If an adult purchases or consumes certain chemical compounds, in the privacy of their own home, they get caged for a portion of their lifespan. #EndTheWarOnDrugs
If a person assists another person in peacefully ending bodily functions, at their behest, they get caged for a portion of their lifespan. #RightToDeathWithDignity
People often slice off sections of flesh from the bodies of their newborn infants. #EndRoutineInfantCircumcision
When children do not behave in accordance to adult expectations, a parent will often use repeated forceful impacts on their body in hopes that the resulting pain and fear will deter the behavior. #SpankingIsNeverOkay
Some people think eating cow flesh is normal and eating dog flesh wrong. Some people think eating dog flesh is normal and eating cow flesh wrong. #EatingFleshIsWrong
Most people around the world claim to know exclusive details pertaining to why we're here, and what happens to us after our deaths. It usually happens to resemble what others in their area say. #FaithIsNotAReliableSourceOfKnowledge
In most places around the world, a topless man is perfectly acceptable, while a topless woman is censored on TV, and arrested or fined in person. #FreeTheNipple
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
Thursday, 25 June 2015
Why the Southern States wanted to secede from the Union.
There's this defense of the confederate flag out there that says, "the flag isn't about racism and the southern states didn't want to leave the union primarily over the issue of slavery, but rather the rights of the states to decide their own laws". I think this can only be settled by the states' declarations of succession.
From the Texas Letter of Secession:
From the Mississippi Declaration of the Causes of Secession:
From the Georgia Declaration of the Causes of Secession:
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
From the mouth of the Confederate States' Vice President, Alexander Stephens:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
As for the argument for states' rights, their complaint was highly hypocritical, as they argued against the northern states' rights to not return escaped slaves.
The South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession, (In which, slavery is referenced 18 times while states rights is only referenced twice) complains about non-slave states not obeying the federal laws requiring the return of escaped slaves.
The rights of the states was not the real reason for their secession, and only added that when it suited them. I think the states' declarations speak for themselves. In the same way the Southern Baptist Convention split from the Baptists over slavery, so did the southern states split from the Union.
From the Texas Letter of Secession:
"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."
From the Mississippi Declaration of the Causes of Secession:
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
From the Georgia Declaration of the Causes of Secession:
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
From the mouth of the Confederate States' Vice President, Alexander Stephens:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
As for the argument for states' rights, their complaint was highly hypocritical, as they argued against the northern states' rights to not return escaped slaves.
The South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession, (In which, slavery is referenced 18 times while states rights is only referenced twice) complains about non-slave states not obeying the federal laws requiring the return of escaped slaves.
"The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article, provides as follows:
“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”...
...But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them."
The rights of the states was not the real reason for their secession, and only added that when it suited them. I think the states' declarations speak for themselves. In the same way the Southern Baptist Convention split from the Baptists over slavery, so did the southern states split from the Union.
Wednesday, 27 May 2015
Looking further at the intersection of faith and science
It's interesting to see an interactive graph of the religions who do and do not state openly if evolution or the big bang is in conflict with their religion.
Here's the graph: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/religion-and-science-distance-between-not-as-far-as-you-think_b_2664657.html
And here's the survey itself: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/survey.html
The major denominations that state there's a conflict:
- Southern Baptist Convention
- Lutheran Church Missouri and Wisconsin Synod
- Presbyterian Church of America
- Free Methodist
- 7th Day Adventist
- Jehovah's Witnesses
Here's the graph: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/religion-and-science-distance-between-not-as-far-as-you-think_b_2664657.html
And here's the survey itself: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/survey.html
The major denominations that state there's a conflict:
- Southern Baptist Convention
- Lutheran Church Missouri and Wisconsin Synod
- Presbyterian Church of America
- Free Methodist
- 7th Day Adventist
- Jehovah's Witnesses
The rest either pretty much openly state that there's no conflict, or have no official position posted. This surprises me. I must be missing some aspects of modern theology that allows for this coexistence. Of course, the same goes for most people. While 46% of Americans believe in a literal understanding of Genesis and a <10,000 year old Earth, only 11% of Americans belong to a denomination which openly states evolution and an old Earth are in conflict with their faith.
Monday, 25 May 2015
I don't know how Christians are able to reconcile evolution with God...
I didn't very spend much longer as a Christian after I accepted evolution. I couldn't reconcile a benevolent god using possibly one of the cruelest methods imaginable to "mold" the thinking, feeling, life forms we see today. It relies on suffering to progress. I remember the moment it hit me. I was watching a David Attenborough documentary where he explained a basic observation Darwin made that caught him on to evolution. Animals, from the fish in the sea, to the rabbits on land, to the birds in the sky, must produce many offspring. Two parent birds must produce many more offspring than just two in order to keep their numbers stable because most of their children will never make it to reproduction themselves. Most will die from the harsh competition in the environment. Not only must the siblings survive external predators, and internal diseases until then, but they must also compete against each other for food, for mates, for homes, etc., and the number of offspring needed to keep numbers stable increases exponentially the lower you are in the food chain. Just look at how many eggs that frogs, fish, and insects must produce to hold extinction at bay. How many untold numbers of their offspring must be sacrificed to keep alive the many tiers of predators above them.
How malicious is a being who creates a planet of living things who must survive by ripping other living things out of the ground, snatching them out of the sky, or hunting them and ripping the living flesh from their bones? With so many forms of energy available what kind of mind creates a planet full of things which rely on metabolic energy? I can accept the existence of the food chain in a non-theistic evolution worldview, but if the claim put forward is that this was planned, thought out, or designed, then that designer is a sinister being who is watching every one of its children rip apart one another to survive. That god is not for me.
I'll end with a Hitchens quote:
"Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.
Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene', and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person."
How malicious is a being who creates a planet of living things who must survive by ripping other living things out of the ground, snatching them out of the sky, or hunting them and ripping the living flesh from their bones? With so many forms of energy available what kind of mind creates a planet full of things which rely on metabolic energy? I can accept the existence of the food chain in a non-theistic evolution worldview, but if the claim put forward is that this was planned, thought out, or designed, then that designer is a sinister being who is watching every one of its children rip apart one another to survive. That god is not for me.
I'll end with a Hitchens quote:
"Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.
Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene', and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person."
Saturday, 25 April 2015
The Top Six Facebook Pages That Replace Science With Woo
On Facebook, I frequently see shared posts that look interesting at first sight, but after a little reading, are nothing but woo. What is "woo"?
Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.
1. The Mind Unleashed tops the list with 6.6 million followers. It's a pseudoscientific, woo-peddling, click bait website with a propensity to misrepresent data from studies and present it as scientific fact for their own gain. On it you may find things like vaccine hysteria, food woo, including opposition to GMOs and gluten, UFOs/aliens, vibration healing, HAARP weather manipulation, chemtrails, and quantum misrepresentation.
2. Spirit Science comes in next with 5.1 million followers. Created by Jordan Pearce, the site promotes a wide range of New Age woo including but not limited to astral projection, chakras, crystal woo, orgone energy, quantum woo and sacred geometry. Watch a video of Jordan infiltrating an hospital operating room, and then complain about the lack of "healing crystals".
3. Collective Evolution with only 1.7 million followers. CE is a woo-mongering click bait website. They label themselves as an alternative news source that seeks to expand their way of "thinking" to create "big change" on the planet. On it you may find vaccine fear mongering, quantum woo, aliens, Illuminati and 9/11 conspiracies, and various types of food woo.
4. Natural News with 1.4 million followers. NaturalNews.com is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike Adams which promotes numerous alternative medicines and assorted woo. The site particularly specializes in vaccine denialism, AIDS/HIV denialism, quack cancer treatments, and conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma", and modern medicine. Furthermore, Adams supports quantum woo, specifically quantum healing and quantum consciousness. Natural News advances a hard green position, even though the site also promotes global warming denialism.
5. World Truth with 1.1 million followers. It's a website run by a man named Eddie Levin, who claims to have "spent the last 32 years researching Theosophy, Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, the Bavarian Illuminati and Western Occultism". On it, you'll find things like "cleansing" diets, global warming denialism, vaccine hysteria, and most importantly, antisemitism, claiming that The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is an authentic manual on how Jews are going to take over the world.
6. Food Babe with 950,000 followers. The usual ration of nature woo crap. She's strongly anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, pro-organic, chemophobic, the whole works. She's a raw milk advocate and a nitrite basher. She's a fan of Masaru Emoto's water woo. She's claimed that the pressurized cabins in airliners compress your internal organs, and that the cabin air can contain "up to 50% nitrogen." Essentially, she fancies herself a consumer advocate whose job it is to protect you from toxic food ingredients, with said toxicity determined by how scary or unfamiliar the name of the ingredient is. In reality she uses fear as a selling strategy. Her products mainly consist of items from companies she has a commission referral system in place with. Ms. Hari demonstrates little to no dignity or humility when challenged by experts. A National Public Radio (NPR) article on 4-December-2014 covered her irresponsible tactics and was scathing as it identified her as a fear-monger. In response, Ms. Hari has recently written an essay to portray herself as the victim of corporate shills.
Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.
1. The Mind Unleashed tops the list with 6.6 million followers. It's a pseudoscientific, woo-peddling, click bait website with a propensity to misrepresent data from studies and present it as scientific fact for their own gain. On it you may find things like vaccine hysteria, food woo, including opposition to GMOs and gluten, UFOs/aliens, vibration healing, HAARP weather manipulation, chemtrails, and quantum misrepresentation.
2. Spirit Science comes in next with 5.1 million followers. Created by Jordan Pearce, the site promotes a wide range of New Age woo including but not limited to astral projection, chakras, crystal woo, orgone energy, quantum woo and sacred geometry. Watch a video of Jordan infiltrating an hospital operating room, and then complain about the lack of "healing crystals".
3. Collective Evolution with only 1.7 million followers. CE is a woo-mongering click bait website. They label themselves as an alternative news source that seeks to expand their way of "thinking" to create "big change" on the planet. On it you may find vaccine fear mongering, quantum woo, aliens, Illuminati and 9/11 conspiracies, and various types of food woo.
4. Natural News with 1.4 million followers. NaturalNews.com is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike Adams which promotes numerous alternative medicines and assorted woo. The site particularly specializes in vaccine denialism, AIDS/HIV denialism, quack cancer treatments, and conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma", and modern medicine. Furthermore, Adams supports quantum woo, specifically quantum healing and quantum consciousness. Natural News advances a hard green position, even though the site also promotes global warming denialism.
5. World Truth with 1.1 million followers. It's a website run by a man named Eddie Levin, who claims to have "spent the last 32 years researching Theosophy, Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, the Bavarian Illuminati and Western Occultism". On it, you'll find things like "cleansing" diets, global warming denialism, vaccine hysteria, and most importantly, antisemitism, claiming that The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is an authentic manual on how Jews are going to take over the world.
