whenever the music acts came on stage, or regroup to the back of the hall for coloring or face-painting. I'm glad to see this being established as the rule right off the bat- I'm encouraged to think that future conventions will also have large numbers of atheist and freethinking children, and I hope that the organizers will be able to develop more content specifically for them.

I predict that my "de-baptism" (walking under a hair-dryer) will have precisely the same effect as my actual baptism.

The overall atmosphere of the convention was jovial and social. There were regular speakers on the schedule (including myself) and they captured the assembled crowd's attention throughout the day (substandard PA system notwithstanding), but between presentations, attendees routinely gathered in groups eating barbecue from the restaurant next door, or wandered back to the tables set up by the various participating groups. My own high visit rate had nothing to do with all the free bottles of Shiner and Blue Moon I was handing out (free beer for freethought). There were also some organized light-hearted moments, such as the "de-baptism," facilitated by walking underneath a hair dryer. At first I wasn't going to bother, but then I figured, "what the hell" and went up to join in. It's worthwhile to submit to a few seconds of embarrassment for the sake of demonstrating how silly rituals can be.

Terry McDonald from the Metroplex Atheists proposed the radical idea that we shouldn't avoid making friends with Christians. For shame, Terry.

One of the real highlights of the convention was Terry McDonald's speech. He began by taking Sam Harris to task over his 2007 Atheist Alliance International speech where he called for an end to the use of the term, "atheist." Terry made the point that most of us feel comfortable calling ourselves atheists because that accurately describes us, and that whatever we call ourselves, everyone else is going to refer to us as atheists anyway. He made a comparison to the term "non-smoker." If smoking had never been invented, it would be a ridiculous term, but since there are smokers, the designation "non-smokers" carries semantic weight. So although Sam Harris' post-religious aspiration is still nice to keep in mind, we also have to be mindful of what we're considered by society at large. And Terry also made the point, drawing on his own experiences with people like Derward Richardson, that atheists should not shirk from friendships and communication with Christians and other theists. This drew some strong criticism from Miguel and others of FACT, who felt that seeking egalitarian relationships with Christians and other theists was a tacit approval of their position. More debate followed, and Michael from Corpus Christi Atheists pointed out that a hard-line approach is reasonable when atheists' rights are threatened, but otherwise it's more profitable to reach out to theists, especially moderates. This exchange was electric, and I'd like to see some planned debates at future conventions- if we're going to do it anyway, it might as well be planned.

Anna De Luna, in her performance of "Chicana Atheist," reminded us all of the difficult cultural battles experienced by those who grow up in and reject religious traditions.

It was also a joy to see a performance by Anna De Luna, whose "Chicana Atheist" one-woman show is a celebration of the struggles faced by atheists who must emerge from stifling religious cultures; as an Hispanic, her stories about the slavish acquiescence to Roman Catholicism by her family were poignant, tragic, and instantly empathetic to the audience, who sat entranced during her performance. Even something as seemingly simple as finding friendship or falling in love can all-too-easily be complicated by contradictory views about one's spirituality and religious acceptance.

The capstone of the evening, a combined set with Safely Limitless and Riffsong, included this sing-a-long performance of John Lennon's "Imagine."

The penultimate event of the conference was a performance by some of the assembled musicians including Safely Limitless, Paul Mitchell's Riffsong, and Paul Martin's Aspiring Atheist. As promised, we were able to sing (more or less) along to John Lennon's "Imagine." It was a nice way to close out this history-making event, and only winning the autographed copy of Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" in the final raffle could have made the day better. Which it did.

Note to Self: No matter how late the evening gets, don't throw away your raffle tickets. You might miss out on something really freaking cool.

My final thoughts are: 1) I'm glad this happened, 2) I'm glad that I was able to be a part of it, and 3) I'm especially glad that this is going to continue next year, and for years afterward. I hope that Texas can be a beacon to the other states as freethought and atheism continue to gain cultural ground in our great society.

Doubters Take Down Plantinga

2008-10-28T05:00:00.000-04:00

Alvin is happy because he believes that El Tigre's punishing headlock is really an epiphenomenon of his willing defeat.

Don't let my tulip-loving associates fool you- Western Michigan has plenty of rationality to go around. The Center for Inquiry - Michigan not only brought you the infamous Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate, it also helps (in a roundabout way) to bring you the Reasonable Doubts Podcast, featuring the class-act trio of Jeremy Beahan, Luke Galen, and David Fletcher. It's no understatement to say that I'm nursing a wicked man-crush on these guys - not only is their in-show repartée amusing and engaging, they also know what the hell is going on.

Their latest outing has them grappling with Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism," and slamming it down on the mat. Subscribe here to listen to Plantinga's epic fail.

Killing Babies With Science

2008-10-27T05:00:00.001-04:00

This cell is a human being. Or maybe it isn't. Only Paul Manata and his invisible friend know for sure.

Oh, Paul... I wish I knew how to quit you.

Like his namesake, Paul Manata continues to see through a glass darkly, and thus fails to realize that the person he rails against is a reflection of his own ego. I am similarly under no illusion that Paul will be persuaded by rational argumentation, and don't think anything I write will have an effect on him, so I primarily write for the 500-or so regular readers of this blog, and the thousands of visitors it receives each month. I'm especially happy to be welcoming the 50 or so visitors from Triablogue that have come over... you might actually learn something here.

It's a bit sad to see Paul thrashing about, appealing to his readers to vouch for the validity of his attacks on me. Apparently he thinks that simply by virtue of quoting me verbatim at length, he somehow can't be blamed for ignoring my statements and trying to put arguments in my mouth. For example, his clumsy assumption that my reference to "one organ among others" was the fetus, rather than the uterus. Without an effort at reading comprehension on his part it's no wonder there are so many blunders; I would spare myself the tedium of correcting him point by point unless I thought it would achieve anything useful. It's a bit like watching a wrestler in the ring trying to grapple with an invisible opponent, and looking up desperately to the audience to verify his victory. While the actual opponent has started to walk away out of sheer boredom and pity... and yet...

Even though Paul has failed to grasp the point that personal sovereignty is independent of the 'humanity' of a fetus, he has nonetheless insisted on it for his own arguments. Yes, he has hidden behind claims of irrelevancy, but even though I know how Reformed apologists loathe to argue for their own positions, I can't help feeling that it's a burden of which he needs to relieve himself.

As does his faithful reader, Craig Sowder, who posted this in the comments:

Paul,

I would be interested in seeing how you would defend the personhood of the fetus scientifically. I had said in one of my comments to Zach that I always considered "personhood" to be a metaphysical category rather than a scientific one. I mean, you can see cells, organs, limbs, etc. under a microscope, but you don't see "personhood", right? Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean when you say it's easy to prove it scientifically.

That makes two of us, Craig. Paul responds to this by saying:

I can use all the evidence of embryology and show that the fetus has it's own unique human DNA, it is a unified organism, it directs itself towards next stages of life, it is living, etc., etc., etc. So it is a human being. The offspring of humans. If not, what species is it?

And Paul steps into and even bigger scientific mess by invoking the concept of 'species,' which I've pointed out many times is rife with conceptual problems of its own. The things Paul mentions here (human DNA, unified organism, etc) are all necessary qualities that a human being has, but they are not sufficient in themselves. Now, I'll gladly grant for the sake of this issue that having human DNA can give something the characteristic of "human" (leaving the XenoMouse to the side for now), but grants no more special status to any cell by the virtue of that distinction. An adipocyte may be 'human,' but that does not make it 'a human.' Neither does a 'human' leukocyte, a 'human' chondrocyte, nor a 'human' pericyte.

This clone of a human's hematocyte is a human being. Or not. Theologians are scouring the Bible for the words "somatic" "clone," and "ethics." They'll get back to you never.

Never one to let the subtleties of scientific evidence get past him, Paul assures Craig that he can easily appeal to authority in this matter:

I think, as virtually all embryologists agree, it is undeniable that it is a human. That part of the debate is fairly a closed case.

"THUS SAITH MANATA!" Unfortunately, in my embryology course we never were lectured about the humanity of a fetus. Oh, I have no doubt that embryologists will agree that a "human fetus" is 'human,' but whether or not it is a 'human being' is the burden on Paul's back, isn't it? It's one thing to mind-numbingly assert that fertilization is that sufficient cause from which human beings arise, but even this does little to answer the question I asked (and still unanswered) two posts ago:

At what moment did I become a human being? When my father's sperm came in contact with my mother's egg? But when, precisely? When the sperm passed the corona radiata? When it entered, or after it had passed, the zona pellucida? Before or after the cell membranes fused? Before or after the second meiotic division of the egg? Before or after the first mitotic division? At what stage of mitosis: prophase, metaphase, anaphase, telophase?

Human development, if it is anything, is a temporal process. At one end of the process, there exist cells that are human, but not a 'human being.' On this we can nearly all agree. At the other end of the process, there is a 'human being.' The question I'd like to see answered by the all-knowing Manata, is when? When in the process of human development are there sufficient characteristics to call something a 'human being?' Please see the above quote for the level of precision I'm looking for.

Anticipating failure at this task, Paul runs from the scientific evidence he once championed:

...if pro-choicers want to add to the limits of science and argue that the findings of science are not enough to show t's[sic] full humanity, that we need to run to the philosophers to determine these questions, so be it.

Ah, yes. Smelling the stink of his own defeat, Paul throws clods of dirt at the evil scientists, who thrive perversely at the limits of science, and retreats back to the realm of philosophy, where curious notions like 'evidence' matter so much less than 'QED.' I certainly hope he enjoys the respite, and I'll keep a frosty mug waiting in case he ventures back into the fray.

Post-Coital Abortion Talk

2008-10-25T10:15:00.004-04:00

This atheist is opposed to abortion because he knows the exquisite joy of barbecued baby-flesh. Nice and tender.

I can really feel the love. As is typical, Paul parlayed a 500-word comment into a 1000-word post, to which I responded with a 2000-word counter-post, now complemented by a 4000-word counter-counter-post. At the end of this intercourse, we may just have the makings of a book. ;)

Or not. I've been impressed by the size of Paul's 'philosophy' for years now. It stands tall and erect, clearly a triumph to the grace of whatever trinitarian (or quaternarian) deity is necessary to account for it. I'm usually happy to just sit back and watch it plunge in and out of whatever adversary Paul has the temerity to engage with. In this case, it's me, and I'm nearly spent.

But maybe I'll just share a little pillow-talk before I leave.

I'm sure that Paul would rather me forego the compliments; he's a humble man and would prefer me to stick to the arguments. His harranguing over the so-called "Utopian Principle" is getting tired, so I'll leave that alone; I'm as surprised as anyone that Paul is a hamster psychologist. His main thrust has been to assert the full humanity of the fetus. He claims that since my position is that personal sovereignty is without exception, if I were to grant that the fetus is human, my argument fails.

As I have already pointed out, I'm happy to do so. As I said, "Even if I were to follow Paul down his rabbit hole and grant that a fetus has the same sovereignty enjoyed by its mother, that only extends to within the fetus' own body. Once removed from its uterine environ, the fetus is free to exercise that sovereignty in whichever direction it likes."

Paul doesn't like my definition of sovereignty. But he also appears to not understand it. For whatever reason, he thinks that I'm talking about a 'right' to 'not have bad things happen to my body.' This is not the case. I'll repeat it again: it is the right to decide what things stay in one's body and what things stay out. I'd appreciate it if Paul actually used my premises, rather than just claim to use them. Thus, all his counterexamples fall apart like an unimplanted blastocyst.

I don't know if anyone else thinks it's a shame that Paul didn't provide us with the "scientific" argument for the full humanity of the fetus, especially since it's apparently one of the easiest arguments to make. I do. And even more especially since his entire argument rests on the humanity of the fetus, while mine does not. Seems like he has some more work to do. ;)

Until then, I'm happy to suggest Caffrey's as a viable libation alternative - it goes down a lot smoother than Reformed theology, and makes you feel less badly about yourself on Sunday morning!

Fun Times With Abortion

2008-10-24T10:45:00.020-04:00

This little boy likes baseball and jellybeans, but God decided to abort him, just like the other thirty percent of pregnancies that end in miscarriage.

Huzzah! I count myself fortunate to receive the privilege of a rebuke from a man as wise and temperate as Paul Manata; a man who walks and talks with the bearing and authority of someone who speaks regularly with an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible friend.

In this instance (among many in which I've been graced with Paul's kind correction), we find that my flippant response to Craig Sowder's reposting of a post on Paul's own Triablogue (yes, it IS that convoluted) was sufficient to rouse Paul's desire to lend me some friendly advice. The response of mine in question:

I tend to think that in a perfect world, abortions would be rare, safe, and legal.

After writing this, I realized that the phrase "perfect world" would probably be taken all too literally. After all, in a "perfect world," birth control would never fail, right? I came back to clarify my use of that phrase to mean "the most optimal world that I can conceive." At this point, I was asked by Craig why rarity would be something I would hope for, if there was nothing immoral about abortion. Paul jumped on my answer to this question, which he neglected to quote in its entirety, but which I will do here:

The rarity I would like to see for these procedures isn't inspired by any intrinsic immorality, but because it's such a difficult choice for women, who have to choose between their procreative and self-preservative instincts. [emphasis added]

Paul claims that I have merely pointed out the existence of angst, and suggests that education is the solution:

...perhaps women should be educated. Why is there angst? They don't have the same angst when "departing" with unsightly moles. Indeed, one could argue that the angst is a holdover from theistic beliefs about the womb and conception. We need to educate the masses. And of course Moore's perfect world would have educated people, people with no holdovers from the ancient, dark times of man's history.

