Religious Bullshit

Al Gore, Let's Talk About Denial

I read Al Gore's new essay in the June 22nd issue of Rolling Stone--Climate of Denial: Can science and truth withstand the merchants of poison?- with great interest and appreciation. I then found myself immediately wondering, does Al Gore pray for the world to come to its senses when it comes to climate change?

To be clear, I have no quarrel per se with the former vice president. In fact, I admire his decision these last several years to eschew elected office and devote himself to a worthy and critical cause about which he is clearly profoundly passionate. I accept the data and the consensus of the world scientific community that climate change is real, and exacerbated by man. Further, I agree with Gore's assertions that:

When the distinction between truth and falsehood is systematically attacked without shame or consequence — when a great nation makes crucially important decisions on the basis of completely false information that is no longer adequately filtered through the fact-checking function of a healthy and honest public discussion — the public interest is severely damaged.

But I feel compelled to ask the question--is it foolhardy, or at least unrealistic, to expect rationality from a society (any society), that makes faith an unassailable virtue?

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry is in the news for wanting to hold a prayer fest because the U.S. "has not honored God in our successes or humbly called on Him in our struggles." Elected officials of every party and stripe regularly invoke God (some sincerely, some no-doubt not) as a fail-safe solution to our problems. And who can blame them? The odds of an avowed agnostic or atheist being elected to public office in this country is about as likely as, I don't know, a camel fitting through the eye of--oh, never mind.

My point is simply that, for those who claim science and religion are not at odds ("nonoverlapping magisteria," as the late Stephen Jay Gould called it), I will simply end by quoting Gore once more:

It is time to face reality. We ignored reality in the marketplace and nearly destroyed the world economic system. We are likewise ignoring reality in the environment, and the consequences could be several orders of magnitude worse. Determining what is real can be a challenge in our culture, but in order to make wise choices in the presence of such grave risks, we must use common sense and the rule of reason in coming to an agreement on what is true.

Science and religion are, inarguably, at odds. And until we are willing to put aside all foolish, non-supportable beliefs, and live our lives through compassionate reason, we will continue to ignore and deny all of the inconvenient truths that threaten future happiness and prosperity.

The Case for God--Minus the Case

A few weeks ago, Terry Gross of NPR's "Fresh Air" interviewed Karen Armstrong about her new book, The Case for God.  Armstrong is a former nun who left the convent, estranged from her faith.  She ended up returning to spirituality, but in a much less "faith-specific," or denominational form.  She's written a bunch of books on religion, and this is the latest (and full disclosure, I haven't read it; I've only listened to the Terry Gross interview and read a few excerpts from the book.)  What struck me is that I never heard a case for God.

Or certainly not in the way I inferred from the title of the book, which is to say, some kind of logical argument. 

I did, however, hear a clearly intelligent woman argue several points with vigor and passion.  Among them:

• For most of history, no one took the Bible literally, the way fundamentalist Christians do today.  Religion and faith were inherently about myth (or "mythos").  Parable, in other words.  Logic--or logos--is something entirely separate.  (more on this in a minute).
• God isn't a "he," or a "she," or in any way an ultimate expression of humanity.  We just can't really even conceive God's being. 
• The brahmins in India were way ahead, thinking of God as a part of everything (I have to say at this point I expected Armstrong to start talking in that pinched-up Yoda voice about the Force....)
• We need a more expansive and sophisticated view of religion.  As Armstrong writes in the first chapter of the book, "Religion is hard work. Its insights are not self-evident and have to be cultivated in the same way an appreciation of art, music, or poetry must be developed."

But again, what I never heard was "a case for God."  She tells us all about "mythos" and "logos," how they exist in separate realms, how mythos teaches us about how to deal with the pain of this world and how it serves a different function than logos.  On and on.  It's the same old, "God is outside of the world and science" argument--though she sure makes it sound smarter.  (I'd also like to note that I can "cultivate an appreciation of art," for example; but learning from and appreciating Ulysses does not mean a man named Leopold Bloom ever walked the streets of Dublin.)