6. Food Babe with 950,000 followers. The usual ration of nature woo crap. She's strongly anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, pro-organic, chemophobic, the whole works. She's a raw milk advocate and a nitrite basher. She's a fan of Masaru Emoto's water woo. She's claimed that the pressurized cabins in airliners compress your internal organs, and that the cabin air can contain "up to 50% nitrogen." Essentially, she fancies herself a consumer advocate whose job it is to protect you from toxic food ingredients, with said toxicity determined by how scary or unfamiliar the name of the ingredient is. In reality she uses fear as a selling strategy. Her products mainly consist of items from companies she has a commission referral system in place with. Ms. Hari demonstrates little to no dignity or humility when challenged by experts. A National Public Radio (NPR) article on 4-December-2014 covered her irresponsible tactics and was scathing as it identified her as a fear-monger. In response, Ms. Hari has recently written an essay to portray herself as the victim of corporate shills.
Friday, 24 April 2015
A Small God.
When Carl Sagan spoke of people wanting their god small, I think many people misunderstood what he meant. The god people often describe is infinite, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. This is a big definition for sure, but God's definition and biblical actions are oceans apart. Scientists like Sagan, who have a greater glimpse of the immensity, intricacy, and elegance of nature see this juxtaposition better than anyone.
Would the artist of auroras choose one tribe over another, destroying their enemies.
Would the creator of chromosomes command his tribe of goat herders to cut off a part of their penis?
Would the engineer of evolution care for the life being shaped by it?
Would the designer of dopamine expect moral perfection from brains awash in it?
Would the maker of molecules care about what a specie of apes in the Milky Way galaxy do in their bedrooms?
Would the author of atoms demand female virginity and obedience to their husbands??
Would the artist of auroras destroy city walls or take sides in tribal conflicts in Palestine?
The god portrayed in the old testament seems so small-minded, human-centered, and he thinks like you would expect humans at the time would. He rules like a king, which is people governed themselves. Sought progress through conquest, opposed rival tribes, and demanded women's place in society to be subservient to men. The bible reads like it was written by primitive, small-minded men, not an all-knowing, cosmic perspective divinity.
Would the artist of auroras choose one tribe over another, destroying their enemies.
Would the creator of chromosomes command his tribe of goat herders to cut off a part of their penis?
Would the engineer of evolution care for the life being shaped by it?
Would the designer of dopamine expect moral perfection from brains awash in it?
Would the maker of molecules care about what a specie of apes in the Milky Way galaxy do in their bedrooms?
Would the author of atoms demand female virginity and obedience to their husbands??
Would the artist of auroras destroy city walls or take sides in tribal conflicts in Palestine?
The god portrayed in the old testament seems so small-minded, human-centered, and he thinks like you would expect humans at the time would. He rules like a king, which is people governed themselves. Sought progress through conquest, opposed rival tribes, and demanded women's place in society to be subservient to men. The bible reads like it was written by primitive, small-minded men, not an all-knowing, cosmic perspective divinity.
Wednesday, 7 January 2015
Why I changed my position on abortion
I'm going to lay out what convinced me to change my view on the legality of abortion this past year or two, both for my own clarity and the interest of others.
First, I'll do what most abortion rights advocates don't do: concede that the fetus and the mother have equal rights to autonomy. I don't believe this, but for the sake of my point, I'll let that go. However, the fetus' own autonomy is dependent upon the mother relinquishing hers, so we now have two equal, competing autonomies. What tips the balance against legal abortions, opponents would say, is that the stakes lean very far in one direction. Time-wise, the mother loses 9 months, and the fetus loses the *potential* for an entire lifetime.
To explore this, I'm going to use some analogies, or "intuition pumps" that are somewhat similar to allow our own intuition to clarify some of the murkiness of the issue. No analogy is perfect since pregnancy is unique with its mix of involuntary actions the body does, and voluntary actions that people do, but I think it clarifies nonetheless.
Suppose a man is dying, and the only way he can survive is if someone else is hooked up to him intravenously for 9 months; he must have an I.V. connect him to someone else and use their circulatory system to filter his blood. Would it be nice if someone volunteered to do this? Definitely. Does the government, another person, or even the sick man himself have the right to force someone else to relinquish their autonomy to do this? I don't think so.
Let's take it a step further and suppose that a man volunteered to be connected, but later reneges on the offer and wants to disconnect. Should the man be forced to continue being connected; abstaining from things like alcohol so his liver can filter enough for the both of them? Does he still have the right to his autonomy? Should he still have the choice to disconnect at his choosing? Yes.
I think this clarifies what many people already believe: In cases such as rape, incest, or medical peril for the mother, there should be the right to abort. I think it also points out that if abortion is legal, it should be legal at any point in the pregnancy.
Let's take it a step further and suppose that a man volunteered to be connected, but later reneges on the offer and wants to disconnect. Should the man be forced to continue being connected; abstaining from things like alcohol so his liver can filter enough for the both of them? Does he still have the right to his autonomy? Should he still have the choice to disconnect at his choosing? Yes.
I think this clarifies what many people already believe: In cases such as rape, incest, or medical peril for the mother, there should be the right to abort. I think it also points out that if abortion is legal, it should be legal at any point in the pregnancy.
Now what about the women who could have prevented this situation entirely? Let's use another analogy. Suppose a woman has a child with a rare kidney disease. Suppose the woman knew before her pregnancy that she had these genes and knew there was a decent probability the child would get it. Now at 10 years old, the doctors say the only way the child can possibly survive another year is if the mother gives up one of her kidneys.
Would a mother that deeply cares about her child do this? Of course.
But on the off chance the mother doesn't care enough to undergo the operation, should the mother be legally forced to give up one of her kidneys? No. Whether she knew this might happen years ago or just didn't think about it, her autonomy is her own just as the child has their own.
So even if a woman becomes pregnant through her own volition or carelessness, she does not concede her legal autonomy. I may, considering the details of individual cases, consider her to be morally lacking. I may be able to cite numerous reasons for an abortion to be immoral, but I can't cite a single reason to legally require someone to maintain a pregnancy.
The morality of the situation and legal responsibility of the individual are separate issues.
Would a mother that deeply cares about her child do this? Of course.
But on the off chance the mother doesn't care enough to undergo the operation, should the mother be legally forced to give up one of her kidneys? No. Whether she knew this might happen years ago or just didn't think about it, her autonomy is her own just as the child has their own.
So even if a woman becomes pregnant through her own volition or carelessness, she does not concede her legal autonomy. I may, considering the details of individual cases, consider her to be morally lacking. I may be able to cite numerous reasons for an abortion to be immoral, but I can't cite a single reason to legally require someone to maintain a pregnancy.
The morality of the situation and legal responsibility of the individual are separate issues.
Remember that in a free society, we begin with all rights and freedoms, and then limit each right only when there is due cause to restrict them.
I could go on since the more I read, the more reasons I find to support abortion rights, but I think I'll stop there because that addresses the main issue I see coming from the other side.
Wednesday, 10 December 2014
U.S. Torture Report.
Reports like this remind me that I pledge allegiance to humanity first, and the country second. As Germany sought to commit crimes against decency and humanity, those that pledged allegiance to the Motherland, carried out those acts or looked the other way. Those that pledged allegiance to ALL humanity tried to stop it within Germany like Schindler, or left Germany like Einstein. I hope we keep our perspective on the bigger picture and seriously try to change this trend. We are a lonely speck of pale blue, united against the universe!
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/09/coming-clean-with-bloodstained-hands-senate-torture-report-cia-bush-administration-obama/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/09/coming-clean-with-bloodstained-hands-senate-torture-report-cia-bush-administration-obama/
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
The zombie apocalypse of 1814
Suppose I told you there was a zombie uprising in Kalamazoo, MI in the year 1814. A whole bunch of dead people rose from their graves and walked around in the streets, where lots of people saw them.
How do I know this? I read a report written by someone who knew all about it. It was written anonymously in the year 1874, but it greatly corroborates with another report written in 1854. Well, copied actually, but there are some unique additions as well. The horde of zombies is one of them.
But wait, although this 1854 account was also written anonymously, and doesn't mention a horde of zombies rising from the dead, it DOES mention two specific people rising from the dead:
How do I know this? I read a report written by someone who knew all about it. It was written anonymously in the year 1874, but it greatly corroborates with another report written in 1854. Well, copied actually, but there are some unique additions as well. The horde of zombies is one of them.
But wait, although this 1854 account was also written anonymously, and doesn't mention a horde of zombies rising from the dead, it DOES mention two specific people rising from the dead:
-The pastor of John the Baptist Church
-The daughter of a man named Jacob
There is also a more prophetic account written after both of these in 1894 that says it will happen again, and the only way to survive the coming zombie apocalypse, is to believe the first one happened. Sure, no witnesses in Kalamazoo around 1814 wrote about it, but I think these other reports are enough to go on, and besides, what if it's true and zombies are coming any day now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose I told you that several bodies of the dead rose in Jerusalem in the year 30 A.D. A whole bunch of dead people rose from their graves and walked around in the streets, where lots of people saw them.
How do I know this? I read about it in the book of Matthew 27:51-53. Matthew was written anonymously in the year 90 A.D., but it greatly corroborates with the book of Mark, written in 70 A.D. Well, copied actually, but there are some unique additions as well. The dead walking the streets is one of them.
But wait, although this 70 A.D. account (Mark) was also written anonymously, and doesn't mention dead people walking the street, it DOES mention two specific people rising from the dead:
-The daughter of a man named Jacob
There is also a more prophetic account written after both of these in 1894 that says it will happen again, and the only way to survive the coming zombie apocalypse, is to believe the first one happened. Sure, no witnesses in Kalamazoo around 1814 wrote about it, but I think these other reports are enough to go on, and besides, what if it's true and zombies are coming any day now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose I told you that several bodies of the dead rose in Jerusalem in the year 30 A.D. A whole bunch of dead people rose from their graves and walked around in the streets, where lots of people saw them.
How do I know this? I read about it in the book of Matthew 27:51-53. Matthew was written anonymously in the year 90 A.D., but it greatly corroborates with the book of Mark, written in 70 A.D. Well, copied actually, but there are some unique additions as well. The dead walking the streets is one of them.
But wait, although this 70 A.D. account (Mark) was also written anonymously, and doesn't mention dead people walking the street, it DOES mention two specific people rising from the dead:
-A rabbi named Jesus
-The daughter of a man named Jairus
There is also a more prophetic account written after both of these in 110 A.D. (the gospel of John) that says Jesus is coming back, and the only way to survive the coming apocalypse, is to believe in Jesus. Sure, no witnesses in Jerusalem around 30 A.D. wrote about it, but I think these other reports are enough to go on, and besides, what if it's true and judgement is coming any day now?
-The daughter of a man named Jairus
There is also a more prophetic account written after both of these in 110 A.D. (the gospel of John) that says Jesus is coming back, and the only way to survive the coming apocalypse, is to believe in Jesus. Sure, no witnesses in Jerusalem around 30 A.D. wrote about it, but I think these other reports are enough to go on, and besides, what if it's true and judgement is coming any day now?
Sunday, 13 July 2014
Where I now stand on the immigration debate.
I recently read about some very extremist opinions and actions being taken about illegal immigration happening on the southern U.S. border. (It's never the northern border, I wonder why that is...) I realized I've not expressed my very polarized switch on the immigration debate, so I figured now is as good a time as any.
I used to be all about building up the border. I remember joking with a friend in high school about setting up sniper towers along the border, and while I don't think I actually would have said to kill anyone, I wouldn't have been against the intimidation of warning shots.