I don't think that any amount of education can alleviate the emotional strain of choosing between two contradictory instincts. This is not an intellectual matter we're dealing with- it's a subconscious, primordial battle between the basic neurological impulses nearly all animals share: SURVIVE. REPRODUCE. This conflict is only subject to philosophical gerrymandering by those who don't have to answer these calls. And these are truly effectual calls, mind you- not subject to reason, evidence, exegesis, or any such intellectual strategy. Thus, the "angst" Paul correctly identifies is not so easily assuaged, and thus I am not as confident as Paul that this could be ameliorated with simple education (would that it were so).

This little girl has been preordained to burn in Hell. Just look at her... what a slut! She totally deserves it.

My primary argument in favor of allowing abortion is that all human beings are sovereign over their own bodies. Thus, anything growing inside my body stays there only by my own approval (assuming that I have the available medical technology to remove it at my discretion). As Paul points out, with my argument the "personhood" of the fetus is immaterial. At first, he's comfortable dealing with my argument and offers a counterexample:

First, it's not true that all humans have sovereignty over their body and can do what they will with it making what they do ethically okay. They can't (well, shouldn't) strap bombs to it and run into occupied office buildings.

Perhaps Paul has not understood what I mean by "sovereignty" over one's body. He seems to think that I'm mounting a variation of Homer Simpson's "Pie Eating" argument: "All right pie, I'm just going to do this [opens and closes mouth] and if you get eaten it's your own fault!" I am not talking about things people do to each other with their bodies; I am talking specifically about the right to decide what things stay in one's body and what things stay out. That is, one has the right to decide what kind of food one wants to eat, what kind of aesthetic modifications can be made to one's body, and what kinds of medical procedures should be undertaken. Of the latter, these include the decision to undergo a cardiac bypass, the decision to undergo a gastric bypass, and the decision to bypass pain and suffering through euthanasia. Either Paul agrees that we have sovereignty over our bodies or he does not. If we do not, then we cannot decide for ourselves what kind of food to eat. It's possible that Paul's invisible friend tells him whether to choose Cheerios or Wheaties for breakfast. But if Paul does agree that we have sovereignty over our bodies, that only he has the right to decide if his malignant testicle should be removed, then he seems to be special pleading for women not to have the right to remove anything they want from their bodies as well.

This little boy enjoys molesting the neighbor girl and killing cats. He will murder his grandmother and since he is one of the Elect, he will go to Heaven.

Paul does me the favor of mounting a defensive argument for me:

Of course, Moore may say that their sovereignty stops just at that point where they are hindering another human's sovereignty over his or her body not to be blown to bits. But of course, as should be obvious, this response rather removes the teeth from his entire position. Indeed, Moore's (radical) libertarianism is undercut since he is now forced to add that some humans (the fetuses) do not have sovereignty over their bodies! It looks like special pleading to dismiss, out of hand, the fetus's sovereignty. Moore just can't think far enough to consider the logic of the case.

Although I appreciate the effort he has made on my behalf, he's running with the wrong assumption. I've already made it clear that I consider sovereignty to extend only to within one's own body for the sake of this argument. Paul's counterexample of a suicide bomber is simply the product of a categorical error. He's also assuming that I'm granting "human" or "person" status to a fetus, which I frankly have not; but again, it's immaterial to my argument. Even if I were to follow Paul down his rabbit hole and grant that a fetus has the same sovereignty enjoyed by its mother, that only extends to within the fetus' own body. Once removed from its uterine environ, the fetus is free to exercise that sovereignty in whichever direction it likes.

This little boy is loved and cared for by Christian parents, but will become an atheist and be damned to Hell.

It should be obvious by now why this next claim is erroneous:

Second, Moore basis[sic] rights on accidental features of the world, i.e., a person's location. Of course it's completely arbitrary to simply announce that one's location determines whether he has any right to life. Moore's placing the location in the womb is no more arbitrary than Hitler placing the location somewhere in the Middle East. In fact, as almost all ethicists will tell you, morally irrelevant facts shouldn't factor into moral principles. That's one reason why racism is ethically backwoods. It take a non-moral fact, skin color, and tries to make it a basis for moral facts. Skin color, location, size, level of development, etc., are morally irrelevant to questions of morality.

Nowhere in my argument have I talked about a "right to life." I've talked about the concept of sovereignty over one's own body. I suppose it wouldn't be a completely productive discussion about abortion without being compared to Hitler, but I'm not trying to remove privileges at all. In fact, the opposite is true- Paul, by special pleading against the complete sovereignty of women, would have us believe that one organ among all others is arbitrarily off-limits.

Paul wants to push the argument further, this time mounting an attack on behalf of Craig:

Third, another thing Craig might want to ask, it seems that not only do we have exceptions to murder, but sometimes parents don't have obligations toward their young children. Since we're dealing with a mother taking the life of her child, we have another moral consideration in play. Do we have exceptions here, too?

As has been shown previously, my argument is not one that advances a mother's right to take the life of her child. I've only argued that a woman's sovereignty is without exception, not that I am seeking exceptions as Paul does. Once born, of course, a baby is not necessarily dependent on its mother, and can be cared for by any number of people; this instance dramatically changes the moral situation. Further speculation along these lines is not germane to the question of a woman's sovereignty and abortion.

This little girl has every egg in her ovaries already fully-formed, and will exercise her sovereignty over them from her birth until their birth.

Fourth, as Moore should know, we can achieve conception in a Petri dish, soon we will be able to bring a child forth that spent all three trimesters in an artificial womb. Assume that Moore doesn't hold to "Petri dish sovereignty," would he then say (remembering that we assuming the humanity of the fetus since it supposedly "doesn't matter either way" for Moore's argument) that no one can kill these babies? What will happen to Moore's support for stem cell research, then?

At long last Paul has given us something to chew on. It's a great question, not least of which because there's no clear answer. However, I should make it clear that we're no longer dealing with my argument for sovereignty, since stem cells do not need to be cultured inside a woman's body. In engaging with the stem cell question, we finally have no choice but to grapple with the concept of "humanity" or "personhood." And my answer to this question is, though Paul may be disappointed by it, "I don't know." I don't hold to a neo-Platonic worldview, and therefore I don't feel epistemological pressure to categorize reality using Universal concepts. "Humanity," like "species" or "life" does not neatly intersect with the reality our senses and reason present to us. At what moment did I become a human being? When my father's sperm came in contact with my mother's egg? But when, precisely? When the sperm passed the corona radiata? When it entered, or after it had passed, the zona pellucida? Before or after the cell membranes fused? Before or after the second meiotic division of the egg? Before or after the first mitotic division? At what stage of mitosis: prophase, metaphase, anaphase, telophase? The interim points, like Zeno's paradox, are infinite; yet a human is the result.

Thus, the question of personhood is not so simple. Although I can't speak with certainty on the matter, my moral instincts would be to ascribe a kind of provisional sovereignty to those who provide the initial cells for a stem cell colony. This would extend up to the point of their destruction or full-term development, in parallel with a uterine incubation. In this, however, sovereignty would be shared by both man and woman, since the woman's body is not required for the process described here.

For God so loved these stem cells, He sent His only begotten Son that they would not cure human disease, but sit in a Petri dish in Heaven.

I'm always glad to know that I've merited the attention of God's chosen, especially when there are so many more enjoyable things to do in Michigan's own Tulip Country. Between keeping one's wife pregnant, instilling a fear of The Lord in one's children, and drinking deeply of the Boddington's, I consider myself lucky to register on the radar. Cheers, sir!

Religulous Review

2008-10-07T15:43:00.003-04:00

Religulous is funny to me, without a doubt. The question is, is it funny to mainstream people who take their own faith and beliefs as seriously as the wackos Bill Maher interviews in his documentary?

I'd be interested to know.

The movie exists in three layers: 1) a personal journey for Maher himself, raised in a religiously-mixed home, who spends time unpacking his early experiences of religion with his (largely agnostic) mother and sister; 2) a rogues' gallery survey of the absolute weirdest, clueless, and hypocritical religious individuals (confined to the Abrahamic faiths) he could find in America and Europe; 3) a potent argument against religious fervor in the face of increased global reach and military might that threatens to actually acheive the theological wet-dream apocalypse conceived of by the prophets of ages past.

Maher fancies himself as something of a Doubt Fairy; popping into truck-stop trailer-churches to ask difficult questions (and anger large men), or appearing on Speakers' Corner to lay bare the core tenets of the Church of Scientology. Many times he's just a wry observer, as when he visited the Creation Museum with Ken Ham, or speaks with a man who believes himself to be the second-coming of Jesus Christ. But between these visits we also get to peek into Maher's own thought process, to gain some understanding of the agnosticism he feels to be a virtue, and appreciate the method of his fascination with madness.

The pacing and editing is extraordinarily clever, although I suspect the few background sound effects will become significantly less funny on repeat viewings. It's particularly good towards the end of the movie, where scenes cut immediately from one religious person making a dogmatic pronouncement of some kind, directly to another religious person making the exact opposite pronouncement with the exact same conviction as his counterpart.

Bill Maher's message strains at the proverbial gnat when he delves into the same Historical Jesus material already covered by The God Who Wasn't There. He throws out some of the parallels without much context, which looks great to the unfamiliar but is hopelessly unsufficient to its subject. Even without Richard Carrier's recent discoveries, this line of argumentation is far too complex for a throwaway portion of a larger work.

Without a doubt, atheists and freethinkers will find this movie utterly hilarious, at least worth one viewing. My guess is that Christians, Jews, and Muslims will laugh as well, most loudly at the faiths they don't personally hold, and more softly and nervously when their own belief system is held up for inspection. Whether they laugh or not, I'd like to hope that the message at the end of the movie is taken to heart: One's personal beliefs should not be grounds for genocide.

Kosher Blasphemy

2008-09-30T10:40:00.003-04:00

Nicely done. Click the monkeys to see a "Kosher" version of the Religulous trailer.

A Prayerful Of Dollars

2008-09-26T00:00:00.008-04:00

I've mentioned previously that I receive regular email updates from the Village Church here in the North Texas area. For as long as I've known about it, that church has been an amazing success story... their lead pastor, Matt Chandler, came in to an old church and injected lots of life into it, bringing people by the thousands every week, and even expanding their campus from Highland Village up into Denton, and now expanding into Flower Mound.

...except that now there's a problem. The money that they need to start construction in the new location (about $10 million) isn't there yet. When they decided to move forward, they wanted $3 million in hand, and the rest in "faith promises" from their congregation- they have slightly less than half that amount. Needless to say, this presents something of a theological (and, by extension, existential) crises for Matt- if he's doing God's work, and if people are coming in droves to be saved and baptized, surely there should be money to spare! God takes care of his own, does He not?

Matt confesses some of his own questions:

Is there too much "me" in this thing? Do we not see the correlation between the lives that are being changed and having room for those lives to come in? How is it possible that only a few of the thousands of people at The Village are willing to give monthly to the project that they (covenant members) voted to do? Is this where we are in our maturation? How is it possible with all of the life- changes, salvations and baptisms that we are seeing that more of you are not buying into this? Have we not communicated well? I'm not sure I know the answers to these questions but they have been keeping me up at night.

I know they're superficially rhetorical and subconsciously directed to God (a la Job), but maybe I can take a crack at them below:

No, Matt, there isn't enough of "you" in "this thing." You're a charismatic leader, and without question this church has grown by leaps and bounds because everyone there loves you. When I visited your church, I asked person after person why they loved the Village Church, and although nobody could give me any specific theological answer, they all gushed about how great you are and how wonderful the church made them feel. The problem is, you can't have it both ways. You can build a new facility, you can hire more pastors, you can spruce up your website, but you can't replicate yourself. The only way for you to keep the church growing is to televise your services; and that represents everything about Christianity that I know you hate.

Yes, Matt, people are aware of the correlation between having more space and being able to impact more lives. They're not stupid. But not everyone is necessarily in agreement, not everybody thinks that God is asking them (even though you ask on behalf of Him) to donate, and quite frankly, not everyone has the resources to donate. Attracting people is one thing; attracting people who agree wholeheartedly with your vision, and who have wallets big enough to contribute significantly is a completely different thing. Trust me, in my short experience with the North Texas Church of Freethought, I've had to learn this lesson quickly, and we don't even have to deal with people who think God talks to them.

Yes, Matt, this may very well be where the Village Church matures. Believe it or not, churches grow, mature, and die. They also evolve, which is what you prompted when you arrived. I realize that you think God is motivating and supporting you, and I'm sure that feels wonderful, but riding the waves of ecstasy in the good times means that it'll seem like God abandons you in the bad times. And I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize or accept (a la Job) this failure of theology, but at the same time I hope that you don't view God's abandoning of the Village Church as a commandment for you to abandon it to seek that same thrill in a new church that you take over and grow. Try not to lose sight of the fact that for whatever reason, you brighten the lives of the people in your church, and I'd hate to see you forsake that because you manage to convince yourself that God wants you to grow another church somewhere else.

In a final plea, Matt turns to the only thing he trusts: Prayer.

We truly are at a crossroads. Will you pray with me? Will you fast with me? Can we seek God's face on this thing together? Not for money. The money will be there or it won't. God has never lacked resources for what He wants to do.