This kind of broad, "love is all you need," non-denominational faith is meant to give the "spiritual types"--i.e., the "religious" people who don't go to church, who just want everyone to get along, who feel kinda tingly during a pretty sunset--an argument for that "Surely There Must Be Something Bigger Than Us Out There" feeling.

In the end, thought, it's the same old "dragon in the garage" psychosis.  But I don't see your dragon.  I don't feel it.  I don't sense it in any way, nor can I measure it or detect with any of the instruments available to modern science.  So go ahead and believe if it makes you feel good. 

 Just don't ask me to, 'k?

The Source of My Hostility

A long, meandering article in the Ottawa Citizen attempts to denounce "the new atheism" by arguing the following:

- "new atheism" = "militant atheism"
- militant atheists think western civilization will go up in the flames of religious warfare unless religion is abandoned
- militant atheists don't understand theology
- hey, if we psychoanalyze these guys, we might understand their militancy better
- "the lack of a good or worthy father-figure in an atheist's childhood is the likely source of their future lack of belief" (see: famous atheists without worthy father figures...)
- Ok, that might not explain it all, but did you ever think maybe the "'religious' violence the atheists denounce is in reality the consequence of too little religion, or, more specifically, of the religious spirit misconceived and perverted?"
- Conflict is the primal reality of human existence
- Religious rituals make people behave better
- Better think twice about getting rid of religion, militants!

Seriously.  See for yourself.  (The poor copy editor gave up and pretty much included all of the above in the headline.)

Here's my short response to Robert Sibley's, um, really cogent argument: not necessarily; yeah, but we're not saying man won't find other reasons to rape and pillage; do too; go for it; I have a wonderful and loving father figure, so there; in fact I did think of it, and it kinda depends on your religion and whether you use to justify violence or to justify being nice...what was your point again?; pretty much totally agree on this one; again, not necessarily...see beheadings, terrorism, stonings, etc.; OK--I've thought about it, but would still like to get rid of it.

As exhausting as this author is, he quotes another windbag named John Haught, a Roman Catholic who thinks he's intellectually superior because he believes in evolution and argues against Intelligent Design.  I went on a little side expedition and read a long interview with Haught, only to find that after extensive circumlocutions, his arguments all boil down to: science can't say what I believe isn't true.

For the record, here's the source of my militancy: I'm exhausted by the vacuous ravings of the "theologians."  I'm worn out by them claiming I'm the head case.  Because I don't believe in things--their precious things--for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. 

Yes, I am militant.  I am militantly against you claiming I'm the one that needs psychoanalysis.  Honestly, you are driving me stark-raving mad.

When Atheists Attack, Religious Nuts Whimper

Take the time to absorb Sam Harris' brilliant article in the new issue of Newsweek, wherein he dissects the dreadful implications of Palin's political viability.  Marvel at his lucid arguments and lapidary prose.  Then ask yourself: why did Newsweek title the article, "When Atheists Attack--a noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism."

Because even when an atheist's argument is rational, impersonal and empirically inarguable, it's cruel.  Vicious.  Predatory.  An animalistic attack on innocent creatures. 

The poor zealots.  Always trying to be good little sheep--just like God's Lamb himself--and they end up getting sacrificed every time.  Sniff. 

That brutish, soulless monster Harris just couldn't stop himself from sinking those razor-sharp teeth into the soft, ignorant flesh of God's unthinking flock. 

The next time a powerful coalition of religious fucking nut jobs attacks the Constitution, I'll try to remind myself of how cruel we've been to these innocent and well-meaning creatures.

Fact-Checking God

On The New York Times dedicated web site to "the Pope's Visit," I count a few dozen articles, the Pope's hour-by-hour itinerary, links to "headlines around the world," many photos and videos.  Nowhere in any of these articles can I find mention of the fact that there is no evidence, whatsoever, for the existence of God, or his Son. 

I don't dispute that the Pope's visit was newsworthy.  So is a J.K. Rowling book tour.  But when J.K. Rowling speaks to thousands of ardent admirers, don't we expect someone to note that she is the author of a book of fiction?

This is likely coming across as "cute."  But I am quite serious.  According to the New York Time's statements on "Ethical Journalism," section 15 states:

The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them.