How do we Americans regard the lives of others with so little empathy? If a 6 year old boy being led by his 12 year old sister knocked on our door, the vast majority of us would get them a meal, a bed, and call social services to make sure they're well cared for and get a good start on life. How does our thinking change so drastically when we find out their parents are down in Columbia? Think about how dire their situation must be for their parents to consider sending their children by themselves to America, praying that our hearts aren't icy enough to turn them down.
We're not going to go broke feeding, clothing, and educating children, yet that's at the top of the opposition's mind. It amazes me how America can go fight foreign wars without thinking about the costs of paying for them, but when it comes to caring for and educating children, we ask why they should be OUR problem.
While I don't think a decent person would require a "what's in it for us" perspective to get motivated, I'll include it anyway. Don't forget the baby boomers are starting to retire. Don't forget younger generations are having less kids, AND waiting longer to have them. Don't forget that the baby boomers will be the longest lived generation yet, requiring services, and will be drawing from social security that whole time. We NEED an influx of young, educated, taxpayers.
So my position is to let them in. Give them a path to citizenship, feed them, clothe them, house them, educate them, put the American sticker on them for whatever it's worth, and stop viewing them as so different from ourselves. From space, national borders are not apparent, and any differences we perceive in ourselves from the people below a particular latitude are entirely human constructs.
I used to be all about building up the border. I remember joking with a friend in high school about setting up sniper towers along the border, and while I don't think I actually would have said to kill anyone, I wouldn't have been against the intimidation of warning shots.
How do we Americans regard the lives of others with so little empathy? If a 6 year old boy being led by his 12 year old sister knocked on our door, the vast majority of us would get them a meal, a bed, and call social services to make sure they're well cared for and get a good start on life. How does our thinking change so drastically when we find out their parents are down in Columbia? Think about how dire their situation must be for their parents to consider sending their children by themselves to America, praying that our hearts aren't icy enough to turn them down.
We're not going to go broke feeding, clothing, and educating children, yet that's at the top of the opposition's mind. It amazes me how America can go fight foreign wars without thinking about the costs of paying for them, but when it comes to caring for and educating children, we ask why they should be OUR problem.
While I don't think a decent person would require a "what's in it for us" perspective to get motivated, I'll include it anyway. Don't forget the baby boomers are starting to retire. Don't forget younger generations are having less kids, AND waiting longer to have them. Don't forget that the baby boomers will be the longest lived generation yet, requiring services, and will be drawing from social security that whole time. We NEED an influx of young, educated, taxpayers.
So my position is to let them in. Give them a path to citizenship, feed them, clothe them, house them, educate them, put the American sticker on them for whatever it's worth, and stop viewing them as so different from ourselves. From space, national borders are not apparent, and any differences we perceive in ourselves from the people below a particular latitude are entirely human constructs.
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
A Non-Believer's Thoughts on "Ask It" by Mega Pastor Andy Stanley.
I was recently given a recommendation to listen to a lecture series by mega pastor Andy Stanley. Since I'm the type of person who absorbs more information while taking notes, I did just that. Then I formatted them into a more readable blog format and added my own thoughts. The series can be found at Justaskit.org
Part 1: Question Everything.
This first part I found kind of...hypocritical. The title is called "Question Everything." What is the first thing he says before he starts? "If you're not a bible believing person, I want you to suspend your skepticism about the bible." Basically, question everything...except the bible. Then he says "Let's start with the words of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians." I guess I'm also supposed to suspend the fact that we don't know who wrote the words, or that most biblical scholars believe it was actually a second generation of Christians who wrote Ephesians specifically. Also, suspend the thought that of the 14 books in the New Testament attributed to Paul, only 7 are considered authentically authored by Paul himself.
Yet, I can see what he wants to get across. It doesn't matter who I think wrote these particular words. Wisdom is wisdom, whether spoken by a saint or a sinner, a wise man or a fool.
He wants us to ask ourselves "What is the wise thing to do? Not the right thing to do, or the legal thing to do, or what works for other people." At this point, I mentally added "Don't ask what the bible says to do, it specifically states a follower shouldn't question everything, but rather just have faith that they're right." Although, I don't think that's what he had in mind. What he meant was "question everything inside this box."
In totality, I agreed with most of what he said. Be wise, skeptical, and plan your future. Learn from the past so you can live in the present in a way conducive to your future.
“The future depends on what you do today.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Part 2: Musical Chairs.
There are three ways people can be unwise:
Inexperienced - When a person hasn't had the time or opportunity to be corrected or taught.
Fools - When a person has the experience, knows something is wrong, but does it out of apathy.
Mockers - When a person has vocal disdain for people whom he knows are right.
Inexperienced people, through no fault of their own, may be unwise about something. Everyone has been this type of unwise. When not concerned over miscommunication, I like to use the word ignorant. Unfortunately people tend to misinterpret ignorant to mean stupid. It just means a person doesn't have knowledge or experience in a particular area. A 15 year old is ignorant of love. A person without children is ignorant of parenthood. When Dawkins or Nye say someone is ignorant of evolution, what they mean is the person hasn't taken the time to learn or understand it enough to refute it. I think a humble person would say they are ignorant of more things than they are knowledgeable.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
- Benjamin Franklin
When I think of his definition of fools, I get a sense of not only apathy, but also of false security. I think the target people for this message are apathetic believers. They believe their religion is true, but they don't care much about it, even though they know they should. I would take it a step further. What is the reward from gaining a degree? Opportunity. What is the consequence of lacking one? Generally, less opportunity. We spend about 4 years of our lives to gain that degree. Now, what is the reward for gaining knowledge and understanding about the creator of the universe? In many religions, eternal/infinite bliss. What about the consequence for failing to do so? Eternal/infinite agony. I think if people truly dropped their apathy about religion, they would schedule time regularly to study the various Christian theologies, as well as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. With so much at stake, why assume you were born into the correct religion? Sure, Christians feel confident because of faith, but so do Muslims and Jews. No matter which one (if any) turns out to be right, it will be a minority of the Earth's population.
When I think of mockers, I think of the religion debating forum on Reddit. It's one of the most active forums for religious discussion on the internet. There is only one rule: No ad hominems! You may not mock someone for their beliefs or lack of beliefs. You may not attack someone's character. Discussions are carried out in civility and rationality without personal attacks. Besides, people who resort to "Well, you don't know anything, you're an evil atheist/Christian/Jew/Muslim" usually do so because their argument has failed them. One can critique views and ideas without criticizing the person holding them, indeed that's how we handle ourselves in politics and other conflict resolution situations elsewhere!
Part 3: Time Over Time
"Time is important and priceless because it's set. You can't get any more. Time spent investing in your health, family, relationships, and spiritual self is cumulative. Neglect is cumulative as well."
I totally agree. I think the main thing I've been neglecting would be my health. Everyone uses winter as an excuse for not working out, but it can't be an excuse for me because I have access to decent indoor equipment. Plus, we just bought a rower that I haven't used once... >.>
He mentioned we shouldn't read the bible all at once. I'm not totally sure what he means, but I do think its a good idea for the sake of continuity and tone to try and read each individual book (maybe with the exception of a few of the longer books) in one sitting. When I read through it, I decided to set aside a couple hours every time I wanted to start and finish the next book I was on. The gospels especially have very different emphases and if they mesh together in your mind over time, you may miss something the individual authors were stressing in particular.
I think his emphasis for this talk was to make time for your spiritual needs in particular. Ironically, this something that lead to my deconversion. I had just gotten married, I had to quit my part-time job in order to plan and attend my double international wedding. After we married, I spent most of my time in Canada. I couldn't get a job in Canada until my Permanent Resident card was obtained. We also didn't want me to go back to work in Michigan because it would mean we had to be apart. With all of this free time, I felt the need to get to know God and Jesus more. Although we agreed on most things, my Catholic wife and I differed on some things. So I made a goal to research and pray until I knew God more than I ever had. I read books that had been on my book list for years. I was at church every week and went to bible study every week for six months. One of the first things I discovered was there wasn't much reason to believe in the rapture. (Or at least like my favorite book series "Left Behind" had portrayed it.) It's only a belief for a minority of protestant denominations, but the book series had convinced me of it. Upon discovering this misinterpretation, I wondered what else I had believed without researching. I started frequenting Jewish forums to find out why they reject Jesus as the messiah. I read through Muslim forums to find out why they (along with Jews) rejected god being part of a trinity. I started taking free online classes. (yes, they exist!) One class was on the origins/authorship of the Pentateuch, (First five books of the bible) and another on New Testament authorship/history. With these added perspectives, I was free to make my own conclusions. I started watching debates archived on YouTube. I frequented religion debate forums. Agnostics and atheists seemed to always make the best arguments and seemed the most humble. I started reading atheist books. They cemented my agnosticism into atheism.
For me, the act of honestly, prayerfully, and studiously seeking God led to my skeptical view of theism.
I still go to church, sometimes go to bible study, and I'm still not done researching. Right now, I'm taking an online course from Harvard about early Christianity and the letters of Paul. I encourage others to seek with everything they have as well.
Part 4: Edged Out
Don't assume "If something isn't wrong, then it's right."
I agree. Take any class on ethics and they will explain that morality isn't black and white, but comprised of many shades of grey.
"A series of unwise decisions often precede a major bad decision."
Also true and noteworthy.
"Whether you believe it's inspired or not, you should read the New Testament for moral teachings."
I agree, and although I prefer Thomas Jefferson's version, there are good things to be taken from it either way. Some aspects of Jesus's teachings are definitely beneficial to reflect on. Just like some of Gandhi's, Buddha's, Confucius', and Plato's teachings are also beneficial. Although each religion has some people who claim their holy book is the sole source of moral teachings, I think everyone should read the wide range of authors throughout history.
My skeptic side can't help but kick in and think about how one of Jesus' best moral examples likely never happened. The story of the adulterous woman (he without sin cast the first stone) isn't found in any of the earlier versions of the book of John. It appeared in much later copies in the footnotes section and later was inserted into the book itself. It doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript until the 5th century, and no Greek church father comments on the story prior to the 12th century. So this particular moral lesson is likely thanks to an unknown 5th century theologian rather than Jesus himself.
He spends most of his time on sexual morality. If we don't define sexual morality the bible's way, I agree with what he says. In most of the western world, monogamy is expected. Breaking the trust of your spouse is probably the most devastating thing you could do to them. While Christian teachers and theologians have changed their definition of sexual morality over time, (i.e. They eventually excluded marriage between first cousins and eventually included inter-racial marriages.) the lesson that it might be one of the slipperiest slopes with the most devastating of consequences has held true.
Being an awkward, introverted (especially around girls) nerd most of my life, I couldn't really relate to this part as much as others might have. It was still worth watching just the same.
Part 5: Hold My Hand
"Don't make decisions based on emotions."
I would add "don't go grocery shopping while you're hungry" to that list as well!
"Private decisions have public consequences." Definitely. One of the reasons secular people have become so vocal and political is because the private beliefs of some people are being forced into the public square onto others who don't subscribe to the faith. For Christians, homosexuality is a sin, and in a nation where Christianity is the state religion, (Like England) it wouldn't be considered a valid marriage, and would probably even be considered an illegal activity. When the founding fathers fled other nations with state religions, they set up a secular constitution so that people not of the same (or any) faith tradition wouldn't have to be subjected to the religious edicts of others.