And therein lies the psychological splinter at the root of this festering problem. Matt desperately wants to know God's will, but he can't possibly. Yes, he's praying for dollars, but much more deeply, he's praying for validation. My only concern is that since God is mute (or, at best, no more helpful than a magic 8-ball), Matt will inevitably superimpose the only will he has access to (his own) for God's. And that rarely works out well for anyone.

Reading the Antithesis

2008-09-25T10:27:00.004-04:00

My good friend Dan Sawyer is quite the polymath, as I've known since first crossing paths with him on ExChristian.Net. Many other people know this as well, from his appearances on the Infidel Guy show, his own podcast (The Polyschizmatic Reprobates' Hour), as well as from his participation in the Apologia discussion.

What you may not know is that he's also an ambitious artist, photographer, director, and author- the former which find an outlet at ArtisticWhispers Productions, and the latter which spills over into JDSawyer.Net. You can find there his latest project: an audio production of his novel, "Predestination (and Other Games of Chance)," which is the first in his "Antithesis" series.

Most of you are avid podcasters (consumers and producers, as am I), but may not have considered the possibility of a story being told in serial form through this medium. I have to confess, I never gave it much thought until listening to Dan's first attempt with this short story collection "Sculpting God." Take a few minutes to swing over to Dan's site and subscribe to the feed- I hope you enjoy it as much as I am.

Harris Loves Him Some Palin

2008-09-23T22:01:00.001-04:00

I just finished making love to this article by Sam Harris. You get sloppy seconds. Enjoy.

Born Again: Documentary

2008-09-22T22:07:00.002-04:00

"Born Again" is the incredibly personal and powerful story of director Markie Hancock's journey away from Christianity. Her journey begins with a strongly evangelical family and an unwavering commitment to God, and ends with self-discovery, apostasy, and the struggle to come to terms with a family in which the disagreements over religion are a microcosm of American culture at large.

The entire film is presented at the above site for your viewing.

A Message From Sarah Palin

2008-09-16T11:40:00.000-04:00

The Renewed Mind is the Key!

2008-09-13T15:40:00.000-04:00

The key to what? Failing to do the moonwalk?

The eeeevil evolutionists and the bumbling Christians.

2008-08-02T04:11:00.005-04:00

Click on image to enbiggen.

Crumbling Sacrilege

2008-07-24T00:02:00.008-04:00

The (Catholic and atheist) world has waited with bated breath since, in the wake of the University of Central Florida theological "scandal" involving a student making off with a consecrated Eucharist host, godless liberal P.Z. Myers promised to complete the sacrilege of which the student was accused, and desecrate "a goddamned cracker." It seems that he is now a man of his word.

It should be noted that although normally soft-spoken, Dr. Myers regularly takes superstitious claims (and those that dogmatically hold them) to task with alacrity and relish on his blog, but I would wager that his recent anti-wafer provocation wouldn't have been made manifest without the vocal condemnation of the original student by that paragon of ecumenical graciousness, the Catholic Leaugue's own Bill Donohue.

Donohue, as a faithful Catholic, is well-versed in the rhetorical value of martyrdom, and often shoves the crucified Jesus out of the way so that he can take his own place of honor on the old rugged cross, where he can weather the slings and arrows of those who, like Dr. Myers, do not reflexively nod their heads to his dogmatic veneration of an institution that has ably destroyed as many lives as it would claim to have saved for divine glorification (human glorification from its adherents notwithstanding).

In keeping with his record of pompous gasbaggery, Donohue is sure to revel in the opportunity afforded him by one more 'Jesus-hater' whose eternal soul will be basted in brimstone for the satanic spoiling of a sacred Saltine. I doubt that someone so thoroughly god-deluded will be able to appreciate the damage he does to his rational reputation by insisting upon universal deference to his particular sect's worship of a holy biscuit.

And yet, is it such a triumph over the superstition-driven life to abuse the illusion of a god-cracker, even if it is held by someone so obtuse and grating? Alonzo Fyfe has waxed ethically on this matter, and has landed favorably on Dr. Myers' side (even if critical of the methods implied by Dr. Myers to obtain a Holy Cracker), but I wonder if it isn't a denigration of our own collective reputations to even acknowledge such a self-serving simpleton (although South Park did take a few seconds to allow Jesus to execute his apoplectic animated avatar).

Still, when there's a point to be made, I'm generally favor of making it, but with good taste, if possible. Extraordinarily good taste, I might add, which is why I (in my own humble opinion) did Dr. Myers one better and concocted a true gastronomic delight: the Jesus Waffle.

You see, whatever their supernatural particulars, Eucharist hosts have the unwavering natural characteristics of being made of flour and water. As such, a collection of them can be ground into powder, mixed with butter, milk, egg, and a bit of sugar and salt, to make a scrumptuous breakfast pastry guaranteed to captivate your palate (even if it doesn't illuminate your spirit). The final product is surprisingly fluffy on the inside and crisp on the outside (as will be, I presume, my damned corpse in Hell), and if your priest is health-conscious enough to procure whole-wheat wafers, may even lower your cholesterol (Hallelujah!). Topped with vanilla yogurt and garnished with the transubstutated flesh of Our Sweet Lord, it's the perfect way to start any apostate's day.

Now, why would I assemble this Unholiest of recipes? Does Bill Donohue's nose really need another tweaking? Am I trying to suck up to P.Z. and gain a dispensation of his cephalopodic grace? Neither, really. If I truly believe that religious symbols aren't special, then there shouldn't be any particular merit to venerating them OR desecrating them, right? In all honesty, it just seemed like something interesting to do. It's the same reason that I keep a Buddha statue in my garden: I use it for quirky aesthetic appeal, not spiritual inspiration. The same is true for the large crucifix displayed outside my home office, the Lakshmi coin I keep next to my D&D dice, and the driedel I put out on my coffee table every December. One man's god is another man's lawn ornament, and the sooner we are able to arrive at that understanding, the sooner we'll be able to experience reality as humans together.

D'Souza's Ironic Modesty

2008-07-14T23:03:00.002-04:00

Dinesh D'Souza is worried about his modesty:

Modesty is one of my great virtues, and that is why I am always worried when people praise me too much.

I wouldn't worry- he can take care of that himself.

This past weekend I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens... America's leading atheist and... unbelief's best debater.

...when the debate was finished the moderator called for a vote on "who won the debate." By a show of hands, I did! ...Hitchens burst in to say that he would have lost anyway! Later several atheists came up to me and said that although they were rooting for Hitchens, they had voted for me because they felt I had prevailed decisively.

...Michael Shermer... commented that with the passing of William F. Buckley, I am one of the leading defenders of conservatism and freedom in America. He also added, "Whatever your beliefs, you should read Dinesh's book What's So Great About Christianity. It is the best defense of Christianity that has ever been published."

In addition to dealing with atheist accolades, I also have to contend with the same from fellow conservatives and Christians.

...a review of my book [titled] "C.S. Lewis, Move Over," [says] ..."Dinesh D'Souza stakes his claim as one of the great Christian apologists." The review ends thus: "In any case, D'Souza has written a book that both G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis would have appreciated and that perhaps even Billy Graham and Pope Benedict XVI could agree is a masterpiece of modern apologetical writing destined to set the standard for years to come."

With comments like this, I am in serious danger of getting a big head and losing my reputation for self-effacing modesty.

...and the surface of the sun is in danger of getting too hot to handle.

Bill Maher - Religulous

2008-07-01T15:33:00.002-04:00

Bill Maher brings the funny. And the head-scratching.

via Debunking Christianity

Suspended: No Astrology Allowed trailer

2008-06-26T17:48:00.001-04:00

Tree 63- Sunday

2008-06-14T04:07:00.001-04:00

This music video is particularly funny, not for the song itself, but for the church signs that someone has seen fit to grace it with.

It's what Crummy Church Signs: The Musical would look like.

Birds Of A Feather

2008-06-06T18:11:00.005-04:00

What do Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Fred Phelps have in common?

Plenty.

They both hate America with a passion, of course. Both Phelps and Mohammed have been clear on that point.

But what else could bring a couple of America-haters into an intimate, ideological unity?

Same-sex marriage.

It's more than a little amusing that, on the same day Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church issues this press release begging Ellen DeGeneres and George Takei to invite them to their respective weddings (so that they can be properly picketed and directed to Hell, of course), we find Mohammed in court, citing the recent allowance of same-sex marriage in California as proof that the United States is pure evil.

Now, I realize of course that simply pointing out the common homophobic cause found by strident religious fundamentalists of all stripes doesn't carry any logical weight regarding the validity of same-sex marriage. But I can't imagine that it makes it terribly satisfying to rail against the institution, even in a moderate way, knowing that those who are most convinced by your arguments are some of the most ghoulish and disturbing people alive today.

via Homosecular Gaytheist

Sex Ed Prank

2008-06-04T18:02:00.004-04:00

There's nothing like a good, clean, high-school prank to really get the summer started right.

Mailed on letterhead from Hernando High School in Brooksville, Florida:

Dear Parents and or Guardians:

We, at Hernando High School, regret to inform you that due to the passing of Amendment One and state wide budget cuts, some classes will no longer be offered to the students during the 2008-2009 school year. The following classes will no longer be offered at Hernando High School:

Advanced Placement Psychology
Advanced Placement World History
Principles of Business Ownership
Intro to Genetics
Health and Sexual Education

We understand that many consider Health and Sexual Education a vital asset to a teenager's education, but after numerous years of educating students about the principles and benefits of abstinence we have found it to be unsuccessful. Our very own Little Leopard Land is overflowing with little leopard cubs. Obviously, our attempts have proved futile. Lets be honest, ALL of our students are sexually active. We ask that parents take on the responsibility of teaching their children about safe sex.

We are aware that this decision will raise many eyebrows, but we stand firm in our decision. If there are any questions, comments, concerns, or you are in need of pamphlets please do not hesitate to call (325) 797-7015, to speak to Mr. Gimme Moorhead, Health department director, or his secretary Miss Ivanna Humpalot, to set up an appointment.

We thank you for your understanding,

Doctor Jack Mehoff,
Principal

Included with this letter, sent to all parents in the school database, was a single condom.

I loves me some funny, but I love it more when there's a point to be made. Congratulations, class of 2008!

via The Smoking Gun

Two of every kind...

2008-06-03T03:11:00.002-04:00

From Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

Hellbound Alleee draws some heat...

2008-06-01T15:48:00.002-04:00

Hellbound Alleee drew some Christian heat for posting this picture for her Easter episode:

Here is the winner for least grammatically correct message:

jesus is watching everthing u will c one day
hey alleee dont worry what ever u do Jesus will still love u…

god bless u

Creationism Is Embarrassing

2008-05-24T09:33:00.004-04:00

I've been in the Creation Museum, and while I can see how its arguments can be persuasive as one walks past dinosaur steeds and life-size replicas of the Garden of Eden (especially if one happens to believe in those in the first place), they tend to die a withering death when confronted by reality.

From the Answers In Genesis website:

HELP!

It is distressing to me when I buy Creationist materials, learn something, post it in a forum, only to be told, what I have been told is not true.

Here is an example of someone "correcting" a statement made by a Creationist in a forum, saying that mutations DO add beneficial information to an organism. He refers to a specific experiment I have no knowledge of.:

“We have observed mutation adding information to a genome. We have observed mutation adding useful information to a genome. A clonal culture of bacteria was grown over 1000 generations, and monitored throughout. It turns out, the bacteria’s DNA mutated, and the variation was then acted upon by natural selection. Even though the bacteria started out as clonal (no variation), it developed variation in its phenotype, and then responded to natural selection.”

My son wrote a paper using information from Mike Riddle, yet his geology teacher said it was full of “inaccuracies.” I was very embarrassed.

Need help refuting.

—D.K., U.S.

Notice that the objective of this individual is not to learn what the truth of the matter is. He learned some arguments, passed them on to his son, and they both were embarrassed when they were told how awfully ignorant they were about the actual facts. Rather than celebrate the opportunity to learn something new, he goes right back to the original, inaccurate source for more strategies to help him "refute" those who pointed out his abject ignorance. This is not a person who understands or appreciates education, only indoctrination.

In response, he receives the AIG party line:

...historical science is heavily dependent on presuppositions, since what is being examined took place in the unobservable past. Did God create the universe and everything in it in six literal days as written in the book of Genesis, or did the universe start with a big bang followed by billions of years of evolution to bring about living things? The former is based on the Word of God as truth; the latter is based on man’s ideas as truth.

In other words, "if you disagree with us, then you disagree with God." What Christian wants to be put in that position? Even the threat of embarrassment by people who actually know the science isn't enough to dissuade them from perpetuating their ignorance.

via Friendly Atheist

Fisting and God's Will

2008-05-22T08:02:00.002-04:00

This is hi-larious, to be sure, and part of me wants to share this just so we all can have a good belly-laugh.

However, the other part of me always has a point to make, and the point is this: never underestimate the range of interpretation with which people can stretch (!) the Bible to suit their own psychological needs.

From www.sexinchrist.com:

The sex act called fisting is a source of confusion and misconceptions for many Christians. This is unfortunate, because it means that many Christian men and women are depriving themselves of what could be the most spiritual sexual experience of their lives. Like anal sex and BDSM, fisting is often mistakenly associated with the gay community or is considered a sex act too extreme to be appropriate for Christian couples. Not only are these views incorrect, but fisting actually has a scriptural precedent, as we will show.

Find out all about it here.

via Friendly Atheist

Kill The Pill

2008-05-20T14:13:00.002-04:00

Everyone who thinks the anti-abortion movement only has their sights set on pregnant women, raise your hands please.