In addition to reverent talk of Truth, in the Times' "bible" you will find words like fact-checking.  Impartiality.  Integrity.

All journalists give homage to such concepts.  And I would grant that many try to live by them.  Except when it comes to religion.  Why does God get a pass when it comes to fact-checking? 

Yes, a visit to the U.S. by the head of one of the world's most popular mythologies is news.  People packing sport stadiums to hear him speak, is news. 

It is also newsworthy that billions of people throughout history have worshiped mythical beings that are contradicted by everything factually-accurate modern science teaches us.

Contemplating this post, I found a fascinating site, Religion/Newswriters Helping journalists cover religion with balance, accuracy and insight.  It answers my question from a rather more, well, wordly perspective: Religion is interesting and important, but media organizations should also cover it because it's a good business move. 

Ah, yes.  How could I forget such a Universal Truth: follow the money.  Praise God.  Not to mention Nielson Ratings, subscriptions, and click-throughs.

My Turn: Spurn Irrationality

I've been noticing a "kinder, gentler" form of backlash against "the new atheism:" love thy neighbor, even when she's an irrational zealot.

Newsweek magazine has run a few articles in this vein these last few weeks.  The February 11th "My Turn" feature, "A Simple Twist of Faith," tells the poignant tale of an (ostensibly) rational sister learning over time not just to accept her evangelical "angel" (her word) of a sister, but in the end, to envy her.  "In fact, I greatly respect her for having such a strong faith in something.  I wish I could believe so fervently in anything so abstract."  She doesn't seem to believe any of the claptrap her sister believes, but apparently sis is such a good person, well, there just must be something to this religion stuff.

In the February 11 issue, writer Kathleen Deveny, in "Talking to Kids About God," muses about her discomfort in talking with her kids about God and religion.  I infer that her discomfort apparently stems from the fact that the rationalist in her understands God and religion are bullshit, but Kathleen can't quite allow herself to reach that conclusion.  In the end -- like a true Catholic -- she lets a priest guilt her into the idea that, "when we talk to children about faith, the problem is us, not them."  She resolves to do her darndest to explain idiotic religious beliefs and practices to her kids.

We have been so conditioned, so brainwashed, to view faith as a virtue that we can't recognize our own complicity in ensuring a future where belief in silly, dangerous and irrational things is valued over science, logic and rationalism. 

Theresa, I'm sure your sister is a wonderful person.  How much more fulfilled might she be to finally realize that this goodness comes from within herself?  And Kathleen, why not have a discussion with your kids about the history of religion?  Or why they should never, ever be alone in a room with a Catholic priest?

I can't put it any better than did the great Bertrand Russell: "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."   

I choose not to chop off Dinesh D'Souza's head and bury his body in the desert...

Instead, I'll just blog about what a contemptible and irrational ass he is.

Dinesh--an extreme misogynist who first achieved notoriety when he ruined a college girl's life because she had sex with her boyfriend, as I've noted before--asserts today in his syndicated column that because we can choose to spill coffee on our laptop computers, or not, the existence of the soul is thereby proved.

Sadly, I'm not in the slightest over-simplifying his argument.  He quotes Kant at length and throws in words like "noumenal," (what a great thinker he must be!) but in the end does what all religious nuts do: "because I've been so indoctrinated in religious bullshit, and because I'm intellectually lazy, I'll assume unprovable, supernatural agents as the cause for anything I can't understand."

It truly boggles the rational mind.  Dinesh writes:

If I give a dollar to a man on the street, the movements of our bodies are determined by nature, but my choice to give and his choice to take are free decisions that we both make.

It follows that there is an aspect of our humanity that belongs to the world of science, and there is an aspect of our humanity that is outside the reach of scientific laws. Simultaneously, we inhabit the realm of the phenomenal, which is the material realm, and also the realm of the noumenal, which is the realm of freedom. It is the noumenal realm, the realm outside space and time, that makes possible free choices that are implemented within the realm of space and time. Materialism tries to understand us in two dimensions, whereas in reality we inhabit three.

WHAT?