"Wise people know what they don't know, and they're not afraid to engage the people who know. They aren't too prideful or arrogant to think they know."
I love this. It's one of the reasons I frequent Reddit. I made an account and customized my feed so it gives me discussions within the Christian community, the atheist community, the conservative and liberal communities, and also several debating communities. I remain open to further change, and I'm always willing to share what I've learned thus far.
This quote also sounds a lot like one of the wiser men in recent times, physicist Richard Feynman. He was considered the smartest man in the world since Einstein. He once said:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, in different degrees of certainty... But I'm not absolutely sure of anything and of many things I don't know anything about. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things."
I also think of the anonymous quote, "When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest." I think this can be said of a wise man as well.
I think a more subtle idea he was hinting at, which he kind of mentioned at the very end, was to accept the wisdom of God and Jesus. I'm guessing this was intended for the believers in the audience because to an atheist, it makes as much sense as "accept the wisdom of Allah, Mohammed or Athena." Human history is filled with wise people, Solomon included. There is plenty of wisdom offered throughout history for both believers and non-believers to saturate their lives with.
Part 6: The Beginning
"We all need help from others in painting out our lives."
I agree. Family, friends, and people with experience from whom we can draw wisdom.
"Specifically, we need God's help in our lives."
I guess it depends on the god. Some religions see humans as autonomous and independent. Some see humans as dependent. Christianity is one of those. I've found I'm just as happy, if not happier as an agnostic atheist though.
"To make wise decisions in any arena requires an understanding of, and submission to, the principles and rules that govern that arena."
He used driving as an example, but how do we learn the principles and rules of an "arena?" We use science, reason, and evidence.
"The principles and rules inform the decision making process."
True, and how do we decide which religion to subscribe to? We use the principles and rules of logic and reason. Even a believer would say God gave us these tools to assess truth.
"The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the lord and the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of God is the understanding. All who follow God's precepts gain understanding."
If we applied this in today's multicultural reality without making the assumption that the religion we were born into is right, it would take us forever to go through even just the major religions. As things are, the Christians just submit, the Muslims just submit, and the Jews just submit. Yet, they're all still convinced they submitted to the right god. "Submission first" is an ineffective way to discern truth. Besides, Solomon said this as a theocratic ruler. Of course he would want them to submit first and ask questions later. Mohammed said similar things. "Islam" after all means "submission to God."
"Science and faith don't conflict.
"I'm guessing he takes the modern view that if science reveals something to be true, (evolution, big bang, etc.) it must be how god did things. That's exactly how I saw things. We need more Christian theology like that. We need less segregation and less assuming that one's interpretation is infallible. We also need more curiosity and open mindedness.
Final Thoughts:
Overall I'm glad I watched them all. It was thought provoking and reminded me a lot of self help/motivation techniques. In fact, that's exactly what I would label it. (save for the last part tying the previous 5 to the Jewish god.) The overall summary would be "Think about your future before you act!"
Part 1: Question Everything.
This first part I found kind of...hypocritical. The title is called "Question Everything." What is the first thing he says before he starts? "If you're not a bible believing person, I want you to suspend your skepticism about the bible." Basically, question everything...except the bible. Then he says "Let's start with the words of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians." I guess I'm also supposed to suspend the fact that we don't know who wrote the words, or that most biblical scholars believe it was actually a second generation of Christians who wrote Ephesians specifically. Also, suspend the thought that of the 14 books in the New Testament attributed to Paul, only 7 are considered authentically authored by Paul himself.
Yet, I can see what he wants to get across. It doesn't matter who I think wrote these particular words. Wisdom is wisdom, whether spoken by a saint or a sinner, a wise man or a fool.
He wants us to ask ourselves "What is the wise thing to do? Not the right thing to do, or the legal thing to do, or what works for other people." At this point, I mentally added "Don't ask what the bible says to do, it specifically states a follower shouldn't question everything, but rather just have faith that they're right." Although, I don't think that's what he had in mind. What he meant was "question everything inside this box."
In totality, I agreed with most of what he said. Be wise, skeptical, and plan your future. Learn from the past so you can live in the present in a way conducive to your future.
“The future depends on what you do today.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Part 2: Musical Chairs.
There are three ways people can be unwise:
Inexperienced - When a person hasn't had the time or opportunity to be corrected or taught.
Fools - When a person has the experience, knows something is wrong, but does it out of apathy.
Mockers - When a person has vocal disdain for people whom he knows are right.
Inexperienced people, through no fault of their own, may be unwise about something. Everyone has been this type of unwise. When not concerned over miscommunication, I like to use the word ignorant. Unfortunately people tend to misinterpret ignorant to mean stupid. It just means a person doesn't have knowledge or experience in a particular area. A 15 year old is ignorant of love. A person without children is ignorant of parenthood. When Dawkins or Nye say someone is ignorant of evolution, what they mean is the person hasn't taken the time to learn or understand it enough to refute it. I think a humble person would say they are ignorant of more things than they are knowledgeable.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
- Benjamin Franklin
When I think of his definition of fools, I get a sense of not only apathy, but also of false security. I think the target people for this message are apathetic believers. They believe their religion is true, but they don't care much about it, even though they know they should. I would take it a step further. What is the reward from gaining a degree? Opportunity. What is the consequence of lacking one? Generally, less opportunity. We spend about 4 years of our lives to gain that degree. Now, what is the reward for gaining knowledge and understanding about the creator of the universe? In many religions, eternal/infinite bliss. What about the consequence for failing to do so? Eternal/infinite agony. I think if people truly dropped their apathy about religion, they would schedule time regularly to study the various Christian theologies, as well as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. With so much at stake, why assume you were born into the correct religion? Sure, Christians feel confident because of faith, but so do Muslims and Jews. No matter which one (if any) turns out to be right, it will be a minority of the Earth's population.
When I think of mockers, I think of the religion debating forum on Reddit. It's one of the most active forums for religious discussion on the internet. There is only one rule: No ad hominems! You may not mock someone for their beliefs or lack of beliefs. You may not attack someone's character. Discussions are carried out in civility and rationality without personal attacks. Besides, people who resort to "Well, you don't know anything, you're an evil atheist/Christian/Jew/Muslim" usually do so because their argument has failed them. One can critique views and ideas without criticizing the person holding them, indeed that's how we handle ourselves in politics and other conflict resolution situations elsewhere!
Part 3: Time Over Time
"Time is important and priceless because it's set. You can't get any more. Time spent investing in your health, family, relationships, and spiritual self is cumulative. Neglect is cumulative as well."
I totally agree. I think the main thing I've been neglecting would be my health. Everyone uses winter as an excuse for not working out, but it can't be an excuse for me because I have access to decent indoor equipment. Plus, we just bought a rower that I haven't used once... >.>
He mentioned we shouldn't read the bible all at once. I'm not totally sure what he means, but I do think its a good idea for the sake of continuity and tone to try and read each individual book (maybe with the exception of a few of the longer books) in one sitting. When I read through it, I decided to set aside a couple hours every time I wanted to start and finish the next book I was on. The gospels especially have very different emphases and if they mesh together in your mind over time, you may miss something the individual authors were stressing in particular.
I think his emphasis for this talk was to make time for your spiritual needs in particular. Ironically, this something that lead to my deconversion. I had just gotten married, I had to quit my part-time job in order to plan and attend my double international wedding. After we married, I spent most of my time in Canada. I couldn't get a job in Canada until my Permanent Resident card was obtained. We also didn't want me to go back to work in Michigan because it would mean we had to be apart. With all of this free time, I felt the need to get to know God and Jesus more. Although we agreed on most things, my Catholic wife and I differed on some things. So I made a goal to research and pray until I knew God more than I ever had. I read books that had been on my book list for years. I was at church every week and went to bible study every week for six months. One of the first things I discovered was there wasn't much reason to believe in the rapture. (Or at least like my favorite book series "Left Behind" had portrayed it.) It's only a belief for a minority of protestant denominations, but the book series had convinced me of it. Upon discovering this misinterpretation, I wondered what else I had believed without researching. I started frequenting Jewish forums to find out why they reject Jesus as the messiah. I read through Muslim forums to find out why they (along with Jews) rejected god being part of a trinity. I started taking free online classes. (yes, they exist!) One class was on the origins/authorship of the Pentateuch, (First five books of the bible) and another on New Testament authorship/history. With these added perspectives, I was free to make my own conclusions. I started watching debates archived on YouTube. I frequented religion debate forums. Agnostics and atheists seemed to always make the best arguments and seemed the most humble. I started reading atheist books. They cemented my agnosticism into atheism.
For me, the act of honestly, prayerfully, and studiously seeking God led to my skeptical view of theism.
I still go to church, sometimes go to bible study, and I'm still not done researching. Right now, I'm taking an online course from Harvard about early Christianity and the letters of Paul. I encourage others to seek with everything they have as well.
Part 4: Edged Out
Don't assume "If something isn't wrong, then it's right."
I agree. Take any class on ethics and they will explain that morality isn't black and white, but comprised of many shades of grey.
"A series of unwise decisions often precede a major bad decision."
Also true and noteworthy.
"Whether you believe it's inspired or not, you should read the New Testament for moral teachings."
I agree, and although I prefer Thomas Jefferson's version, there are good things to be taken from it either way. Some aspects of Jesus's teachings are definitely beneficial to reflect on. Just like some of Gandhi's, Buddha's, Confucius', and Plato's teachings are also beneficial. Although each religion has some people who claim their holy book is the sole source of moral teachings, I think everyone should read the wide range of authors throughout history.
My skeptic side can't help but kick in and think about how one of Jesus' best moral examples likely never happened. The story of the adulterous woman (he without sin cast the first stone) isn't found in any of the earlier versions of the book of John. It appeared in much later copies in the footnotes section and later was inserted into the book itself. It doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript until the 5th century, and no Greek church father comments on the story prior to the 12th century. So this particular moral lesson is likely thanks to an unknown 5th century theologian rather than Jesus himself.
He spends most of his time on sexual morality. If we don't define sexual morality the bible's way, I agree with what he says. In most of the western world, monogamy is expected. Breaking the trust of your spouse is probably the most devastating thing you could do to them. While Christian teachers and theologians have changed their definition of sexual morality over time, (i.e. They eventually excluded marriage between first cousins and eventually included inter-racial marriages.) the lesson that it might be one of the slipperiest slopes with the most devastating of consequences has held true.
Being an awkward, introverted (especially around girls) nerd most of my life, I couldn't really relate to this part as much as others might have. It was still worth watching just the same.
Part 5: Hold My Hand
"Don't make decisions based on emotions."
I would add "don't go grocery shopping while you're hungry" to that list as well!
"Private decisions have public consequences." Definitely. One of the reasons secular people have become so vocal and political is because the private beliefs of some people are being forced into the public square onto others who don't subscribe to the faith. For Christians, homosexuality is a sin, and in a nation where Christianity is the state religion, (Like England) it wouldn't be considered a valid marriage, and would probably even be considered an illegal activity. When the founding fathers fled other nations with state religions, they set up a secular constitution so that people not of the same (or any) faith tradition wouldn't have to be subjected to the religious edicts of others.