Okay, everyone with their hands raised, YOU'RE WRONG.

If you thought Roe v. Wade was the only Supreme Court decision targeted for overturning, let me introduce you to Griswold v. Connecticut:

The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

That is to say, the Bill of Rights grants married people the right to use birth control if they so choose.

Not so fast, says the ultra-Catholic American Life League:

This confusing language, which has no relationship whatsoever to what the Founding Fathers intended, gave married women permission to use the birth control pill. The Supreme Court literally created the "right to privacy" out of thin air.

We now know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that not only did the Supreme Court literally make up the right that you claim gives you permission to use birth control, but the most popular form of birth control, the pill, can kill innocent preborn children. If there is a chance that human beings are going to be murdered, I am going to do everything in my power to help prevent that from happening. If you knew there was a chance that someone might poison your neighbor, don't you think you would try to notify your neighbor and do as much as you could to help save a life?

Stock up on your birth control, ladies- the Catholics are coming to get you!

Lock Up Your Daughters

2008-05-19T23:05:00.003-04:00

Yes, it's that time of year again. Time to ritually claim your daughters' genitals for the good of society.

It's positively creeptastic, no matter how well the room is lit.

This year, though, I noticed a little something familiar in all the pomp and circumstance:

Hmm... Where else have I seen young girls in fancy dresses dancing around a central phallic object in a ritual setting soaked with sexual context?

Oh, snap! Well, color me surprised that Christians have borrowed a pagan myth and rewritten it to serve their own theological purposes. It's got to be a singular situation.

Which Is Worse?

2008-05-16T22:30:00.002-04:00

A couple disturbing stories slipped past my desk today, both of which highlight religious immorality, but in slightly different ways.

The first took place in a small village in Northern India, where two people (including one pregnant woman) were brutally murdered for daring to defy the traditional and religious requirements of their culture. Their crime: falling in love and attempting to procreate, even though they both are from the same village. Apparently, people from the same village are considered to be the equivalent of siblings, and so falling in love with your high school sweetheart is essentially incest.

The second took place a little closer to home; one of the 40 (40!) pastors at Prestonwood Baptist Church here in Dallas was arrested for soliciting sex from whom he thought was a 13-year old girl. He arranged a meeting, showed up with a bunch of condoms, but discovered that he'd actually been talking dirty to the cops. It's been said before, but there have been so many Christian leaders discovered to be closeted kinksters, homophobic homosexuals, and outright pedophiles that this is really becoming quite the cliche. I wonder how long it'll take before the default assumption about Christian pastors is that they're one of the above, and just really good at hiding it?

Now, both of these are horrible, although the double-murder is substantially worse than the attempted statutory rape. However, I find the responses in both situations to be interesting in their differences. The Indian village that committed the atrocity is actually proud of what happened, and is defiantly resisting any suggestion that what occurred was immoral. On the other hand, Prestonwood has issued a press release acknowledging that what their pastor tried to do was wrong. And yet, both seek to resolve these immoral situations with the superstitious and traditional contexts which spawned them- making it hard for me to determine which is ultimately worse.

Inevitable Disappointment

2008-05-05T21:05:00.002-04:00

I'm on the email list for a really interesting church in the North Texas area- the Village Church, pastored by a guy named Matt Chandler. I visited there once on the recommendation of a friend, and couldn't help but like the place. And yet, I was a little put off by how much I couldn't help but like the place. It was a bit like a theological Disney World- by which I mean, it's a church that's (subconsciously or otherwise) designed to be attractive. The pastor is young and dynamic, and reminds me uncannily of the itinerant on-leave-from-seminary wannabe preachers who used to visit my high school youth group, usually to much acclaim.

When I visited, there was a tremendous emphasis on having a genuine experience. The unspoken implication was that at other churches, people sang songs and read the Bible and worshipped God, but at the Village Church, they really meant it. And you could tell the really meant it, because they mentioned it every five minutes.

I don't really want to be too hard on them, since virtually everyone I met there was incredibly nice and friendly, and I could sense a real level of sincerity that, if it didn't impress Jesus, would at least win over the Great Pumpkin. Plus, a friend goes there, so it can't be all bad, right?

On my way out, I noticed a stack of flyers advertising some kind of seminar coming up in the next couple weeks. Peering past the design elements and the catchy phrases, I could make out that it was a subtly-euphamized gay-deprogramming seminar.

Gah. Just when I'm starting to like the place, they mention that they like helping people get rid of their gay. It's that inevitable disappointment hiding behind some obscure Bible passage, just waiting to trip me up as I'm walking past the pews.

I received another reminder of this in my email inbox today- a request for people to go to Myanmar in support of a charity that provides drinking water for those in need. Yeah! All right! Good humanitarian efforts for a good cause at the right time! This is a church!

But then, the inevitable disappointment:

The country has recently been one of the most closed off countries in the world to the gospel, and the humanitarian crises there had been escalating as the government continued oppressing its people. In light of the natural disaster, the doors to Myanmar are opening as the level of need is beyond anything we can imagine. Please keep this country and its people in your prayers.

I suppose there are worse excuses to evangelize, but damned if a part of me didn't shrivel up after reading that.

Evolution is wrong, here is the proof!

2008-04-28T14:50:00.000-04:00

I'm convinced...

Another Christian Sex Scandal

2008-04-19T10:28:00.002-04:00

Honestly, these should be boring by now, but I had a minor insight after watching this story- what if the reason so many Christian leaders clamor for the legislation of sexuality is because they think it's the only way for them to control THEIR OWN orientations and kinks?

via Pharyngula

SA: Reverse Magazines

2008-04-11T12:15:00.004-04:00

A little Photoshopping fun from the SomethingAwful goons...

Relativism...

2008-04-10T13:21:00.002-04:00

Creationists Love "Expelled"

2008-04-07T14:14:00.005-04:00

Since I visited Ken Ham's Creation Museum last summer, I've been getting regular email updates from him. Most of them are too vacuous and preposterous to circulate, but I thought this was humorous- Ken Ham's glowing endorsement of the upcoming film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

Dear AiG supporter,

I thought it very important to send you another email this week. You see, the news is so important that I also want you to send this email to your pastor and friends.

As you know, Darwinists have been expelling any hint of creation or intelligent design from public schools and research institutions. Now, many of them are expelling people from their academic posts in a desperate attempt to defend their evolutionary worldview.

The upcoming film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters next week (April 18). Already a highly controversial film, its host Ben Stein (whom I met last month) is on a personal quest to discover more about the topic of origins and to expose the ruthlessness of many evolutionists. Even though Stein is not a creationist and is not a Christian, he presents the evidence of intelligent design we see in the world and exposes the censorship efforts of leading evolutionists.

I encourage you to visit www.GetEXPELLED.com right now and discover more about this excellent, entertaining, and enlightening film. I’ve seen it twice now, including at a special preview screening at our Creation Museum. You need to see how our education system is expelling freedom of speech—and then you should do something about it.

For a theater listing, go to www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php

If you don’t see your local theater listed, call the manager and say you want to watch Expelled.

Please be a “creation evangelist.” Let your family and friends know about this film (send them this email with your words of endorsement), and then direct them to our website where they can find out more about the gospel message.

Thank you,

Ken Ham

President, Answers in Genesis

"No intelligence allowed," indeed. The message is clear- "Expelled" promotes a creationist message, for the purpose of driving people to Christianity. Hey, at least they're finally being honest about their motives.

Wnat idiot wrote these ten commandments?

2008-04-06T21:06:00.001-04:00

The Onion asks a question that is on all our minds: what idiot wrote these ten commandments?

Take the first commandment, for example. It says you shouldn't believe in any gods besides God. No gods besides the one, eh? Okay, I can agree with that. Frankly, I got no idea how foreigners keep track of all their different gods. But as an opener? As number one on a list of 10? Seems pretty weak to me. You want to lead off with a batter who can hit.

...

Altogether, I believe these commandments are pretty thin on law and order and the needs of the common citizen, and a little thick on the religious mumbo jumbo.

Deep Inside Jesus

2008-04-03T13:49:00.001-04:00

I just found a website called In Jesus. Quite a disturbing name if you ask me.

Anyone care for a big frothy mug of repressed and frustrated homosexual desires? These guys sure do!

Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers

2008-04-02T15:25:00.000-04:00

Christian Gene Found

2008-03-29T23:12:00.001-04:00

Mind-bendingly delightful.

via Pharyngula

Is It Evil to Pray For The Sick?

2008-03-27T14:20:00.002-04:00

J-Walk posts about an interesting quote and issue: is praying for the sick a sanction of the unfairness of life?

Having recently finished Professor Ehrman's "God's Problem," I was struck by his decision to never say grace over food. His logic was that if there were people in the world dying every five seconds from starvation, it was tantamount to thanking God for giving this food to him, at their expense. He felt he couldn't be thankful that he had been singled out for reasons that had only to do with his birthplace, which made quite a bit of sense to me.

Thus I began to consider analogous behaviors and the first one that I thought of was praying for the sick to recover. If Ehrman's original proposition, that praying to thank the Lord for food that you have, while others are starving is valid, is it not equally valid when it comes to praying for the sick to recover?

And more interestingly, what does that say about believing in a god that brings this state of affairs about?

Sacrifice your son to me!

2008-03-23T21:27:00.003-04:00

Thanks to Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

Easter Challenge: Year Three

2008-03-21T06:57:00.002-04:00

It's been three years since I first published my own response to Dan Barker's Easter Challenge here at GTA, and the Christian response has been underwhelming. Although our in-house Christian apologist Brucker tossed his harmonization into the ring, it only lasted a few rounds of discussion before it was obvious that his version had as many, if not more, continuity flaws than my own.

In the meantime, there's been a deafening silence. Surely, with Easter being the paramount event in the Christian conception of history, some clarity would at least be of some interest.

This weekend is the biggest of the year in terms of church attendance- I'd like to suggest that all the Christians out there, as long as they're stuck in church on Sunday morning, at least take a few minutes to reach in front of them and grab a Bible, flip to the ends of each Gospel, and try to make sense of the four stories. Use one of those little golf pencils on the back of the bulletin if you have to.

Little kids grow up pretty fast when they realize that the stories told about Santa Claus don't actually make any sense when you look at them all together... I'm hopeful that the same realization comes for those who accept other superstitions also.

The Horrific Atheist Apocalypse

2008-03-17T12:36:00.005-04:00

If God hasn't sent the "Four Horsemen," who has?

Uh, oh. It can only get worse from here.

via Subnormality

Jesus the cannibal?

2008-03-14T14:04:00.003-04:00

From one of my favourite webcomics, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

Intelligent Design at TAMS: Summary

2008-03-12T07:09:00.004-04:00

I first heard about the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science in an article posted by P.Z. Myers, which took me from elation to disappointment in two sentences. Throughout this country, any effort made to improve math and science education is well-needed, and for such an academy to be organized in the state of Texas seemed to fit that desperate need as well as a rainshower in the West Texas wasteland.

But then the shoe dropped: "a gang of god-walloping creationists" had set their sights on TAMS, and were coming in to ensure that students heard their own particular brand of religious dogma to usurp an otherwise wholesome scientific education. Who are these nasty, creationist bugaboos? Probe Ministries, and more specifically as it turns out, Dr. Ray Bohlin.

I have been somewhat familiar with Probe, as my good friend Derek Sansone had been engaged with their team on a regular basis when he was trying to develop himself as a Christian apologist. Essentially, they operate very much like apologetical consultants; they spend their time writing articles and giving lectures for the benefit of churches that are interested in bolstering the faith of the average pew-sitter with a bit of argumentation. I'd gotten to meet another of Probe's team, Patrick Zukeran, through my relationship with Kevin Harris (who podcasts Pat's "Evidence and Answers" show, as well as William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" show, and who also participates in my "Apologia" podcast). The three of us had even sat together last year when the Discovery Institute road show came to SMU. From my experience, they're good, sincere people that you'd probably enjoy going to dinner with... they just also happen to be very sincerely wrong on a number of critical points.

I received an email from a friend forwarding the particular details of Probe's involvement yesterday: Probe was sending Dr. Ray Bohlin to TAMS to talk about Intelligent Design, and it would be taking place last night! Needless to say, I cleared my schedule and high-tailed it to Denton to figure out what was going on.

I arrived early and took a seat in the front row as Dr. Bohlin was setting up his presentation (incidentally, I caught a glance at the filename for the presentation, which was "sermon1"). I introduced myself, and we chatted about how molecular biology had changed since he received his PhD (in cellular and molecular biology from the University of Texas at Dallas, after joining Probe). After students filed in (lured by the offer of food, the key to any university-level function), an RA with TAMS named Samantha introduced Dr. Bohlin and the lecture series. Apparently, the "Think Tank" series tends to be conducted in the fall semester, but given her interest in the Intelligent Design issue and Dr. Bohlin's schedule, it had to take place in the early spring. Dr. Bohlin then launched into his presentation, which made essentially the same points as this article.

Overall, the demeanor of the presentation was submissive and defensive. Nearly all of the scientific information being presented was accurate as far as I could tell, and "Darwinism" was only used instead of "evolutionary theory" once or twice (although that may even be too much for some people). Evolution was accepted almost completely as a concept, and even the usage of the word "theory" was mostly appropriate (although perhaps slanted a bit to emphasize uncertainty for rhetorical effect). Intelligent Design was presented as an enterprise that was committed wholeheartedly to the scientific method, with no desire to overturn evolutionary theory as we know it. The pitch was more of ID being an "Evolution-Plus," sort of a scientific bonus that does not detract from evolutionary theory, and may even help it.