It follows that we are all possessed by an immaterial and unprovable Caspar the Ghost because we can give a beggar a dollar, or not?  No, it does NOT follow. 

Where do you people get this shit?

Dinesh acts as though there is no science whatsoever in this space.  A fairly recent New York Times articles cites quite a bit:

In the 1970s, Benjamin Libet, a physiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wired up the brains of volunteers to an electroencephalogram and told the volunteers to make random motions, like pressing a button or flicking a finger, while he noted the time on a clock.

Dr. Libet found that brain signals associated with these actions occurred half a second before the subject was conscious of deciding to make them.

The order of brain activities seemed to be perception of motion, and then decision, rather than the other way around.

It's just a snippet of what happens to be a great deal of emerging science into brain function and decision making.  Is it conclusive?  No.  Is it a more reasonable approach to hypothesize and test for explanation, as compared to, say, just throwing up one's hands and figuring, "Shit, it's obviously God!" (or spirit, or flying spaghetti monster....take your pick.)

It's no different than how humans have invented false gods throughout history.  Because we see lighting--which looks remarkably like our spears--suddenly strike the earth from the sky, and because we know that spears cannot fly of their own accord, it therefore follows that there is a god named Zeus on Mount Olympus who keeps a cache of lightning and hurls it at us when he's angry. 

How wonderfully ironic is Dinesh's patronizing opening sentence, where he refers to "a powerful strain of atheism that teaches that human beings are nothing more than matter."  The disease is not atheism, Dinesh.  The disease is religion, and it's a plague.  And irrationalists such as yourself should not be granted column inches in major newspapers, where you're allowed to spread this contagion to others whose powers of reason are deficient.

If God Won't Kill John Atchison, We Must

John David Roy Atchison, a 53-year-old federal prosecutor, flew cross-country yesterday "with a Dora the Explorer doll, hoop earrings and petroleum jelly for a 5-year-old he planned to have sex with."   Upon landing, federal prosecutors caught and arrested him as part of a sting.  Thankfully, it almost assuredly spares future victims of this monster, who'd mentioned in his depraved Internet chats, "I've done it plenty."

It takes only a second to find some of the more prominent arguments from the religious nuts of this world as to why their God allows these acts to happen.  The lunatics at christiananswers.net, in a section entitled, "Why does God allow innocent people to suffer," go so far as to say:

As far as babies are concerned, and others who may be incompetent mentally to distinguish right and wrong, it is clear from both Scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so.

Yes, we must not dare question God (this same site refers to atheists' lack of "any evidence on which to base their faith in 'no God'"...a fucked-up, circular zealot argument that I could laugh at if not so sickened at the moment.)  Seems these little girls deserve to be despoiled by a 53-year-old predator who likes to fuck babies.  Babies.

I know thus far I've raised nothing new here.  But I do have a somewhat unique perspective that's likely to offend as many atheists/humanists as it does craven Christians.

There are no God-given rights, because there's no God.  But neither are there universal human rights.  We have the rights that governments--the powers-that-be--grant us.  You might not like it, but those are the facts.  Concepts of right-and-wrong emerge from human consciousness.  Sometimes majority rules; sometimes representative government rules; sometimes tyrants rule.  (In the United States, we're pretty fortunate that our founders got the framework and the principles largely correct, even if they attributed things, incorrectly, to god-given rights.)

Here's my point.  John Atchison has the right to a fair trial.  If found guilty, he thereafter forfeits all 'human rights' because he is thereby proven not human. 

Here's what logical, right-thinking atheists should agree upon when it comes to people like this.

-- They should be put to death.  The death should be painful, and graphic, and it should be broadcast repeatedly to serve as a deterrent to others who might consider such acts.

-- We must use science: study their brains, study their genetic code, study their blood chemistry.  Use genetic engineering and everything else in our power to try to keep people like this from being born.

For the record, I'm dead serious about this.  There is no God.  There are no "universal rights."  If we had either, we wouldn't have so many broken children. 

Without a God, there is no hell for Atchison, and no heaven for tortured children.  So let's do everything we can to help Atchison experience hell-on-earth, and children to experience, if not heaven, a childhood free from monsters.