"Wise people know what they don't know, and they're not afraid to engage the people who know. They aren't too prideful or arrogant to think they know."
I love this. It's one of the reasons I frequent Reddit. I made an account and customized my feed so it gives me discussions within the Christian community, the atheist community, the conservative and liberal communities, and also several debating communities. I remain open to further change, and I'm always willing to share what I've learned thus far.
This quote also sounds a lot like one of the wiser men in recent times, physicist Richard Feynman. He was considered the smartest man in the world since Einstein. He once said:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, in different degrees of certainty... But I'm not absolutely sure of anything and of many things I don't know anything about. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things."
I also think of the anonymous quote, "When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest." I think this can be said of a wise man as well.
I think a more subtle idea he was hinting at, which he kind of mentioned at the very end, was to accept the wisdom of God and Jesus. I'm guessing this was intended for the believers in the audience because to an atheist, it makes as much sense as "accept the wisdom of Allah, Mohammed or Athena." Human history is filled with wise people, Solomon included. There is plenty of wisdom offered throughout history for both believers and non-believers to saturate their lives with.
Part 6: The Beginning
"We all need help from others in painting out our lives."
I agree. Family, friends, and people with experience from whom we can draw wisdom.
"Specifically, we need God's help in our lives."
I guess it depends on the god. Some religions see humans as autonomous and independent. Some see humans as dependent. Christianity is one of those. I've found I'm just as happy, if not happier as an agnostic atheist though.
"To make wise decisions in any arena requires an understanding of, and submission to, the principles and rules that govern that arena."
He used driving as an example, but how do we learn the principles and rules of an "arena?" We use science, reason, and evidence.
"The principles and rules inform the decision making process."
True, and how do we decide which religion to subscribe to? We use the principles and rules of logic and reason. Even a believer would say God gave us these tools to assess truth.
"The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the lord and the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of God is the understanding. All who follow God's precepts gain understanding."
If we applied this in today's multicultural reality without making the assumption that the religion we were born into is right, it would take us forever to go through even just the major religions. As things are, the Christians just submit, the Muslims just submit, and the Jews just submit. Yet, they're all still convinced they submitted to the right god. "Submission first" is an ineffective way to discern truth. Besides, Solomon said this as a theocratic ruler. Of course he would want them to submit first and ask questions later. Mohammed said similar things. "Islam" after all means "submission to God."
"Science and faith don't conflict.
"I'm guessing he takes the modern view that if science reveals something to be true, (evolution, big bang, etc.) it must be how god did things. That's exactly how I saw things. We need more Christian theology like that. We need less segregation and less assuming that one's interpretation is infallible. We also need more curiosity and open mindedness.
Final Thoughts:
Overall I'm glad I watched them all. It was thought provoking and reminded me a lot of self help/motivation techniques. In fact, that's exactly what I would label it. (save for the last part tying the previous 5 to the Jewish god.) The overall summary would be "Think about your future before you act!"
Monday, 3 February 2014
I'm Disappointed with the Attitude Preceding the Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate.
Preceding the debate tomorrow, there have been many articles and opinion columns from various blogs and news sources and I think I've only read one or two that see the debate in a positive light. The atheist and scientist bloggers say it's a bad idea because it "legitimizes creationism" in the public's eye. The Christians who accept evolution say it's a bad idea because it entrenches Christianity in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Other commentators say creationists are too stupid to understand or too indoctrinated to accept evolutionary theory. Many creationists wish a more scientific person (from the Discovery Institute for example) would debate for the creationist side.
Let's put this debate into perspective. This isn't a debate for the scientific community.
-Paleontologists aren't going to stop using their evolutionary knowledge to classify fossils when they place them in evolutionary order.
-Geneticists aren't going to stop using the evolutionary model to assess gene mutation when they place someone on a family tree or when they research genetic defects.
-Doctors won't stop making vaccines because they no longer accept that viruses evolve.
This battle is over public understanding. The latest poll (Dec. 2013) puts the percentage of people who believe humans have always existed in their present form at 33%. That's a lower number than usual, but it's been stagnant between one-third and half of the population for almost a century.
I was a creationist or "intelligent design" proponent back in high school and early college. I wasn't "too stupid" to understand evolution. I was never exposed to it. My high school biology teacher, Mrs. Moore, told us that (macro) evolution wasn't true because nature can never have a positive mutation, only neutral or negative mutations. She even told us Archeopteryx was a hoax! Beyond high school, I only ever read books on the subject of evolution that were written by religious people. (I read the back cover to see how they approached the subject) Books like "The Science of God" always tried to harmonize 6 days of creation with scientific evidence. I know now that it cherry picked data and ideas that gave the illusion of support from science. It wasn't until I watched a documentary on evolution that my horizons expanded. It had no religious bias or preconceived notions to conform to or harmonize with. Here's the theory, here's the evidence. Mind. Blown. I started reading books by actual scientists who produce peer-reviewed papers, and I stopped rejecting evolution immediately
What can be taken from my story is the creationist perspective. The point of the debate is to expose people, and especially children to the uncensored, unbiased perspective of evolution. I've never talked to a creationist who understood evolution well enough to reject it. You can't blame them either. The teachers and parents in their lives have given them what they know and put them on a set course. Bill Nye knows this isn't a debate to be won as much as it's an educational experience to be had. In between Ken Ham's performances of misrepresentations and "argument from ignorance" logical fallacies, kids being raised in creationist science classrooms will hear for the first time an inkling of the grandeur of nature.
People don't seek or accept other answers if they believe they already know the truth, but children are an exception to this rule. Their minds are too open to be trapped yet. We can break them free, and Bill has been doing it for decades.
Then there will be a fantastic follow-up: The Cosmos coming March 9th!
Let's put this debate into perspective. This isn't a debate for the scientific community.
-Paleontologists aren't going to stop using their evolutionary knowledge to classify fossils when they place them in evolutionary order.
-Geneticists aren't going to stop using the evolutionary model to assess gene mutation when they place someone on a family tree or when they research genetic defects.
-Doctors won't stop making vaccines because they no longer accept that viruses evolve.
This battle is over public understanding. The latest poll (Dec. 2013) puts the percentage of people who believe humans have always existed in their present form at 33%. That's a lower number than usual, but it's been stagnant between one-third and half of the population for almost a century.
I was a creationist or "intelligent design" proponent back in high school and early college. I wasn't "too stupid" to understand evolution. I was never exposed to it. My high school biology teacher, Mrs. Moore, told us that (macro) evolution wasn't true because nature can never have a positive mutation, only neutral or negative mutations. She even told us Archeopteryx was a hoax! Beyond high school, I only ever read books on the subject of evolution that were written by religious people. (I read the back cover to see how they approached the subject) Books like "The Science of God" always tried to harmonize 6 days of creation with scientific evidence. I know now that it cherry picked data and ideas that gave the illusion of support from science. It wasn't until I watched a documentary on evolution that my horizons expanded. It had no religious bias or preconceived notions to conform to or harmonize with. Here's the theory, here's the evidence. Mind. Blown. I started reading books by actual scientists who produce peer-reviewed papers, and I stopped rejecting evolution immediately
What can be taken from my story is the creationist perspective. The point of the debate is to expose people, and especially children to the uncensored, unbiased perspective of evolution. I've never talked to a creationist who understood evolution well enough to reject it. You can't blame them either. The teachers and parents in their lives have given them what they know and put them on a set course. Bill Nye knows this isn't a debate to be won as much as it's an educational experience to be had. In between Ken Ham's performances of misrepresentations and "argument from ignorance" logical fallacies, kids being raised in creationist science classrooms will hear for the first time an inkling of the grandeur of nature.
People don't seek or accept other answers if they believe they already know the truth, but children are an exception to this rule. Their minds are too open to be trapped yet. We can break them free, and Bill has been doing it for decades.
Then there will be a fantastic follow-up: The Cosmos coming March 9th!
Friday, 24 January 2014
Is Our Constitution Based on the Ten Commandments?
There are monuments of the ten commandments outside courthouses and township halls all around the country. When a group trying to maintain the separation of church and state tries to remove the monument, the typical response is "This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and our laws and Constitution are inspired by the ten commandments." Let's explore this idea.
1st commandment: "I am your one true god, and you will worship no other gods."
This goes against our very first Amendment and disallows the primary reason our forefathers left England! The right to practice or not practice a religion is what made America unique. How anyone could say our Constitution has anything to do with this is beyond me.
2nd commandment: "You may not make any graven images depicting anything in heaven or on Earth. You also shall not worship these images."
This one goes against two core American values: the freedom of speech, and once again, the freedom of religion.
3rd commandment: "Do not take God's name in vain."
This one also goes against our freedom of speech. When the U.N. proposed a ban on blasphemy last year, the U.S. was one of the first to say no. At the assembly, President Obama said:
"I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."
4th commandment: "Do not work on the Sabbath and keep it holy."
It's not illegal to work on Saturdays or Sundays. I also don't ever see this changing.
5th commandment: "Honor your father and your mother."
This command also has no place in our constitution or laws. Children are not required by law to obey their parents and it would be immoral to do so. If anything, the opposite is true. We do have laws in place to take children away from unfit parents who should not be honored.
6th commandment: "Do not murder."
This one is obviously a good idea. It's so good, every civilization has had this law since, well, civilization. There's nothing uniquely Judeo-Christian about this commandment at all. In fact, it was written in the Code of Hammurabi - a law code from Babylon that existed long before the Jewish holy books were written.
7th commandment: "Do not commit adultery."
Adultery is not illegal in the Constitution or any federal laws. It's illegal in a few states, but it's rarely enforced. Over the years, they have been decreasing in number and severity. Once again, this is not something our nation was based on.
8th commandment: "Do not steal."
Like number 6, this one is a good idea, but it's not uniquely Judeo-Christian.
9th commandment: "Do not lie."
Like number 6 and 8, this one is a good idea, but it's not uniquely Judeo-Christian.
10th commandment: "Do not covet your neighbor's possessions."
Not only is this not illegal, but it's also the underlying mechanism that drives capitalism. Back when the people lived in a caste system under God appointed monarchies, (Romans 13:1-7) this was useful to keep the peasants from pursuing class warfare. In a country like the USA where we claim to cherish upward mobility, we want people to want things. The free market is based on supply and demand!
So to summarize:
1, 2, 3, 4, (almost half) stand directly against our freedoms of religion and speech. These four alone make the monuments an affront to our laws.
5, 7, and 10 are not reflected in our constitutional or federal laws. The last even undermines our economic model.
6, 8, and 9 are moral laws that we would have had anyway. (Every other country already had them as well.)
There are two more things I want to mention while we're on the subject.
The first is that biblical morality is so often black and white. We're given unconditional morality dictated by absolute laws. True ethics are much more nuanced. Anyone who's had a university class on ethics has read "Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics" or something similar. Not only are there many shades of grey between right and wrong, but also in the corresponding punishments. The laws of the bible aren't anything like this. They list a crime followed by a punishment. Our own laws don't follow this template at all. God is not our judge. A judicial appointee is our judge.