I was taking notes throughout, and jotting down appropriate questions that I planned to ask, since I had no way of knowing if there would be any scientifically literate people in the audience. I was pleasantly surprised (in a similar manner as when I visited Carl Baugh's Creation Museum in Glen Rose) to find the audience chock-full of students who saw the flaws of ID's rationale as easily as I could, and so I gave most of my questions an early retirement.

I did, however, offer this criticism: the concept of 'specified complexity' as advanced by ID advocates seems to me to suffer from a control problem. Both Dr. Bohlin and myself were trained in the conduct of scientific experiments, and one of the cardinal rules is that without proper positive or negative controls, an experimental result is scientifically meaningless. Any experiment needs a positive control (an independent verification that the test will work), and a negative control (an independent verification that the test can distinguish between signal and background noise).

Specified complexity can make use of neither: using Dr. Bohlin's analogy of rocks on a beach as an example of non-design, it could be the case that an intelligent agent has arranged those rocks in a specific pattern that just happens to appear random, and which no human agent would recognize as such. This demonstrates ID's inability to rule out false negatives, meaning that it cannot distinguish actual design from background noise. In addition, it lacks the right positive control: Dr. Bohlin offered many examples of human design, but that's not at issue. Assuming ID is accurate, the design in nature would be from a non-human agent, and we have no clear examples of such. Without an independent verification of specified complexity using an externally-provided example of non-human design, this approach is a scientific non-starter.

Needless to say, Dr. Bohlin took umbrage at my criticism, and responded that using human design (e.g., "John loves Mary" written on a sandy beach) was not a problem for ID. According to him, "as long as it tells us something, who cares [about controls]?" Scientifically-literate readers will of course be aware that any experiment can 'tell us something,' and in fact nearly any assay can produce data, even if used incorrectly. Hell, I can get beautiful protein bands on a Western blot if I overexpose the film, but you always have to check your controls before you start polishing your Nobel. If the controls aren't telling you the right thing, then your experiment can't tell you ANYTHING.

Aside from my own contribution, as I mentioned the audience was brimming with students on the side of science- even some first-year students who had scientific publications handy when they asked a bacterial flagellum/Type III secretory apparatus question. After the lecture ended, I introduced myself to them and encouraged them to found a new secular student group on campus (the previous incarnation had disbanded)- from the makeup of the audience last night, it's something that is sorely needed. And another positive note- I introduced myself to the event organizer and offered to present a lecture on the molecular evidence for common descent at any time, which was provisionally (though gratefully) accepted. Before leaving, I thanked Dr. Bohlin for his participation and offered the same lecture to him, albeit in debate form. It's a subject that he doesn't normally speak on, but he agreed to consider it if given ample opportunity to prepare. Hopefully, all three of these will come to fruition, and sooner rather than later.

On The Differences Between Science And Religion

2008-03-05T17:02:00.003-05:00

Something interesting caught my eye when I was browsing through the table of contents of the latest issue of Nature: "Nobel Prizewinner's Paper Retracted."

The story is only mildly controversial, outside of a relatively small group of olfactory neurologists and/or Nobel enthusiasts: Dr. Linda Buck, who won the prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2004 for her work studying the olfactory system, published data in 2001 that she cannot now reproduce. Since scientific certainty is dependent on experimental reproducibility, she's decided to retract the paper from the literature. Over one hundred other papers have cited her work in the meantime, and they'll all probably be a bit nervous until they've been able to reproduce their results as well.

Nothing is particularly amiss in this situation- human error is assumed in the scientific process, and although stringent controls are employed to avoid its effects, no experiment is perfect. It speaks to the strength and reliability of the scientific method that it allows for this self-correction as a matter of routine. The neurology community will absorb the correction, adjust their hypotheses, and move forward, slightly more confident that they're uncovering nature's true form.

The same thing does not happen in religious circles, however. Let's say that a certain person had remarkable success praying for some random attribute... courage, perhaps... back in 2001, and now needs it again. The person prays... but nothing happens. Would it now be reasonable to ask if the original courage truly was of divine provenance? Certainly for the scientist, less so for the more religious-minded. Failures in a religious process should inspire correction of that process- at least, if religion was as rigorously committed to reality as the scientific process.

Instead of human error being cited as cause to revise the process, as with science, for religion it is cited as reason to trust the process even more strongly. This kind of backwards-thinking in no way commends religion as a reality-based enterprise.

Ricky Gervais: from Xian to atheist in 1 question

2008-03-03T21:39:00.003-05:00

Ricky Gervais: My Argument With God

... my big brother Bob asked, "Why do you believe in God?" Just a simple question. But my mum panicked. "Bob," she said, in a tone that I knew meant "shut up." Why was that a bad thing to ask? If there was a God and my faith was strong, it didn't matter what people said.

Oh... hang on. There is no God. He knows it, and she knows it deep down. It was as simple as that. I started thinking about it and asking more questions, and within an hour, I was an atheist.

Jesus vs "weiner poopie"

2008-02-26T15:44:00.000-05:00

Where's Your Precious Gravity Now, Professor?

2008-02-15T08:00:00.003-05:00

A sublime intersection of the Upright Citizens' Brigade, religion, and science.

via Pharyngula

Christ gets fried

2008-02-14T16:45:00.002-05:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513855

This was the dramatic scene as the world's largest statue of Jesus was hit by lightning.

The bolt parted the thunderclouds over Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to strike Christ the Redeemer.
The statue is 130ft tall, is made of 700 tons of reinforced concrete and stands atop the 2,296ft Corcovado mountain overlooking the city.

Direct hit! Christ takes 23 points of damage. Roll against unconsciousness.

A Good Question

2008-02-08T15:32:00.000-05:00

From "dear god letters"

Scientology in a World of Hurt

2008-01-30T19:11:00.001-05:00

Anonymous just declared war on Scientology! Anonymous has less lawyers, but much stronger numbers in general. Let's hope anonymous wins.

Zoo Race

2008-01-25T15:27:00.000-05:00

Possibly one of the funniest and most inept game demos ever, and the fact that it has to do with Noah's Ark and Christianity just gives the cherry on the sundae:

The No-God Squad: In Their Own Words

2008-01-19T09:03:00.001-05:00

This video has been around for a while, but for anyone who finds themselves speaking for (or against) Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, it would really be best to hear their own open opinions.

via Debunking Christianity

Tom Cruise on Scientology

2008-01-18T14:20:00.000-05:00

You think Tom Cruise is creepy now, wait until you see The Cruise Indoctrination Video Scientology Tried To Suppress. Unfortunately the video has been suppressed from YouTube, but it is made available by The Gawker web site.

"When you're a Scientologist, and you drive by an accident, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you're the only one who can really help."

I thought that Cruise's "you're either for us or against us" was especially creepy.

Religious Irony on Dallas Top 40

2008-01-17T08:34:00.000-05:00

"Kidd Kraddick in the Morning" is the morning show for KHKS 106.1 "KISS" FM, a popular Top-40 station here in Dallas that's also popular with my wife for their support of her favorite musician, Elliot Yamin. As such, it graces our clock radio and tends to wake me on a regular basis.

Although there's usually some ridiculous conversation in progress when the alarm trips, this morning's was especially interesting and ironic. The group was discussing the recent viral video of Tom Cruise blathering on about Scientology, which they had placed on their website. Show member "Kellie Rasberry" [sic] was defending his comments in the video, with the argument that all religious people think that they have the Answer, so she didn't think he should be criticized.

That alone tickled me awake, but then she offered the following case in point, which I'll paraphrase:

"Everyone thinks Tom Cruise is crazy for thinking that aliens live inside each of us, but as Christians we believe that the Holy Spirit lives inside us, so is he really so crazy after all?"

Oh, the irony, it is so delicious...

Skeptic Bible Study: Jesus Never Existed

2008-01-11T17:59:00.000-05:00

Jesus is the ultimate urban legend.

George H. Smith quasi-endorses Ron Paul

2007-12-31T16:05:00.000-05:00

George H. Smith, author of the famous introductory book on atheism "Atheism: The Case Against God," endorses Ron Paul for president in 2008.

An Atheist's Christmas Carol

2007-12-22T06:59:00.000-05:00

Libby Purves recently wrote in the Times:

Richard Dawkins, Prophet of Atheism, has said in a BBC interview that he is not against “cultural” Christianity and “Yes, I like singing carols along with everyone else”. Which raises enough tantalising philosophical and ethical questions to keep us going till Christmas Eve. Dawkins sings carols? Does he sing all the words? Does he boom out lines about herald angels, holy nights, the tender Lamb promised from eternal years?

...

But if you loudly and repeatedly make a career of denying any possibility at all of the reality of God, how honest is it to sing? How easy to reconcile? How insulting to those who mean every word of it?

Tantalizing, indeed. The veneer of hypocrisy seems to have been too attractive for Ms. Purves to let alone- though I daresay she, being both deist and carol-singer alike, may also be engaging in some cultural self-flagellation. The draw is obvious: the Great Atheist, the man who trumpets religion's flaws the world over, pauses at Christmastime to sing a few bars of "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing." If there's anything that titillates our interest more than hypocrisy, I'm not aware of it (although adding sex to the equation usually tips it past the boiling point, as the Spears family knows all too well).

But as with most outbursts of (false?) shock, this belies both a woeful ignorance of the accused, as well as a pathetically facile view of the cultural context. Dawkins has long voiced his support for the continuation of religion as a cultural curiosity, preserved in museums for edutainment purposes, much as we've done for the ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman religions. Would Ms. Purves think us ethically and philosophically out-of-bounds for watching "The Mummy Returns," even though we didn't really accept the mystical power of the Book of the Dead? Or does the Disney film "Hercules" promote rampant hypocrisy amongst our youth? It would be another thing entirely if Ms. Purves discovered Dawkins teaching Sunday School in some back-alley or basement, and snapped pictures of him as he desperately tried to hide the felt-board Jesus in his hand. But if she thinks that catching him with a carol in his mouth will shame him or inflame us, Ms. Purves clearly doesn't know Dick.

Nor does she know much about Christmas. At the risk of enraging the Christian Christmas Warriors out there, this season isn't exactly a high-water mark of Christian theology. The well-informed need no instruction on this, but the primary contribution of Christianity to Christmas is the name alone- virtually everything else about the holiday comes from other sources. The foundational, of course, is the winter solstice, celebrated by virtually all northern hemisphere cultures in antiquity (and, not coincidentally, which is occurring today). From that humble (yet important) beginning, we have Brumalia, with its feasting and merry-making; Saturnalia, with its gift-giving and social reversals; Natalis Solis Invicti, which set the date on December 25th and linked it with the birth of a god; Yule, which brought the Christmas tree, holly, mistletoe, and most of Santa Claus. Each of these are thoroughly pagan, and yet without any of them, Christmas just wouldn't be Christmas. In fact, if one wanted to be annoyingly picky about it (and one does, I'm sure), it could be argued that Christmas was stolen by the Christians, and that celebrating the holiday as a non-Christian is simply reclaiming its proper heritage.

But the Christians did write some lovely songs, didn't they? Of course they did- music is a key component to any celebration, and after Christmas was co-opted there were many theologically-oriented songs written. Some songs were co-opted as well, as "Greensleeves" became "What Child is This?" Others have mixed parentage: "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" was written by the proto-Methodist Charles Wesley, but the melody was written by Felix Mendelssohn, a Jew. Ultimately, of course, these songs represent a sampling of the best human musical talents throughout history, which anyone can be proud of, no matter their religious orientation. The music for "Cantique de Noël" (O Holy Night) was written by the 19th century French composer Adolphe Adam, and is my absolute favorite. The lyrics never were much of an interest to me- even as a Christian, one of my favorite versions of the song was as a French horn quartet, performed by the Canadian Brass. And my absolute favorite version (which can sometimes bring me to tears) is sung by Eric Cartman, featured below.

It's a true atheist's Christmas carol. Best wishes to you and yours, and I hope you enjoy whatever holiday you use to mark the winter's solstice.

Hitchens on Christmas

2007-12-21T11:41:00.000-05:00

The A.V. Club interviewed Chris Hitchens on his thoughts about Christmas.

A teaser:

AVC: Do you have any fond memories of any holiday?
CH: A Christmas one? Only when I spent it far from home, and preferably far from anywhere where the thing was celebrated. Which has become more difficult since I've become a father. When I was younger, I used to shake my girlfriend and go just as far away from where we would normally be as possible. And just try to forget the whole thing. Cuba's a good place for that. I went there also for the New Year for 1999-2000, because it was the only place in the world that did not call that the Millennium. Because Castro ruled, for once, quite rightly, that the Millennium is 2000-2001. This is the wrong year. That's actually quite true. So you could get away from all the incessant crap about Y2K. And also Christmas, they don't make a big deal of Christmas down there. I took the family on that occasion, and we had a great time. I think attitudes toward Christmas don't depend just on attitude to religion, but on what kind of family you had, and my family was one that didn't do very well with compulsory celebrations. Whether they were birthdays or any other kind. It was always a little tense.

You can get the rest here.

Flying The Christian Skies

2007-12-18T10:43:00.000-05:00

I recently returned from a long business trip; the flight wasn't too long, but most of the passengers were grumpy because the flight itself had been delayed several hours. The upshot of this meant that, at least for me, it would have been quicker to drive home than fly... but I digress.