Senator Craig: Time for some serious dieting

LA Times staff writer Stephanie Simon writes today about efforts to revive interest in the sacrament of penance by moving it--where else?--online.

Seems old-style confessionals--i.e., sitting in a closet with a pedophile priest and chatting him up about your sins--is on the decline.  According to Stephanie, "In the mid-1960s, 38% of Catholics said they went to confession at least once a month. These days, just 2% do. More than 40% never go."

Enter the Internet.  Just as it's infinitely more convenient to watch porn on your computer than to put on a hat, glasses and trench coat and trek to an adult theater in the bad part of town, web-based confessionals have a lot of appeal. 

I decided to put absolution-online.com to the test.  More specifically, I decided to do Senator Larry Craig a favor and figure out what penance he needs to perform for sucking and fondling men in public restrooms.

First, I have to say figuring out exactly what to confess was a little harder than I thought.  I found my way to "physical sins," then "homosexual actions" easily enough, but then it got a little confusing.  Has the Senator committed "type A" faggy actions, i.e., "most extreme and serious with no mitigating circumstances?"  Or type B, "very serious?"  Or maybe even some type D, "minor or accidental," should be thrown in there....I mean, maybe the very first time his foot tapped someone else's, it really was an accident and the next thing he knew he was being fellated.

I opted to check out both Type A and B, and found the penance to be fasting for eight days for A sins, 6 days for B.  Is that it? All this trouble and the answer is a crash diet? 

But then, I realized that I was letting the good senator off too easy.  I hadn't thrown in lying--and that baby is one of the Ten Commandments.  Or lust.  So I added those to the roster, both as "very serious" offenses, and added the whole thing up.  The answer?  Still fasting, but now two weeks' worth. 

I dunno.  Still doesn't feel like enough....maybe we add all of the individual instances of sucking together?  That would certainly add a few more weeks, at the very least.  But we're talking U.S. Senator here--a conservative Republican who is of course anti-gay rights, etc. etc.  But it's not like they list sins for "disgracing one's public office," or "egregious right-wing hypocrisy," or the like.

And that's when it dawned on me to check out Catholic doctrine on penance a little more closely.  Bingo!  I found some critical fine print about contrition, and now the full picture started coming into focus. 

Senator, here's how it all nets out.  In addition to several weeks of fasting (which you may divide into smaller chunks, by the way) you have to be really really sorry AND (this is key, so pay attention) sincerely resolve to not suck dick again. 

That's right, Senator.  Forgiveness isn't quite so easy as a few clicks of a mouse or a few missed meals.  You want Grace, you're going to have keep more than food out of that lying mouth of yours. 

The Silence of God: A Void We Must Fill

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?  A more useful question might be: if a baby suffers in India, and God does not exist, is there reason to care for it?

The Pope today commented on the recent uproar over newly published letters from the late Mother Teresa, revealing her decades-long crisis of faith.  "It shows openly that with all her charity and her strength of faith she suffered from God's silence," he said.

The world has suffered from God's silence since the beginning of time (that's ~14 billion years ago for those of us keeping track).  As an agnostic, I will never say with 100% certainty that He, or It, does not exist.  But I'm really sure he's not paying any attention whatsoever to this pale blue dot (View this photo).

And that is why we must put our faith not in phantoms and dreams, but in ourselves.  In the man-made morality and charity of the best of our species.  People like Mother Teresa, who personified the best of us.

A recent article in The Atlantic sputters and fumes about Hitchen's comments re Mother Teresa.  The Atlantic author actually refers to Mother Teresa as a young woman, experiencing "the presence and love of Jesus Christ intensely throughout her young adulthood."  He writes this not only as if it is fact, but that it is widely understood and indisputable.

The only thing that is indisputable is that the presence and love of Mother Teresa were real, and made a difference in the lives of millions.  Who was more important to the young baby, pictured here, cradled in Teresa's arms--God?  or Mother Teresa?

As Sagan said, when reflecting on this tiny mote of dust:

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us.

Mother Teresa's most deeply felt beliefs were true:  God does not exist.  And we must get to work.