The second issue is that the nature of biblical divine law is nothing like our Constitution. God's laws are revealed as eternal truths. Our Constitution is a "living document" and can change. Imagine if our constitution stopped changing after the Bill of Rights. Our country would have collapsed! If our laws were based on the unchanging bible, we would still have slavery, women would not have any say (vote) over men, and our science/technology would have remained right where it was. With no acceptance or understanding of evolution, we would have never developed things like vaccines that combat ever evolving viruses.
If nothing here convinces you, then let the primary writer of the Constitution tell you himself in his own words:
"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [writing the constitution] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven... it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)
If you're religious, thank God for the separation between church and state. It's made our country strong!
1st commandment: "I am your one true god, and you will worship no other gods."
This goes against our very first Amendment and disallows the primary reason our forefathers left England! The right to practice or not practice a religion is what made America unique. How anyone could say our Constitution has anything to do with this is beyond me.
2nd commandment: "You may not make any graven images depicting anything in heaven or on Earth. You also shall not worship these images."
This one goes against two core American values: the freedom of speech, and once again, the freedom of religion.
3rd commandment: "Do not take God's name in vain."
This one also goes against our freedom of speech. When the U.N. proposed a ban on blasphemy last year, the U.S. was one of the first to say no. At the assembly, President Obama said:
"I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."
4th commandment: "Do not work on the Sabbath and keep it holy."
It's not illegal to work on Saturdays or Sundays. I also don't ever see this changing.
5th commandment: "Honor your father and your mother."
This command also has no place in our constitution or laws. Children are not required by law to obey their parents and it would be immoral to do so. If anything, the opposite is true. We do have laws in place to take children away from unfit parents who should not be honored.
6th commandment: "Do not murder."
This one is obviously a good idea. It's so good, every civilization has had this law since, well, civilization. There's nothing uniquely Judeo-Christian about this commandment at all. In fact, it was written in the Code of Hammurabi - a law code from Babylon that existed long before the Jewish holy books were written.
7th commandment: "Do not commit adultery."
Adultery is not illegal in the Constitution or any federal laws. It's illegal in a few states, but it's rarely enforced. Over the years, they have been decreasing in number and severity. Once again, this is not something our nation was based on.
8th commandment: "Do not steal."
Like number 6, this one is a good idea, but it's not uniquely Judeo-Christian.
9th commandment: "Do not lie."
Like number 6 and 8, this one is a good idea, but it's not uniquely Judeo-Christian.
10th commandment: "Do not covet your neighbor's possessions."
Not only is this not illegal, but it's also the underlying mechanism that drives capitalism. Back when the people lived in a caste system under God appointed monarchies, (Romans 13:1-7) this was useful to keep the peasants from pursuing class warfare. In a country like the USA where we claim to cherish upward mobility, we want people to want things. The free market is based on supply and demand!
So to summarize:
1, 2, 3, 4, (almost half) stand directly against our freedoms of religion and speech. These four alone make the monuments an affront to our laws.
5, 7, and 10 are not reflected in our constitutional or federal laws. The last even undermines our economic model.
6, 8, and 9 are moral laws that we would have had anyway. (Every other country already had them as well.)
There are two more things I want to mention while we're on the subject.
The first is that biblical morality is so often black and white. We're given unconditional morality dictated by absolute laws. True ethics are much more nuanced. Anyone who's had a university class on ethics has read "Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics" or something similar. Not only are there many shades of grey between right and wrong, but also in the corresponding punishments. The laws of the bible aren't anything like this. They list a crime followed by a punishment. Our own laws don't follow this template at all. God is not our judge. A judicial appointee is our judge.
The second issue is that the nature of biblical divine law is nothing like our Constitution. God's laws are revealed as eternal truths. Our Constitution is a "living document" and can change. Imagine if our constitution stopped changing after the Bill of Rights. Our country would have collapsed! If our laws were based on the unchanging bible, we would still have slavery, women would not have any say (vote) over men, and our science/technology would have remained right where it was. With no acceptance or understanding of evolution, we would have never developed things like vaccines that combat ever evolving viruses.
If nothing here convinces you, then let the primary writer of the Constitution tell you himself in his own words:
"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [writing the constitution] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven... it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)
If you're religious, thank God for the separation between church and state. It's made our country strong!
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
My History with the Emperor's Clothes
I was a big fan of the emperor's clothes. My family and friends weren't fashion experts, but they all knew about his legendary and wonderful fabric. One day, I overheard a few people speaking in hushed tones at my university. They said that the clothes were either invisible or didn't exist. What a radical and serious allegation! What's the likelihood of the emperor being naked? How could people not notice? How could my parents not have noticed? I didn't think much of it, but every time the topic of the emperor's clothes came up, their murmurings popped into my mind.
So I started going to the tailor's shop every week where he would tell the crowds about the fabric he had used while making the emperor's clothes. He said it was the softest he had ever felt and the most beautiful he had ever seen. The best part: he told us that he knew where to get more of the same fabric. He promised to order a large supply of it when he could afford it and make a robe for each person at his shop! So, every week we would buy his clothes or sometimes just donate money to his shop. Occasionally he would donate clothes to disadvantaged children. I would say that was a win-win!
While many people came for his stories and his promise, I found myself enjoying the music he played in the background the most. It must have been the work of really great composers throughout the ages. I also noticed that the people who came to the tailor's shop were always really nice! I don't know if they were all genuinely nice, or if the tailor's shop and all his promises made people want to be nice. Either way, the effect was the same. This is where I belonged and the murmurers had nothing on us.
Except, they weren't murmuring anymore. Years had passed, and in that time they had started speaking out loud. They were writing books that accused the tailor of lying. They said the emperor's clothes were a "delusion" and that their belief was hurting society. Actually, it's true that the tailor and his closest followers wanted school to start every day with a mention of the emperor's fabric. It's true that in my sewing class, we had spent a lot of time talking about how to use the emperor's fabric rather than the fabric we had in stock. Also, it was the emperors opinion that the color chartreuse should never be worn. It was unnatural, eccentric, and it clashed with the emperor's clothes horribly. The townsfolk passed laws that made it illegal for people to wear chartreuse colored clothing. If chartreuse was your favorite color, you were out of luck. You couldn't even wear it in your own house. This started to seem wrong to me, but it was only a minority of people affected. I wasn't a fan of chartreuse myself, so I put it to the back of my mind.
I continued to ignore the books by the dissenters and started reading books about the emperor's fabric. In retrospect, I realize I only cared about hearing more about why I was right and why the dissenters were wrong. This was easy to do because there were a lot of books to choose from! Every book with positive things to say about the fabric was a bestseller in our town.
Yet, for some reason the number of dissenters continued to grow. One day, I got the crazy idea to hear what the dissenters had to say. I would have just a peek inside their insane world and be done with it. I borrowed one of their books from the library, and covered the front so nobody would see. I sat down on a bench one morning and started reading. It was so different! It discussed philosophies as old as the ancient Greeks, a history of "invisible" fabrics from all over the world, and the latest findings from fabric scientists! All of it relevant and all of it building up to an increasingly inescapable conclusion. The fabric books I had read started to fall down in my mind. My defenses were crumbling and every chapter dismantled yet another brick. As I was finishing the last chapter, I heard the emperor's processional bell down the street, which now sounded more like a funeral knell. My lifetime flashed in an instant as I re-imagined my whole life from this different perspective. I finished the book and suddenly noticed it was silent. I looked up, and to my horror, there was the emperor, and a crowd of people. The tailor's shipment had come in. Everyone was wearing their new robes of soft, beautiful, and most importantly: comforting fabric...and they were all naked.
So I started going to the tailor's shop every week where he would tell the crowds about the fabric he had used while making the emperor's clothes. He said it was the softest he had ever felt and the most beautiful he had ever seen. The best part: he told us that he knew where to get more of the same fabric. He promised to order a large supply of it when he could afford it and make a robe for each person at his shop! So, every week we would buy his clothes or sometimes just donate money to his shop. Occasionally he would donate clothes to disadvantaged children. I would say that was a win-win!
While many people came for his stories and his promise, I found myself enjoying the music he played in the background the most. It must have been the work of really great composers throughout the ages. I also noticed that the people who came to the tailor's shop were always really nice! I don't know if they were all genuinely nice, or if the tailor's shop and all his promises made people want to be nice. Either way, the effect was the same. This is where I belonged and the murmurers had nothing on us.
Except, they weren't murmuring anymore. Years had passed, and in that time they had started speaking out loud. They were writing books that accused the tailor of lying. They said the emperor's clothes were a "delusion" and that their belief was hurting society. Actually, it's true that the tailor and his closest followers wanted school to start every day with a mention of the emperor's fabric. It's true that in my sewing class, we had spent a lot of time talking about how to use the emperor's fabric rather than the fabric we had in stock. Also, it was the emperors opinion that the color chartreuse should never be worn. It was unnatural, eccentric, and it clashed with the emperor's clothes horribly. The townsfolk passed laws that made it illegal for people to wear chartreuse colored clothing. If chartreuse was your favorite color, you were out of luck. You couldn't even wear it in your own house. This started to seem wrong to me, but it was only a minority of people affected. I wasn't a fan of chartreuse myself, so I put it to the back of my mind.
I continued to ignore the books by the dissenters and started reading books about the emperor's fabric. In retrospect, I realize I only cared about hearing more about why I was right and why the dissenters were wrong. This was easy to do because there were a lot of books to choose from! Every book with positive things to say about the fabric was a bestseller in our town.
Yet, for some reason the number of dissenters continued to grow. One day, I got the crazy idea to hear what the dissenters had to say. I would have just a peek inside their insane world and be done with it. I borrowed one of their books from the library, and covered the front so nobody would see. I sat down on a bench one morning and started reading. It was so different! It discussed philosophies as old as the ancient Greeks, a history of "invisible" fabrics from all over the world, and the latest findings from fabric scientists! All of it relevant and all of it building up to an increasingly inescapable conclusion. The fabric books I had read started to fall down in my mind. My defenses were crumbling and every chapter dismantled yet another brick. As I was finishing the last chapter, I heard the emperor's processional bell down the street, which now sounded more like a funeral knell. My lifetime flashed in an instant as I re-imagined my whole life from this different perspective. I finished the book and suddenly noticed it was silent. I looked up, and to my horror, there was the emperor, and a crowd of people. The tailor's shipment had come in. Everyone was wearing their new robes of soft, beautiful, and most importantly: comforting fabric...and they were all naked.
Monday, 16 December 2013
The three main strategies that prominent atheists use to de-convert believers.
1. Ridiculing beliefs.
People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens prefer to use unapologetic ridicule. They mock flaws in the theology, morality, history, and confidence of believers.
Pros: This approach is the most controversial and therefore puts atheists directly in the public eye. They end up on news programs for interviews and fill auditoriums for debates. The approach also works well with actual de-conversions. I should know because this very approach is what contributed the most to my atheism. As a confident believer, I felt compelled to prove just how wrong they are. They must be wrong because their accusations are so ridiculous! It caused me to research my position and when I fell short time and time again, I realized I was tricked! I see what you did there...
Cons: This approach certainly doesn't help the image of atheists in the public eye. The people that aren't won over with this approach will often double-down on their religion. When they see a battle line drawn and a vocal opposition, they run back to their team cheer louder than before. Also, the people without a team may come to negative conclusions about the moral fiber of atheists so willing to piss people off.