Typically, when passengers disembark a plane they're met by one or more of the pilots or flight crew, to wish them well in the continuation of their journeys, and to express their gratitude for choosing their particular airline. This was the case here: both pilots were standing outside the cockpit, offering pleasantries to the passengers on the way out.

Just before I reached them, one of the pilots smiled at the fellow in front of me, and said, "Happy Holidays!" As I passed by them, the other pilot grimaced, looked over at his colleague, and offered this brief monologue:

"Happy Holidays? I don't think so. It's against my religion to say 'Happy Holidays.' We have rights too, you know."

Given that this particular airline operates in the heart of North Texas, it's a pretty safe bet that the guy wasn't a Jehovah's Witness, or any other religion that looks down on those who celebrate holidays. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to suggest that this fellow was expressing the popular 'War on Christmas' viewpoint perpetuated by cultural conservatives in this country- that saying 'Happy Holidays' is not only a betrayal of American culture, but it's actually a refutation against anyone who wishes to celebrate Christmas as a specifically Christian holiday.

While shaking my head silently as I walked up the gangway, I couldn't help but think of my piano teacher. As a young boy, I took piano lessons from a nice Jewish woman for several years- and every year at the proper time, I would wish her a 'Happy Hannukah.' In return, she'd wish me a 'Merry Christmas.' It seems to me that any well-wishing that's made should be done so in light of the recipient's particular celebration, not the other way around. If you want to give good wishes to a Jew, say 'Happy Hannukah.' If you want to do the same to a Christian, say 'Merry Christmas.' For a Muslim or a Hindu, you can wish a 'Happy Ramadan' or "Happy Diwali' respectively, once the calendar rolls around. But these specific wishes are dependent on knowing the specific religious (or cultural) affiliation of the person to whom you're offering them. In a situation where you don't know those affiliations, or you can count on them being diverse, 'Happy Holidays' is actually the most appropriate thing to say.

What I find particularly disturbing about the current Christian Christmas-warriors is that they've turned such a friendly, generous gesture into a selfish, divisive battle-cry. It used to be that 'Merry Christmas' meant, 'I wish for you a Merry Christmas.'

Now, it means, 'I celebrate Christmas, asshole, and if you don't like that you can go to hell.'

Christmas spirit, indeed.

Altar Boy defense tips

2007-12-18T03:19:00.000-05:00

http://blameitonthevoices.blogspot.com/2007/12/altar-boy-defense-tips.html

David Mills- an atheist in space

2007-12-16T21:32:00.000-05:00

Photo gallery of David Mills, author of "Atheist Universe," in space.

World History... with the Pope

2007-12-12T19:23:00.001-05:00

(click on image to enlarge)
Yea ok, besides the dig at the Confederacy it's still a funny cartoon.

The tiny, tiny Christian universe...

2007-12-11T13:39:00.000-05:00

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments11.htm?

Incredible as it may seem, many Christians today believe that a god created the universe approximately 6000 years ago. That means that everything in it, planets, stars, moons, comets, and even light itself, must have originated at the time (or after) the Great Creation. Consider that no energy or matter in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light. If you take the speed-of-light back in time 6000 years to the point of the alleged Creation, you get a spherical radius of only around 6000 light-years. This means that a 12,000 diameter light-year bubble represents everything that could possibly happen or exist within the time range of Christian chronology. Consider that the entire Christian universe cannot measure larger than a single average galaxy in the known universe! The miniscule Christian universe would sit as a tiny dwarf within single galaxy such as the Andromeda galaxy...

God's Little Object Lessons

2007-11-22T07:32:00.000-05:00

Within theistic worldviews, birth defects present a particularly troubling example of the Problem of Evil- the obvious question being, "if God is so loving, why would he cause children to be born physically deformed or developmentally disabled?"

John Wilson addresses this question, and points out that claiming these children to be the recipients of God's 'cruelty' or 'curse' is an insult to them and demonstrates ignorance of God's 'higher purpose.'

I don't think any parent of a disabled child would like the idea that their child is a curse to them. I'm sure there are difficulties but does that mean the child is useless? Does that mean that the parents can't learn anything from the child? Does the child not love?

...

This is another one of those arguments that is supposed to defend some people group from the likes of people who think God is loving. If I have a special needs child, the Lord would certainly be showing Grace by teaching me to love and be patient and understanding and allowing my heart to be changed to pour love on a child who, in the arms of some proponent of that argument, would apparently be hated.

The desire to see meaning and purpose in adverse circumstances is natural human psychology, and not something that I would normally take issue with. But John raises some interesting points that I think deserve robust commentary. Firstly, I would agree that no parent would want to see their child, no matter how disabled, as a 'curse' that exists for no other purpose than to demonstrate God's anger, and I would echo his sentiment that labeling such a child with that label is both dehumanizing and immoral.

The problem is that this is an explicitly Christian label, not one that stems from naturalism. The root of this can be found in Genesis 3, where Yahweh speaks curses into existence after he discovers that Adam and Eve have eaten from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Especially astute readers will note that only two curses are given in this passage: one to the serpent, and one to the soil. Neither Adam nor Eve are specifically 'cursed' by Yahweh, and in fact the only threat of death comes from Yahweh's removal of the two proto-humans from the Tree of Life, which it must be presumed could have sustained them otherwise. Later, as Jewish theology evolved, the concept that any physical disability or deformity was the province of Yahweh became more explicit:

Exodus 4: 'Who makes a person dumb or deaf, gives sight or makes blind? Is it not I, Yahweh?'

Strangely enough, even though such physical handicaps were the result of Yahweh's whim, they were clearly negative attributes, and any person burdened with such a condition was prohibited from partaking in many sacred activities:

Leviticus 21: Yahweh spoke to Moses and said: 'Speak to Aaron and say: "None of your descendants, for all time, may come forward to offer the food of his God if he has any infirmity, for non may come forward if he has an infirmity, be he blind or lame, disfigured or deformed, or with an injured foot or arm, a hunchback, someone with rickets or opthalmia or the scab or running sores, or a eunuch. No descendant of the priest Aaron may come forward to offer the food burnt for Yahweh if he has any infirmity; if he has an infirmity, he will not come forward to offer the food of his God. He may eat the food of his God, things especially holy and things holy, but he will not go near the curtain or approach the altar, since he has an infirmity and must not profane my holy things; for I, Yahweh, have sanctified them"'

More recent Jewish religious tradition reflected in the story of Job introduces the concept that not only is suffering and pain due to God's sovereignty, but it also reflects some kind of sin or impiety in the life of the person who receives it. As Job's friend Zophar tells him, in an effort to prompt confession and repentance:

Job 11: Come, reconsider your attitude, stretch out your hands towards him! If you repudiate the sin which you have doubtless committed and do not allow wickedness to live on in your tents, you will be able to raise an unsullied face, unwavering and free of fear, for you will forget about your misery, thinking of it only as a flood that passed long ago.

By the time of Paul the concept had progressed to the point where not only was the human condition the result of God's curse, and not only were physical hardships divinely mandated, and not only were they deserved as a response to sin, but in fact the continued existence of death and any suffering was directly due to the 'original sin,' which, though not literally supported, was at that point obscured by enough layers of tradition to be a plausible explanation when Paul needed a motivation for his casting of Jesus as the ultimate salvific agent:

Romans 5: Therefore, just as sin gained entry into the world through a single individual, with death arriving on sin's coat tails, death permeated all mankind since all sinned.

And thus, we can see that this concept, albeit perhaps not self-conscious of its own theological ontogeny, is thoroughly Christian in every way. Whether Christians like it or not, their own theology holds children with hydrocephalic skulls or spina bifida up as examples of the curse of God, leveled against mankind for the crime of eating a piece of fruit.

Lest I be accused of wrangling Christian theology without assessing the teachings of Jesus, his words in the Gospel of John are consistent with the preceding Jewish understanding, but plays down the causal impact of sin, instead introducing a novel spin on suffering as an opportunity for divine action:

John 9: And passing by, he noticed a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this poor wretch or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that the mighty works of God might be displayed through him."

And thus we reach the second point that John presents: that of handicapped or disabled children existing explicitly as educational tools, whether to demonstrate the power of God as with the blind man in John 9, or serving to bestow a lesson of Grace as John posits on his blog. While, as I said above, I can't find fault with parents wanting to find purpose in their child's misfortune, at the same time I can't help but see it as the most hollow purpose imaginable.

What this argument says, in essence, is that God purposefully gave these children malformed bodies in order to teach their parents a lesson. It may have been the case that the parents desperately needed such a lesson, and that their lives may be immensely improved because of their child's struggles, but I find it horribly immoral to cripple a person simply as an educational strategy. Surely we can expect that an all-good, all-powerful deity such as that posited by Christianity could come up with an alternative lesson plan for any subject that doesn't require causing babies pain.

Within my naturalistic worldview, of course, the idea that painful birth defects serve some divine purpose is absolutely nauseating. In my worldview, such events are what everyone recognizes them to be according to common sense: horrendous tragedies. This approach does not diminish the humanity of the afflicted, but provides a rational and visceral basis for human empathy, which is the very foundation of morality. We all may not be born with physical deformities, but we all come to know tragic circumstances throughout our lives, and approaching our fellow humans with real empathy is approaching them as equals, not embodied object lessons handed down from on high.

Conservative Values at Conservapedia

2007-11-22T02:54:00.001-05:00

In case you haven't heard, Conservapedia is a wiki designed to compete with the original Wikipedia with articles written from a conservative, Christian perspective. It is by conservatives, for conservatives.

Recently, Conservapedia released a list of their top ten most popular pages:

1. Main Page‎ [1,918,085]
2. Homosexuality‎ [1,593,887]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [517,613]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [421,466]
5. Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [396,972]
6. Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [395,731]
7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence‎ [373,441]
8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [331,802]
9. Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [292,928]
10. Homosexual Agenda‎ [271,288]

What a telling glimpse into the minds of those God fearing, afterlife anticipating, family values types.

What Does An Atheist Do?

2007-11-13T08:07:00.000-05:00

Following news of an unfortunate health problem with the family of a mutual friend of ours, John Wilson struggles to understand how atheists cope with these situations.

I mean this in as sincere a way as I can muster: what does someone who does not believe in God do with pain and death? Having a degree in Philosophy ensures that I have had and continue to get an earful of why evil means that God does not exist but not one time have I heard a good explanation from the other side as to the meaning of it.

...

I can pray for my friend and for his wife. I can pray for them both. I can offer up petitions and beg for her health. And maybe I am painting the ceiling with air. Maybe nothing is listening to me but my distant cousin, the cockroach. Then I am only participating in some art form handed down by some gene. Or my brain uses it to provide some societal function.

Do my prayers work? Are they mine that work or someone else's? I don't know. I don't need to know. A positive answer or a negative one does not change the fact that either way that pain is redeemed. And none of this solves anything.

And yet...I can pray.

A Christian can pray, sure.

An atheist can weep. Lacking any god-belief does not imply a lack of human empathy. The pain that occurs in the lives of others cuts us to the quick as surely as it does any believer, but we don't have access to the anaesthetic of concepts like divine providence or provenance, having given them up to avoid the unhealthy side effect of accepting life's blows like a battered wife. Human pain caused by natural happenstance is no less tragic, but is decidedly less masochistic than the alternative.

An atheist can act. Whether that be organizing the friends and family of a sick person to provide for their needs in times of trouble, or working diligently to find a cure for whatever horrible illness has befallen his or her fellow human, being an atheist means that you know that the here and now are what count, and no other agent can be counted on to intercede when things go sour. Being an atheist means that the onus of responsibility is on oneself, instead of being impotently projected outward.

An atheist can comfort. Although trememdous progress can be made by human efforts, nothing is ever complete. Even the latest and most advanced medications have a failure rate. Once everything humanly possible has been done, an atheist knows that the ultimate moral value is happiness, and tends it like a delicate flower. Not every disease can be cured, but even though our days are finite, if they are filled with happiness, they can be precious to us nonetheless. An atheist knows that its limitations make life special, just as the fleeting beauty of a rose blossom is something to be anticipated, enjoyed, and remembered.

Flew The Coop: A Conversion Tale

2007-11-08T10:01:00.000-05:00

Antony Flew is at the center of quite a bit of drama right now- though I daresay he's likely oblivious to it all.

Though his conversion from atheist to Deist has gained quite a bit of notoriety, the recent publication of a book attributed to him seeks to promote his story as an antidote of sorts to others who have moved in the opposite direction.

As such, this is likely to be an oft-quoted and frequently-cited book from Christian apologists far and wide.

Before you have to deal with any of this half-assery, I strongly suggest you read about the rest of the story.

Barker vs. Harris: Debate At UTA

2007-11-06T10:30:00.000-05:00

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, will be coming to the Dallas/Fort Worth area next Monday to speak to the Freethinkers of UTA (a member of the Secular Student Alliance), and will also be debating a local Christian apologist, Kevin Harris. Kevin is a regular participant in the Apologia discussion, and is the co-host of the Reasonable Faith podcast with Dr. William Lane Craig.

If you're local to D/FW, you really should come and see the debate- and that goes for both theists and atheists. I'd love to see a good mix of people there on Monday. Official information about the event can be found at the Freethinkers of UTA homepage.

Date: Monday, November 12, 2007
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: University of Texas at Arlington, University Center, Red River/Concho Rooms
Participants: Dan Barker (Atheist), Kevin Harris (Christian)

Click here for Google Map goodness to help find directions.

Oh, Snap!

2007-11-05T08:10:00.000-05:00

ERV seems to have a remarkable talent for putting Michael Behe in his place.

One defining characteristics of Creationists is that no matter what their educational background, their highest attained degree is treated as a carte blanche for authority in any topic under the sun. ... Hence no one should be surprised at your arrogance, claiming you know more about HIV-1 evolution than everyone in the HIV research community, even the people whose papers you chose to cite.

Though you, Behe, hump your credentials on the legs of every book you write and presentation you give, you curiously made the decision to exclude all of *my* research experience and chose to refer to me as some ‘woman.’

But your ability to ask questions and use PubMed has atrophied, Behe. Your only recourse to my essay was Creationism. You made the decision to ignore everything I said about Vpu's differential evolution between subtypes and pubjack a review like a Creationist.

So whats your deal? Is it just for the money? You’ve got a litter of kids, and I admit I would find the $20K you get for selling out rather tempting in todays funding climate. Do you just like how you get treated by your followers? Or do you like how you get treated by your opponents, in a Mel Gibson sort of way?

Oh, to not be Michael Behe right now...

Zeitgeist - The Movie

2007-11-03T21:09:00.001-04:00

Zeitgeist is an absolutely mind blowing experience. They are having a remastered version of it showing in Los Angeles sometime in early November. Check their official website for details.

Bible Murder Mystery

2007-10-31T09:03:00.000-04:00

In the spirit of Halloween, I thought that I'd spark a discussion of something truly horrific... murder most foul, and in the Bible, no less!

The mystery is a unique one, since the identities of both victim and murder are known- Balaam son of Beor, killed by the Israelites under Moses' command.

"So what's the big deal?" you might be wondering. "Tons of people were killed by the Israelites in those stories. Why is this particular man so special?"

While it's true that the ancient myths of the Israelites are chock-full of blood and gore, enough to make even modern stories like Hostel or Saw look mild by comparison, the intent behind all the death is usually made apparent. This person dared to touch the Ark of the Covenant, for example. Or this group of young boys made fun of a bald man. Or an entire town was particularly inhospitable.

But for Balaam, the continuing mystery is: what exactly did the guy do to deserve death? He's first introduced in Numbers 22, and meets his end in chapter 31 of that same book. I have some thoughts regarding the rationalization of his fate, but in the meantime, I'll entertain anyone's best guess.

Pope Nazinger: A Worthless Motherfucker

2007-10-30T16:11:00.001-04:00

Look what Pope Swastika recently said:

Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that pharmacists have a right to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing emergency contraception or euthanasia drugs and told them they should also inform patients of the ethical implications of using such drugs.

Benedict told a gathering of Catholic pharmacists that conscientious objection was a right that must be recognized by the pharmaceutical profession.

The Pope forgot to add that if you object to filling out prescriptions of any kind, then you shouldn't be a fucking pharmacist!

And he also forgot to add that while objection to contraception is a right that must be recognized by the pharmaceutical profession, getting fired for not doing your fucking job is also a right that must be recognized by the employees that refuse to fill said prescriptions!

Oh man does this piss me off, not only morally, but business-wise. I feel like I can't even use enough bold text in here to convey how outraged I am. If I got a problem defending criminals, then I shouldn't be a defense attorney. If I don't like condoms, then I shouldn't work for Trojan Condom Company. And if I got a problem filling up birth control prescriptions, then I shouldn't work in a pharmacy! How many different ways can I phrase it so that it will make sense to these retarded motherfuckers?

Hey, I'm an atheist. So I don't go around trying to get a job at your church, do I? I'll keep my atheist ass off your church employee roster, and you can keep your superstitious ass out of my pharmaceutical labor pool!

One final note: I know that pharmacies have to have provisions to get an alternate to fill the order if one clerk refuses, but if some asshole refuses to give a girl her Plan B pill, and she gets pregnant as a result, then that piece of shit should be financially liable for child support! It's only fair.

Happy Halloween

2007-10-29T22:40:00.001-04:00

Butchering the Sacred Cow

2007-10-25T16:45:00.000-04:00

I should preface this by saying unequivocably that I am no fan of J.K. Rowling or her books. I haven't read one, nor seen any of the derived movies (aside from commercials). And yet, I'm utterly fascinated by the furor surrounding the casual announcement that a key character was "always thought of as gay" by Rowling.

It wasn't just the howls of dismay, it's the sheer nastiness that accompanies them that's so odd. That an author so popular and so beloved would be told to shut up her big fat mouth since she's just plain wrong is remarkable, to say the least.

Most people are trying to couch their indignation in the language of art and literary theory, claiming that once she had finished the book, her input had ended, and no way is she gonna tell me who is and who isn't gay if I don't like it.

The reality is, of course her input doesn't end the minute she puts down her pen. Even the high-brow literary types have to admit that her opinion counts at least as much as the next reader, and that's all she was really offering anyway: her opinion about one of the characters.

In this age of printed text and copyright, storytellers have much more control over their characters than in ages past. These days, ideas have currency, and all of five minutes spent germinating a character with potentially international appeal could translate into a massive fortune. For those storytellers who have found popular success, special dispensation is given to the stories that they themselves create, even as their characters leave their aegis at first telling. The term 'canon,' more familiarly applied to Biblical stories, is even used to wall-off and separate those truly "authentic" stories from the cheap knock-offs crafted by those who have borrowed the characters, either legitimately or otherwise.

And 'canon' is the right word, to be sure. Imagine a similar situation occurring to a key character in the stories of the Biblical canon... let's say, Jesus. Is it that difficult to predict what might happen if, for example, an old text from a church father were to make the suggestion that Jesus was gay? Oh, right- that happened. It's not likely to be accurate, but I can't think of a single Christian who finds it plausible... because it conflicts with the picture of Jesus interpreted from the 'canon.' Never mind that no mention is made there of Jesus' sexuality one way or another, nor the fact that he's middle-aged and unmarried, hanging out with a bunch of guys all the time.

The fact of the matter is that 'canon' is just opinion, too. It's just the way the story happened to be told by one person, or agreed upon by a group of people. Nobody's confined to it, and it's subject to change. Just think of how the interpretation of the Tanakh changed after the Christians added their scriptures to it. But if those of us who are interested in figuring out the root of the Christian story deviate from 'canon,' what do we hear?

No way are they gonna tell me who is and who isn't myth if I don't like it!

Google #1 Meme

2007-10-24T16:30:00.000-04:00

With a hat tip to World's Fair (and Larry and PZ), I'll indulge in the new meme:

Five Googled Phrases That Return This Blog As The #1 Site

lee strobel fake atheist
rush limbaugh anti religion
does Christianity glorify death?
religious moral systems
sexual goosing meth

...interesting, and that seems about right. While I'm at it, I'll check out which phrases list Evolution 101 as the #1 hit:

do men have milk ducks
how homosexuality evolved
time before a woman orgasm
why men have mammary glands
do all mammals have nipples

Filthy stuff, that. Clearly, the popularity of the podcast is due to its prurient interest.

Creation Museum Pics

2007-10-22T09:10:00.001-04:00

It's been a while in coming, I know, but I finally made room on my website for all my Creation Museum thoughts and musings. These include several pictures that I haven't displayed before. You can find them here... enjoy!

Atheists and Anger

2007-10-17T10:17:00.000-04:00

From Greta Christina's Blog.

I get angry when religious believers make arguments against atheism -- and make accusations against atheists -- without having bothered to talk to any atheists or read any atheist writing. I get angry when they trot out the same old "Atheism is a nihilistic philosophy, with no joy or meaning to life and no basis for morality or ethics"... when if they spent ten minutes in the atheist blogosphere, they would discover countless atheists who experience great joy and meaning in their lives, and are intensely concerned about right and wrong.

Clash of Faiths: Muslims in Texas

2007-10-11T09:26:00.001-04:00

The Islamic Center of Irving, Texas (just outside Dallas)

This past Sunday, after the NTCOF service, I had planned to meet a new friend at the Jason's Deli fellowship lunch/blood drive, so that I could give him a copy of the William Lane Craig presentation on DVD. When he stopped by, I asked if he had any time to stick around and chat with the friendly Freethinkers, but he said that he wanted to head over to the Islamic Center of Irving for their (regular) Open House event. After spit-taking my chocolate soft-serve/root beer float (it's delicious), I quickly inquired where it was located, since I've been looking for an excuse to interact with some Muslims on thier own turf recently, and this was just about as good as I was going to get.

The ICI Entrance and Foyer

This group of Muslims has been active in Dallas for well over 15 years, and have somewhat recently built their own masjid, after meeting in private homes, hotels, and rented commercial space. It ranks in size with most of the more moderate Christian megachurches in the area, and is at least as architechurally attractive as the best of them. Having a strictly geometrical aesthetic tradition, it's not too terribly surprising that their architecture is so impressive. Aside from that difference, there wasn't that much about the place that didn't remind me of any other average Christian church- bulletin boards, pamphlets, warm lighting all around. There were plenty of masjid members immediately outside and in the foyer, all with smiling faces and friendly attitudes, happy to welcome any and everyone inside and direct them to the registration table, where we received gift bags containing a (English translation of the) Qur'an, a number of informational pamplets and brochures, and a booklet detailing all the (groan) scientific discoveries that were predicted by the Qur'an.

The main prayer room

One of the things that was somewhat disquieting to me personally was the obvious evidence of gender segregation in the place. There's a separate "Sisters' Entrance" and "Sisters' Prayer Room," and all the female members were wearing hijab. Of course, I reminded myself that one really doesn't have to look far from orthodox Christianity to find a lot of the same stuff- Mormonism, especially the fundamentalist variety, gets very close to this same concept, and you probably don't have to try very hard to find similar female roles in hard-core fundamentalist orthodox Christian communities either. Hell, the Shaker movement claimed complete segregation of the genders to be an article of faith, and even built it into their architecture!

After registering at the entrance, guided tours commenced that wound through the masjid, showing us the washing areas (used by the men prior to prayer), the masjid store (sold hard-to-find treats, candies, and Muslim literature), the prayer rooms, some of the schoolrooms (they run a K-12 educational program), and upstairs to a sort of fellowship hall (serving Middle-eastern refreshments), which led into a room set up with lots of chairs ready for a presentation.

Yaseen Black explains that Muslims love Jesus too

My friend was already in the room, and since it was packed (with people from apparently a wide variety of backgrounds), I sidled around the back and took a spot near the front right. I was somewhat surprised to see two white guys sitting at the table in the front while the Imam recited verses from the Qur'an, but I figured they were there as representatives of the community or local government, there to lend their support to the Muslims during a time of inter-cultural and -religious interaction. Imagine my surprise when they were introduced as Khalil (Eric) Meek and Dr. Yaseen (Jason) Black, two Muslim members. In fact, Khalil Meek is active with the Dallas chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, being somewhat uniquely qualified for the role after converting to Islam while studying to become a Southern Baptist preacher.

They took turns talking to the crowd about Islam, with the major points being:

Islam is a religion of peace
Muslims love Jesus just as much as (if not more than) Christians
Muslims don't mistreat women.

Regarding the first point, they stressed that Islam is nothing more than submission of one's will to the One God, which I have to admit, sounds a lot like any of the other two large monotheistic religions, and of course, they claimed all of the Jewish prophets (as well as Jesus) as good Muslims. Regarding the second point, they claimed that as a good Muslim (and second only to Mohammed), respect and reverence for Jesus is important to all Muslims. It's just that the Christians who wrote down his words later added to them (I'm on board with that) either intentionally or inadvertently obscuring the fact that the historical Jesus preached Islam (not so much on board with that). To bolster their third point, they claimed that the hijab is a directive from God, and so Muslim women are showing their respect and worship towards Him when they follow his orders (it just happens to be a coincidence that this also follows sociological patterns of female ownership).

Why don't Muslims accept the historical truth of Jesus' resurrection?

After the presentations, they opened the floor for questions from the audience. I was somewhat expecting the questions to be genuinely curious about Islam, but they ended up being largely confrontational, or at least somewhat accusatory. They amounted to, essentially: "Why don't you believe in Christianity?" There seemed to be a genuine bafflement among those Christ-followers in the audience as to why, if these Muslims worshiped the One True God, respected all the prophets from Adam to Jesus, rejected evolution and equitable gender roles, they wouldn't just go the whole hog (so to speak) and become Christians?

This was perhaps the most entertaining part of the experience for me. Given my perspective, there's very little in terms of fundamental theological differences (just the identity of Jesus, really) between them. It was also interesting to see crossed apologetic swords, as in the video above- my friend asks why they deny the resurrection of Jesus, and the Imam gives the classic Muslim docetic response. It kills me when religious apologists from different faiths use their standard arguments on each other, expecting them to be bulletproof. At any rate, it was bizarre to see Christians walk into a masjid and take Muslims to task for their religious beliefs... it'd be like a Protestant walking into a Catholic church and asking the priest why he believes in the doctrine of transubstutation. Or like an orthodox Christian walking into a Mormon temple and asking why they believe Jesus appeared in America. Apparently Muslims are just different enough that they have to make an extra effort to justify their presence in America... and Austin Cline suggests that the sense of Christian nationalism may have something to do with this.

From where I stand, though, this is just one more sign that religious diversity is on the rise here in the states (even in Texas!), when there almost as many Muslims as Presbyterians. I see this as an even stronger indication that common understanding needs to be sought among all parties, theists and nontheists, as well as every variation on either side. That's the only way we're going to be able to make progress without succumbing to violence and immorality.