Recommended reading: The God Delusion and God is Not Great.
2. Educating with science.
People like Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, and the late Carl Sagan prefer to educate people. They see the problems that religion and superstition cause for mankind, and they believe the problem will solve itself with scientific literacy.
Pros: Ultimately, as people come to understand the grander alternative, their old myths seem petty and uninspiring. This is the least offensive method because they usually aren't directly telling believers they are wrong, just slipping in an alternative. At some point down the road the believer will compare Genesis with cosmology. They will contrast creationism with abiogenesis and evolution. They will juxtapose a world made for them with a vast universe in which they are a speck of a speck. There is a beauty and poetry with this approach. The other two approaches may leave a certain type of believer feeling fearful, alone, and without purpose. Science fills the holes left by religion, so it's a less intimidating transition. Ex-believers feel more inspired, more joyful, and yet more humble than they did with their old myths.
Cons: This isn't a quick process, and there's no guarantee that they'll actually confront their cognitive dissonance. There are plenty of authors out there seeking to harmonize science with religion. Believers may get stuck in this thinking because they aren't pushed or challenged further. Another problem with this approach is people often replace their established religion with a pseudoscience or spirituality. (Especially if the believer doesn't develop a skeptical mindset)
Recommended reading: The Demon Haunted World and A Universe From Nothing.
3. Undermining "faith."
People like Peter Boghossian, Michael Shermer, and Matt Dillahunty attack how and why believers know what they know. They reveal to believers that their faith isn't a virtue, but rather a way they pretend to have knowledge they actually don't.
Pros: People are shown that hope and faith are not synonyms. Faith is a knowledge claim for topics where evidence is absent. There is less preaching and more inquiring. How do you know Jesus is real? and How do you know the Bible is more reliable than the Koran? and How much time did you spend ruling out Buddhism? They nudge people toward the cognitive dissonance they didn't know they had. Believers confront their own beliefs. They begin to examine why they believe in cultural, evolutionary, and psychological contexts. They examine the relationship between evidence and knowledge.
Cons: This approach is offensive to people who fundamentally disagree with the premise. Some people love their faith. They depend on it to get them through the day. Faith feels like a safety net. Whether the believer has fallen on hard times or has a depressing fear of death, they would rather preserve that safety net - even if it means maintaining ignorance. Attempting to take that away can be taken as a personal insult.
Recommended reading: A Manual for Creating Atheists and The Believing Brain.
All three strategies have a place in public discussion. Where one approach fails, exposure to another may succeed.
Monday, 4 November 2013
"I Don't Believe In Atheists" Audiobook Breakdown. Chapter 2.
Claim: There are some things the human mind is incapable of knowing. Science can't even attempt to answer the purpose of existence.
This claim has two responses.
1. I agree that we may never know some aspects of the universe and I would challenge Chris to show an example of a prominent atheist that claims we can. From watching many speeches and debates featuring Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss, I know they would agree with Chris on this. Our brains evolved in the trees, and later, on the plains of Africa. We evolved to hunt antelope and evade lions. How can we be expected to understand everything in universe? Richard Feynman showed how small antimatter particles actually move backward through time! Our minds evolved experiencing time as a one-way street. Our previous understanding of physics featured cause and effect relationships. Can a universe cause itself? Maybe! Can we intimately grasp what it means to move backward in time? We will certainly try! What about quantum super-positioning where one atom can being in more than one place during a single moment in time? Yes! We have a photo of it happening! The complexity of nature is amazing and surprising, but saying atheists think we can or will understand it all isn't something I have heard. Besides, most atheists have a sentiment similar to Richard Feynman:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, in different degrees of certainty, about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything and of many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here and what the question might mean."
2. Questions like "How did we get here?" may or may not be beyond the reach of science. Questions like "Why are we here?" are false questions. They presuppose a purpose exists. Why assume it has a purpose? Lets illustrate a similar situation. The question "What does pink look like?" may or may not be answered by science. The question "What does pink taste like?" is just a nonsense question. It's a loaded question that assumes taste is a quality of pink. There have been many "purposes" throughout history before science took a swing to explain. The purpose of the Bubonic Plague was to punish an unbelieving Europe. The purpose of AIDS was to punish homosexuals. The purpose of sheep and cattle was to keep meat fresh for humans. (My own confrontation of this "purpose" is partially what led to my recent conversion to vegetarianism.)
History shows that the "purpose" of purpose is wishful thinking, human-centric ego-boosting, and a tool for promoting political or ideological goals. Purpose isn't a quality of nature. It's a product of human thinking. It's an illusion. Don't get me wrong; to us, purpose can be useful and good. It's just unscrupulous to believe it to be inherent in nature.
Claim: The new atheists class people using social Darwinism. They seek to wipe out morally inferior people.
For atheists, life is precious. We only get one life. So it's no surprise that secular Americans are more likely to oppose the death penalty than any religious group. The idea that atheists want to wipe out anyone is just plain wrong. We want to alleviate suffering through Humanism.
We do want discussion about morality, which is exactly what happens in the universities and courtrooms of America. I cringe when people claim the morality in the U.S. Constitution is based on the bible rather than through secular discussion. To quote John Adams: "It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [creating the Constitution] had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven."
We don't want people who derive their morality from the bible to keep us from discussing morality. The idea that morality is unquestioningly defined for us in an ancient book is abhorrent to atheists. When someone uses the bible like a trump card during a discussion of morality, they throw reason out the window.
Claim: New atheists believe that we can evolve morally. In fact, we can break from evolution and redesign ourselves. Which is a religion-like belief. They believe humans can be perfected. It becomes a mission and a hope.
He must be referring to something posited by atheist author Sam Harris. I haven't read his books on morality yet, but I have a feeling this topic will be revisited in detail later in the book. So I won't deal with it now. My current thoughts on this are highlighted in a quote by Carl Sagan:
"It will not be we who reach Alpha Centauri and the other nearby stars. It will be a species very much like us, but with more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses, a species returned to circumstances more like those for which it was originally evolved, more confident, farseeing, capable, and prudent"
This claim has two responses.
1. I agree that we may never know some aspects of the universe and I would challenge Chris to show an example of a prominent atheist that claims we can. From watching many speeches and debates featuring Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss, I know they would agree with Chris on this. Our brains evolved in the trees, and later, on the plains of Africa. We evolved to hunt antelope and evade lions. How can we be expected to understand everything in universe? Richard Feynman showed how small antimatter particles actually move backward through time! Our minds evolved experiencing time as a one-way street. Our previous understanding of physics featured cause and effect relationships. Can a universe cause itself? Maybe! Can we intimately grasp what it means to move backward in time? We will certainly try! What about quantum super-positioning where one atom can being in more than one place during a single moment in time? Yes! We have a photo of it happening! The complexity of nature is amazing and surprising, but saying atheists think we can or will understand it all isn't something I have heard. Besides, most atheists have a sentiment similar to Richard Feynman:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, in different degrees of certainty, about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything and of many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here and what the question might mean."
2. Questions like "How did we get here?" may or may not be beyond the reach of science. Questions like "Why are we here?" are false questions. They presuppose a purpose exists. Why assume it has a purpose? Lets illustrate a similar situation. The question "What does pink look like?" may or may not be answered by science. The question "What does pink taste like?" is just a nonsense question. It's a loaded question that assumes taste is a quality of pink. There have been many "purposes" throughout history before science took a swing to explain. The purpose of the Bubonic Plague was to punish an unbelieving Europe. The purpose of AIDS was to punish homosexuals. The purpose of sheep and cattle was to keep meat fresh for humans. (My own confrontation of this "purpose" is partially what led to my recent conversion to vegetarianism.)
History shows that the "purpose" of purpose is wishful thinking, human-centric ego-boosting, and a tool for promoting political or ideological goals. Purpose isn't a quality of nature. It's a product of human thinking. It's an illusion. Don't get me wrong; to us, purpose can be useful and good. It's just unscrupulous to believe it to be inherent in nature.
Claim: The new atheists class people using social Darwinism. They seek to wipe out morally inferior people.
For atheists, life is precious. We only get one life. So it's no surprise that secular Americans are more likely to oppose the death penalty than any religious group. The idea that atheists want to wipe out anyone is just plain wrong. We want to alleviate suffering through Humanism.
We do want discussion about morality, which is exactly what happens in the universities and courtrooms of America. I cringe when people claim the morality in the U.S. Constitution is based on the bible rather than through secular discussion. To quote John Adams: "It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [creating the Constitution] had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven."
We don't want people who derive their morality from the bible to keep us from discussing morality. The idea that morality is unquestioningly defined for us in an ancient book is abhorrent to atheists. When someone uses the bible like a trump card during a discussion of morality, they throw reason out the window.
Claim: New atheists believe that we can evolve morally. In fact, we can break from evolution and redesign ourselves. Which is a religion-like belief. They believe humans can be perfected. It becomes a mission and a hope.
He must be referring to something posited by atheist author Sam Harris. I haven't read his books on morality yet, but I have a feeling this topic will be revisited in detail later in the book. So I won't deal with it now. My current thoughts on this are highlighted in a quote by Carl Sagan:
"It will not be we who reach Alpha Centauri and the other nearby stars. It will be a species very much like us, but with more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses, a species returned to circumstances more like those for which it was originally evolved, more confident, farseeing, capable, and prudent"
Friday, 25 October 2013
"I Don't Believe In Atheists" Audiobook Breakdown. Chapter 1.
I've been given an audio book called "I Don't Believe in Atheists." I've decided I will take it slowly and dissect the contents of each chapter in blog posts. This will be the first of many!
Chris's main point in this chapter is that atheists are fundamentalists. They seek a new utopia which they hope to gain through absolutism ideals on morality and with intolerance of others who disagree.
WOW! I have no idea where he gets this. The prominent atheist authors and YouTube personalities hate absolutism. They speak against false certainties and espouse doubt as a humble trait. Science drives away absolutism and instead views the world in relative probabilities. Nothing is 100%. I'll try and reveal this while going through his more nuanced claims.
Claim: We don't move forward morally. We are inherently sinful and do not progress. We may have societal rules in place that give the appearance that the people are morally superior, but on the individual level, a person from 500 AD has the same internal morality as someone from the 21st century.
I definitely disagree with this. I would point to the abolition of slavery and the empowerment of women as proof that we are more moral than we used to be. He would say "That's a societal morality!" But how does a society's moral law imrove without the individuals improving? If the individual morality is forever stagnant, why should we expect our institutional morality not do the same? The laws are PROOF of changes on the individual level. Morality is influenced by empathy, education, and understanding. He discounts those components when judging an individual's morality; clearly not considering them as a part of morality. He sees animal instinct and nothing more. People are damned from his perspective, and it isn't a surprising viewpoint coming from a theologian.
Claim: Science can't perfect human society. It is useless in the world of ethics and morality. People use science to justify their current opinions and agendas. In fact, slavery was a scientific racism because the scientists of the day came to the conclusion that other races were inferior and made to serve.