Borrowing the Silver Lining

2007-10-02T21:19:00.000-04:00

It's been a while since I've been to a Christian church service... essentially, since I've found myself an atheist. But as I've gotten more involved in the North Texas Church of Freethought, I've become more and more interested in "rediscovering" the Christian church experience, if only to find out if there are religion-neutral qualities to them that might be useful to the NTCOF.

To this end, I've spent the past few weekends visiting some Southern Baptist churches in my area. Southern Baptists, of course, being the predominant Protestant demonination in the state, outnumbering the next-highest demonination (Methodists) by 3 to 1. I've been to most other major demoninations in my time (Presbyterian, Catholic, Lutheran) as well as any number of non-denominational churches. But I've never really been to a good ol' Texas-style Southern Baptist church. Part of this is because I have some good friends that are members of this denomination- staying away from it has been partially intentional, almost like I would for a friend who desperately loves a movie that I find completely distasteful- not watching it means that he never has to hear me say how little I regard something in which he finds deep meaning.

But, these guys are pretty popular, so I thought that I would check them out to see if there was anything helpful they offered. I was somewhat surprised at how similar the services were among different churches- the basic formula went something like this:

Worship songs
Prayer
Announcements
Sermon
Altar Call
Offering

I'll point out a few details that I observed, and the silver lining that could be applicable to my needs:

Worship songs: These were generic, upbeat, and repetitious. I suppose it's somewhat cliched to criticize the use of contemporary Christian pop instead of hymns, but I still felt queasy having to listen to them. Of course, having grown up on "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," "And Can It Be That I Should Gain," and "I Greet Thee, Who My Sure Redeemer Art," that may just be my own personal preference. Still, I couldn't help but notice that although their repetitiousness and simplicity is useful to help the (lazy? amelodic?) congregation sing them, they also lend themselves well to a kind of psychological... I'm not sure if I want to say "conditioning," but I'm not sure what else to call it when two hundred people repeat "He knows my name" time after time after time. This is definitely a big draw- there's almost always a multi-intstumental band, a choir, and a choir leader that seems to channel (to varying degrees) the Reverend Cleophus James- with the congregation clapping along and (horror!) applauding after each song. The last song tends to be a huge crescendo, both musically and emotionally, and once it ends the congregation is clearly excited, happy, and ready to hear anything that comes next.

Silver Lining Factor: I don't think that the content of the songs really matters that much. People just enjoy being part of a show- it was very much like being at a concert. This is definitely something that can be reproduced without supernatural content.

Sermon: These were all delivered by well-rehearsed, talented public speakers. The basic undercurrent of each was (in various ways) to provide a sense of meaning and purpose to life (by becoming better Christians, natch). There was also a recurring theme of distinguishing the congregation ("the church") from everyone else ("the world"). This made me a little uncomfortable, because (although I realize this recalls psychological conditioning practices) it struck me as the kind of in-group/out-group conceptualizing that has supported all kinds of religious and social problems throughout human history. Happily, I also heard an emphasis on doing good works as a congregation, particularly as a way to become a better person (by being a good Christian).

Silver Lining Factor: I don't think it would be difficult to have good public speaking skills, and I think it would make sense to emphasize meaning and purpose for Freethinkers and atheists. I also think that there are plenty of oppurtunities for the NTCOF to engage in more charitable activities, and these could give the congregation a stronger connection to each other.

Altar Call: There's no way that anything like this would be possible in a Freethought church, but I did find it fascinating nonetheless. The best pastors moved seamlessly from their sermon into the altar call, usually by carefully crafting the emotional content of their message to peak right before the altar call was made (although there is no altar, and it was not called such). At this point, a handful would march to the steps around the pastor, usually break down crying, and pray. I noticed that most of these individuals usually came from the front row, and was reminded that it tends to be the most pious who are most concerned with their sins. Invariably, the music returned just before this began, and was kept at a subdued level throughout, as the emotions flowed out. It seemed to me that the entire congregation enjoyed a collective cathartic expiation through those that did find the courage to prostrate themselves in front of everyone else... and this gradually waned as the music transitioned into a feature song to be used as an offeratory.

Silver Lining Factor: Clearly, it makes sense to ask for money at the end of the performance, especially after taking everyone through the emotional roller coaster ride of the initial worship songs, then the sermon, and then the resolution of the altar call. It would probably make the most sense to pair any request for money with whatever emotionally-variable content is is the service.

Given my outsider perspective, the psychological content of the average Southern Baptist service appears more clearly, and I'm not sure if I want to use the same kind of methodology in a Freethought context. Even though all supernatural content can be stripped out, it does seem to me to be unethical to use such a manipulative technique- even though it very well may be the most effective way to get a message across.

I'll put it to the readers here- how far is too far to go when borrowing techniques from a Christian church for use in an equivalent situation for Freethinkers?

The Onion: Open Relationship With Jesus

2007-09-26T17:01:00.000-04:00

For those Christians who insist that a close, personal relationship with Jesus Christ is the only way to grow spiritually, this is the only reasonable outcome...

Fundamentalist Discord

2007-09-24T08:46:00.000-04:00

Hemant Mehta invited a fundamentalist Christian to his blog to answer questions. For the most part, she answered like she was supposed to:

Is there any scientific/religious disagreement in human history that you can point to where religion has been proven right, and science has been proven wrong?

At one time, the most up to date science there was thought that the earth was flat. The Bible had said already that it was round.

But her answers about how she was raising her daughter were encouraging:

I am trying daily to teach my daughter to think for herself. I don’t want anyone to make her choices for her, her friends, her future mate, or her mom and dad. Nobody can control her but her. Her choices will dictate where her life goes. I tell her often that all we can do is her parents is give her the best information we have to give to try and help her make good decisions, but all the deciding about who she’ll be and what she’ll do with her life is up to her.

...

We expect and even encourage our daughter, and will with our son once he’s old enough to understand, to question what she believes and why she believes it. A belief that won’t stand up to questioning isn’t really much of a belief.

However, when asked a specific question about questioning beliefs, she falls back in line:

Is there any amount of evidence that would be able to dissuade you of your belief in the Bible?

I guess the short answer to that question is no. I have struggles with belief from time to time, times where I feel very close and connected to God, and times where I feel really ticked at Him and want to pull the covers over my head and tune out and forget about church or anything like it. But as much as I can struggle or not like the way some things go on, there really is no other way of life for me. I’ve tried life without God and, for me, that just doesn’t work.

The upshot of this is that she sounds magnanimous by claiming that her children are free to question their beliefs, but she doesn't allow for the possibility of there being any other answer than the truth of Christianity. Like most Christians, her subjective experiences trump anything else that can be shown her, and that spells trouble down the road if either of her children allow themselves to consider the evidence impartially and objectively.

Hemant Mehta on Beliefnet

2007-09-22T23:18:00.000-04:00

Hemant Mehta was recently interviewed by Beliefnet. It's a pretty good interview, mostly concerned with his book I Sold My Soul on eBay, but there was also this little gem:

You also said that you rarely feel lonely or apathetic, and that being an atheist actually gives you confidence and more passion to help people than, for example, when you were being raised as a Jain.
When I was religious, if we knew a friend that was going through a rough time or we saw homeless people on the street, I would always hear, "You should pray for them,"or be thankful that God didn't put you in that situation. There was nothing, when I was growing up, about whether we should actually go out and make them lunch or build houses or something like that. And once I became an atheist, it was very clear that I can do something for people who are less fortunate. No God is going to do it for them. I need to get out and donate blood or donate money to causes that help those groups of people. I'm not saying Christians wouldn't do that, but their reasoning for doing it is very different. I actually think the atheist reasoning--that we have to help them because God's not going to do it--is a more moral way than to say, “Pray for them” or “We should do it because God wants us to.”

Bill Maher: We're Not The Crazy Ones

2007-09-22T11:31:00.001-04:00

Bill Maher, as always, delivers the goods.

True Biblical Interpretation

2007-09-12T08:38:00.000-04:00

Over at Kevin Harris' blog, his brother Craig and I were discussing the interpretation of specific Biblical passages, and I could not understand how certain orthodox interpretations were known to be so certainly true. For example, Craig was adamant that Genesis 3 "provides incredible symbolism of a serpent (Satan) striking the heel of the woman’s offspring (Christ),"even though neither of those two parenthetical characters are mentioned in the text.

Now I think I have found some insight, courtesy of the Penitent Atheist. In his blog, he describes how, as a former pastor, he considered it part of his job description to "explain away" troubling inconsistencies such as that above. He also gives instructions on how to approach the Bible correctly, without the orthodox assumptions that color one's interpretation.

What he describes is similar to my own watershed realization: that if the Bible is truly the word of God, then any neutral assessment should show it to be so, even without the presupposition of divine inspiration. His conclusion from that point mirrors mine uncannily.

via Atheist Revolution

Australian Pastor is a Modern Day Lot

2007-09-07T13:35:00.000-04:00

Finally, a pastor who lives up to Biblical standards:

A fundamentalist church pastor had sex with two of his teenage daughters to educate them on how to be good wives, a South Australian court has heard.

The 54-year-old man, who cannot be named, was yesterday sentenced in the SA District Court to eight and a half years jail after pleading guilty to seven counts each of incest and unlawful sexual intercourse.

The court heard that the man had sex with his daughters for nearly a decade from 1991 when they were aged 13 and 15 at the family property.

The sex took place at various locations including in a shearer's shed, a paddock, on the back of a ute and, on one occasion, at the girls' grandparents house.

The man told the court the sex was not about fulfilling his desires but about teaching his daughters how to behave for their husbands when they eventually married, as dictated in scripture.

Truly, a man of God. This guy has more Godly conviction than Lot ever had! You see, Lot was seduced by his daughters, but this Aussie took it to the next level and initiated the sex himself.

Now that this preacher finally got caught for raping his daughters for almost a decade, you would think that the authorities would lock him up and throw away the key. But no, that's not quite what they did:

Judge Lovell gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as his wife and the church remained supportive.

The man will be eligible for parole in four years.

Unfortunately, the Australian justice system seems to be seriously confused. Here is a situation where a preacher commits incest with his two daughters, motivated directly by his faith, and freely admits it. And then, the court promises to go lenient and let him out early because he has the support of his fellow cultists, whom all share the same faith that got him in trouble in the first place!

Logically, if a man rapes his own offspring and claims religious motivations for it, wouldn't the promise of continued support from that very religion and its adherents serve as a reason for the judge to extend, rather than shorten, the offender's prison sentence? Isn't that judge's thought process completely ass-backwards?

To me, it's like releasing a crack addict early from a rehab center due to the promise of extensive outside support from the crack-smoking community. But then again, it's not like we can trust the government to make rational decisions in these matters, can we?

Corporate Chaplains?

2007-09-05T19:10:00.000-04:00

Austin Cline has my head reeling.

And they're based in Dallas, no less!

I Hunger, Therefore I Am

2007-09-01T01:55:00.000-04:00

Funny and witty: "The Philosophical Revelations of Sinistar."

What is Christianity?

2007-08-31T15:51:00.000-04:00

The Creation Museum: A Brief Tour

2007-08-29T11:19:00.000-04:00

Recently, I visited my hometown of Cincinnati. While there, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to visit the Creation Museum run by Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis.

I realize this is somewhat belated, given that there was a huge spike of interest right after it opened at the beginning of the summer. But just as I wanted to see the Discovery Institute Road Show for myself, I also wanted to see the Ken Ham Crowd personally.

Obviously, the pseudoscience of this place has been well-documented, and there's very little I can add in that regard. What I can provide is my impression of the place- without a doubt, this is no "Creation Museum," is is a "Christian Museum."

The entirety of the media on display is not really scientific in nature- sure, there are 25-cent words here and there, and authoritative-looking illustrations, but the real message throughout the museum hung like a droning voice throughout the halls... "The Bible is true... God exists... Jesus will save you..." It was, essentially, a subconscious mantra that pounded incessantly and (for the Christians, anyway) comfortingly into the ears of those present.

Which were substantial, by the way. I showed up before it opened on a weekday, and already there were people lined up, both in large church/school groups, as well as families and individuals. The whole time I was there, the place seemed filled to capacity. And this supports my appraisal of the place as a distinctly Christian attraction- AiG is well known as a young-Earth organization, a minority position within Creationism at large. Several of the Christians that I talked with afterwards admitted that there were many facts presented there that were inaccurate, but felt that the overall message was important enough to overlook them. One notable example of this is the way they portrayed Noah's flood- as caused by a giant tsunami, similarly to that seen in Evan Almighty, but not as written in Genesis.

Ultimately, I see this museum as a defensive move on the part of Creationism. It's the product of a mindset that wants to preserve a particular worldview that can gain no traction in real scientific museums, and builds a monument to it lest it be lost altogether. And that really does seem to be the appeal- there aren't any good shrines to Christianity here in the New World, but this museum comes about as close as you can get.

Mother Theresa, an atheist?

2007-08-27T23:25:00.000-04:00

Was Mother Theresa driven to torture herself by her immoral actions? Did she doubt the existence of God? It seems that way.

Although perpetually cheery in public, the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God. She is acutely aware of the discrepancy between her inner state and her public demeanor. "The smile," she writes, is "a mask" or "a cloak that covers everything." Similarly, she wonders whether she is engaged in verbal deception. "I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'"