Science doesn't seek to perfect society, it seeks to understand the natural world. It isn't a perfect process and selfish people will cherry pick for their own agenda. One modern day example of this is the Heartland Institute. Energy sector lobbyist money as well and religious climate deniers founded the Heartland Institute to show the world how science denies climate change. Science does NOT deny climate change. 97% of climate scientists agree that human caused global warming exists. Still, we see how the Heartland Institute cherry picks the data to misrepresent the science found. They do not use the scientific method in hopes of uncovering reality. Instead, they start with their conclusion and then try to find data that fits their conclusion. Real scientists doing real science do not do that.
The scientific method we have today is actually a modern thing. In the not so distant past, most doctors, engineers, and astronomers went about science much more loosely. They often espoused things like phrenology, bloodletting, and astrology. Today, we have labelled these non-evidence based ideas as "pseudoscience."
Claim: Atheists assume Christianity is represented by fundamentalists like Pat Robertson. They dismiss modern, liberal Christians who are the vast majority.
I wish this was true. A vocal minority is a small dog with a loud bark. Unfortunately, the issues that need defending are supported often by the majority of Christians.
-65% of Americans want prayer in public schools.
-54% of Americans think creationism should be taught in science classrooms.
-40% of Americans oppose gay marriage.
I'll give Chris credit. He doesn't believe in the traditional form of Christianity. He dropped out of seminary because he couldn't take the hypocrisy. I'm interested in his book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" and I will be reading it in the coming months. His dad was a pastor who supported gay rights. He doesn't believe in angels or demons. He does NOT represent Christianity! More than two-thirds of Americans believe in angels, demons, the devil, and hell!
If America's Christians looked like him, there wouldn't be "militant atheists" like me.
Chris's main point in this chapter is that atheists are fundamentalists. They seek a new utopia which they hope to gain through absolutism ideals on morality and with intolerance of others who disagree.
WOW! I have no idea where he gets this. The prominent atheist authors and YouTube personalities hate absolutism. They speak against false certainties and espouse doubt as a humble trait. Science drives away absolutism and instead views the world in relative probabilities. Nothing is 100%. I'll try and reveal this while going through his more nuanced claims.
Claim: We don't move forward morally. We are inherently sinful and do not progress. We may have societal rules in place that give the appearance that the people are morally superior, but on the individual level, a person from 500 AD has the same internal morality as someone from the 21st century.
I definitely disagree with this. I would point to the abolition of slavery and the empowerment of women as proof that we are more moral than we used to be. He would say "That's a societal morality!" But how does a society's moral law imrove without the individuals improving? If the individual morality is forever stagnant, why should we expect our institutional morality not do the same? The laws are PROOF of changes on the individual level. Morality is influenced by empathy, education, and understanding. He discounts those components when judging an individual's morality; clearly not considering them as a part of morality. He sees animal instinct and nothing more. People are damned from his perspective, and it isn't a surprising viewpoint coming from a theologian.
Claim: Science can't perfect human society. It is useless in the world of ethics and morality. People use science to justify their current opinions and agendas. In fact, slavery was a scientific racism because the scientists of the day came to the conclusion that other races were inferior and made to serve.
Science doesn't seek to perfect society, it seeks to understand the natural world. It isn't a perfect process and selfish people will cherry pick for their own agenda. One modern day example of this is the Heartland Institute. Energy sector lobbyist money as well and religious climate deniers founded the Heartland Institute to show the world how science denies climate change. Science does NOT deny climate change. 97% of climate scientists agree that human caused global warming exists. Still, we see how the Heartland Institute cherry picks the data to misrepresent the science found. They do not use the scientific method in hopes of uncovering reality. Instead, they start with their conclusion and then try to find data that fits their conclusion. Real scientists doing real science do not do that.
The scientific method we have today is actually a modern thing. In the not so distant past, most doctors, engineers, and astronomers went about science much more loosely. They often espoused things like phrenology, bloodletting, and astrology. Today, we have labelled these non-evidence based ideas as "pseudoscience."
Claim: Atheists assume Christianity is represented by fundamentalists like Pat Robertson. They dismiss modern, liberal Christians who are the vast majority.
I wish this was true. A vocal minority is a small dog with a loud bark. Unfortunately, the issues that need defending are supported often by the majority of Christians.
-65% of Americans want prayer in public schools.
-54% of Americans think creationism should be taught in science classrooms.
-40% of Americans oppose gay marriage.
I'll give Chris credit. He doesn't believe in the traditional form of Christianity. He dropped out of seminary because he couldn't take the hypocrisy. I'm interested in his book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" and I will be reading it in the coming months. His dad was a pastor who supported gay rights. He doesn't believe in angels or demons. He does NOT represent Christianity! More than two-thirds of Americans believe in angels, demons, the devil, and hell!
If America's Christians looked like him, there wouldn't be "militant atheists" like me.
Wednesday, 23 October 2013
Gay Christians Shouldn’t Just Leave the Church; They Should Leave the Faith
Recently, The Friendly Atheist published an article breaking down a fictitious interview on Christianity Today between a pastor (Pastor Jones) and a gay Christian (Todd). It gave a lot of good critiques, but I want to add a couple things they missed.
Todd: Some friends say that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and others say it does not. I hear some evangelicals accept monogamous gay marriage, based on the argument that the Bible simply does not address monogamous same-sex relationships, but I hear most evangelical churches insisting that marriage is only between a man and woman.
Jones: We worship a God who speaks into the dark areas of our lives with enough moral clarity that we can understand the rough outlines of how he wants us to seek him, in purity and holiness. The Bible has much more to say about heterosexual sin in all its crazy varieties than it does about homosexual sin, but in every place where homosexual conduct is mentioned, most clearly in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9, it is clearly condemned.
From my own research on this issue, I have found that there isn't a single Christian denomination that preaches homosexuality is alright.
-There are some that say it isn't a sin to be gay, only to act on it. (This is not the majority opinion due to verses like Matthew 5:27)
-There are some denominations that don't mandate doctrine, and thus, their churches can choose their own theology. (such as United Church of Christ)
At the heart of Christianity is the belief that each person is "broken." Nobody is perfect. We all have our faults and everybody struggles with different things. Of course, even if you are a saint among sinners, you are still "broken" thanks to your inherited "original sin." Regardless, the only way to be "mended" is through Jesus. Whether or not this is a healthy way to think about yourself or others could be debated on its own. The issue I want to drive at is the fact that every top-down, theology-minded denomination believes homosexuality is a type of "brokenness."
I find this to be horribly untrue. To equate homosexuality with the other sins like murder and theft is to see a human being in the wrong light. This is the same light the anti-choice crowd embraces as they work against the empowerment of women and oppose their emancipation from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. Is sexual reproduction all a person is good for?! Is it how you measure their contributions?
Addressing the latter type of church I mentioned earlier: Is it really worth twisting countless verses and ignoring countless more so you can continue to view the bible as the word of god while living as an open and active gay person? So many gay people have found it harmful to try and have the cake and eat it too. Maybe you haven't given it thought, but to quote a recent campaign by the Center For Inquiry "Millions are living happily without religion." If you still cling because you assume you can't have hope or happiness without religion, you would be wrong.
Todd: Some friends say that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and others say it does not. I hear some evangelicals accept monogamous gay marriage, based on the argument that the Bible simply does not address monogamous same-sex relationships, but I hear most evangelical churches insisting that marriage is only between a man and woman.
Jones: We worship a God who speaks into the dark areas of our lives with enough moral clarity that we can understand the rough outlines of how he wants us to seek him, in purity and holiness. The Bible has much more to say about heterosexual sin in all its crazy varieties than it does about homosexual sin, but in every place where homosexual conduct is mentioned, most clearly in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9, it is clearly condemned.
From my own research on this issue, I have found that there isn't a single Christian denomination that preaches homosexuality is alright.
-There are some that say it isn't a sin to be gay, only to act on it. (This is not the majority opinion due to verses like Matthew 5:27)
-There are some denominations that don't mandate doctrine, and thus, their churches can choose their own theology. (such as United Church of Christ)
At the heart of Christianity is the belief that each person is "broken." Nobody is perfect. We all have our faults and everybody struggles with different things. Of course, even if you are a saint among sinners, you are still "broken" thanks to your inherited "original sin." Regardless, the only way to be "mended" is through Jesus. Whether or not this is a healthy way to think about yourself or others could be debated on its own. The issue I want to drive at is the fact that every top-down, theology-minded denomination believes homosexuality is a type of "brokenness."
I find this to be horribly untrue. To equate homosexuality with the other sins like murder and theft is to see a human being in the wrong light. This is the same light the anti-choice crowd embraces as they work against the empowerment of women and oppose their emancipation from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. Is sexual reproduction all a person is good for?! Is it how you measure their contributions?
Addressing the latter type of church I mentioned earlier: Is it really worth twisting countless verses and ignoring countless more so you can continue to view the bible as the word of god while living as an open and active gay person? So many gay people have found it harmful to try and have the cake and eat it too. Maybe you haven't given it thought, but to quote a recent campaign by the Center For Inquiry "Millions are living happily without religion." If you still cling because you assume you can't have hope or happiness without religion, you would be wrong.
Todd: Well, I'm grateful for this information, but I can't say that you have solved things for me.Jones: I apologize if my own inadequacy, mediocre scholarship, or lack of Christian maturity have failed you in any way. But Christian maturity is not about solving things; it is about faithfulness. We are confronted in this area with the uncertainty of our paths, the modesty of our knowledge, and the mystery of the human condition. My appreciation of these uncertainties has only grown over the years.
To me, this is the worst thing a person could do. If it's not possible to reconcile your faith with reality, don't just believe anyway. Don't so casually throw away your rationality, self-respect, or happiness.
Thursday, 10 October 2013
To the Abrahamic religions of the world:
I think we can agree that religion is man-made when it comes to all of the other religions out there. Why would your god throw in another religion? Why would it appear to spread entire naturally like all of the other religions out there? (colonialism, wars, missionaries, etc) Why would your god use the same flawed human method of transmitting information (oral/written tradition, councils/committees, private revelations, etc) when he could have written instructions into the stars or something to set it apart? Why throw a "divinely inspired" religion into thousands of religions and expect we would be able to divine which one is right? Why trivialize such an important message?
Saturday, 5 October 2013
Science Converges, Religion Diverges.
As time progresses, the various scientific fields converge. Findings in geology, biology, paleontology, oceanography, etc come together to create a more accurate view of the world. We see them supporting each others' conclusions. Like putting together a puzzle, or coloring in different parts of the same picture. This confirms their pictures of reality are leading them to the same truth.
In contrast, as time progresses, religions diverge. They become more numerous, their conclusions differ ever more, and even exclude each other. Looking at Christianity alone, how many versions of the "one eternal truth" have been created in this century alone? How varied are they from 1500 A.D.? From 33 A.D.? The number of answers show this "shot in the dark" method of determining the truth is fatally flawed. It leads humanity further from truth and into the realm of useless and unsatisfying (although comforting) speculation.
In contrast, as time progresses, religions diverge. They become more numerous, their conclusions differ ever more, and even exclude each other. Looking at Christianity alone, how many versions of the "one eternal truth" have been created in this century alone? How varied are they from 1500 A.D.? From 33 A.D.? The number of answers show this "shot in the dark" method of determining the truth is fatally flawed. It leads humanity further from truth and into the realm of useless and unsatisfying (although comforting) speculation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)